Jeffrey

Worst as film music: "Monsignor," because it is a brilliantly over-the-top score for a horribly over-the-top film. Worst as a listening experience: "Presumed Innocent," because the main theme is not only the best thing about it, it's practically the only thing about it. (There is the family theme, i suppose, but that was better in "JFK.")

OST: Max Steiner's "King Kong" (1933) Re-recording: Camille Saint-Saëns' "L'Assassinat du duc de Guise" (1908)

Ditto!

"As a plagiarist, Handel claims special attention. Other men's musical ideas crowded upon his receptive mind as lavishly as did his own, and he seems to have turned them very largely to account. A later age, with a more scrutinizing eye and analytical craze than his own, has discovered that Handel has justly entitled himself to the reputation of being a musical pirate, as bold and barefaced as was ever abroad." - Frederick J. Crowest, "The Living Age" (July 28, 1894)

"The Big Sleep", with Bogart and Bacall. Saw it for the first time, and was amazed.

Lucas says that he means for "Star Wars" to be like silent films, carried emotionally by the music... I hope that he shows that.

Not quite the same, as the page is in another directory. I had to go hunting for the new URL (didn't take long, true, since they linked to the update on their homepage!)

It is back up at http://www.treehouseanimation.com/rotb/index_sso.html

Adam, the Washington Post example may not be ideal for your argument. Moore's presentation of the item is certainly questionable... 1) He fails to mention that the Post's figure included government weekends off, which are when many Bush vacations occur. 2) He treats the item as unprecedented, although Bill Clinton's numerous vacations at Martha's Vineyard prompted similar criticism. 3) The brief shot of Bush hosting Tony Blair at Camp David is the film's lone reminder that the President only takes *working* vacations. 4) Doctors and scientists say we should get a lot of rest, and that taking work too seriously is counterproductive. Does Moore fault Bush for setting a healthy example? (Okay, judging by his own health...) 5) Besides, the President is in fact on call 24/7, regardless of where the POTUS goes or what the POTUS does. Moore either did poor research or was deliberately misleading. It's no good either way. Of course, your point that there is some truth in Moore's film is undoubtedly correct. But when that truth is important, it would be best for people to find it raised by someone other than Michael Moore. Faced with a documentary that averages about one deceit every two minutes (not counting the extrapolations on those deceits), wouldn't a person be better off reading a well-researched book or even checking out a variety of sources online? Why bother with Moore's film when one can get more truth and entertainment in the same amount of time and at less cost? Why bother when, in order to accurately determine what parts of Moore's films are true, a guy will have to do that research anyway?

The world media, as a collective, is possibly the most corrupt institution on Earth, and since I already view reasonable skepticism as a part of my social responsibility, I make a point to seek out multiple sources and fact-check major reports myself. I would say FOX News' journalism is every bit as biased as CNN's (and for that matter, only a step worse than the best of the international lot, the BBC). The popularity is not because it is "fair and balanced," but perhaps because it has less competition: FOX offers a right-wing editorial voice amidst America's predominately left-wing media. Anyone with a right-of-center position is not as well served by the other major news sources, so FOX almost has a monopoly on conservative television news in the US while the other networks must compete for differently inclined viewers.

The problem is that Moore speculates about problems yet never speculates on solutions. We have the 'media-driven culture of fear' theory (ignoring that polls show Americans as among the most confident people in the world, and among the most skeptical of the "if it bleeds, it leads" media), but that in itself is fear-mongering--television is killing us, oh no!--and Moore depends on his audience's shock or shame. Incitement is his narrative point. I would love to believe he encourages self-reflection and debate, but his name-calling and misrepresentations make that virtually impossible, and have the effect of legitimizing name-calling and misrepresentation in return. In that way, he is little different from John Derbyshire, Noam Chomsky, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Sean Hannity, Susan Sontag, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Fisk, etc.--commentators that refuse to allow such things as reason, civility and fact to get in the way of their agendas. Because of the low standards and abusive tone his works set for subsequent discussion, people are less able to honestly address the issues he raises.

So as to provide a fair counter to the film without becoming political on this board, here are a few links (though there is a lot of overlap) for those interested... http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/...ves/002017.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

My brother and I hold tickets in orchestra row Z, seats 22 & 24 for the January 23 concert, and box 4, seats 1 & 2 on the 24th. But we may end up sitting closer to the stage!

It is rather good, isn't it?!

Hello, Guest. You sound suspiciously like me! In fact, you would be me if I had remembered to log in! :roll: