Celsius 41.11 (2004)

What makes it different from others?

Absolutely brilliant

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

"Celsius 41.11" succeeded as documentary where Michael Moore's film "F. 9-11" had failed.The work sought opinions, sources, and archive footage to demonstrate conclusively that Bush did not steal the election in Florida, that he did not know about the plan to attack the World Trade Center before it actually occurred, nor did he defraud the United States into entering an unnecessary conflict against Iraq. This film had the advantage of being able to respond to "F. 9-11", refuting the baseless charge that blacks were excluded from the voting rolls in Florida. According to "C. 41.11", for example, five major newspapers could find no evidence of voter irregularities.Moreover, the film presented its information in an orderly manner. Early in the film the narrator challenges six common accusations against President Bush, 9-11, the 2000 Presidential Election, and the second Iraqi war. I really enjoyed this film because it entertained and educated the audience, while Michael Moore's documentary "F. 9-11" merely distracted its viewers with entertaining contradictions."C 41.11" has another edge over films because of its well-reasoned, coherent, and diverse arguments from people like Charles Krauthammer, Fred Thompson, and Michael Medved, all of whom trump the flashy rhetoric of Michael Moore.On another note, one critic lamented the pro-Zionist lean of somethe interviewees (Krauthammer, Medved). In my opinion, that short-sighted reaction demonstrates all the more the need to appreciate subtle and ignored issues in U.S. foreign policy , like the critical role Israel plays in promoting democracy in the Middle East, instead of diminishing the impact of this documentary as a petty advocate of one minority group.For those who did not have a chance to hear the other side, "C. 41.11" provides an excellent opportunity .

I went into this movie thinking O.K. I already agree with their view point, but knowing it was probably going to be propaganda just like Fahrenheit 9/11 was. I was surprised with the facts and evidence, of things that whiny fake Hollywood Liberals try to blame on President Bush. It was also about the media and distortion of facts, especially in the 2000 Presidential election, when they were so quick to name Al Gore as the 43rd President, when that wasn't factual. The part that got me was John Kerry's friend who claimed who Mr. Kerry didn't have the leadership to be Commander and Chief of this country. It was good and it should be shown to these flaky Hollywood actors and directors, as well as the media, who obviously show were their loyalties lie instead of presenting the news they present, their views. I watched interviews with Micheal Moore, and he even said that some of the soldiers knew it was him taping it, so there is bias right there, everyone knows he is a left wing nut, and anyone who agrees with him are going to give testimony of that nature. Back to were I was before I started rambling great movie, I hope it comes out on video so I can buy it.

If you're willing (gullible enough?) to buy into the Democratic propaganda machine, then you owe it to yourself to view the Republican's propaganda machine.This film looks at Kerry's record, as well as delves into Michael Moore's history and addresses some of the blatant inconsistencies in Fahrenheit 9/11. This film is certainly biased, however they bring up interesting counter-points to Fahrenheit 9/11's arguments.I encourage you to watch both movies and use your intelligence to discern what is fact and what is fiction. I'll leave that up to the viewer to decide, unlike the reviewer before me.

Just saw this (first showing of the first day) and was impressed. It surely won't do the numbers "Fahrenheit 9/11" did (not much of an advertising push, not too many media mentions except maybe conservative talk radio shows) but it does provide a good "fact-checker" for the Moore film and for the current liberal movement.Celsius 41.11 wonders why President Bush is hated by many in this country, even though we seemed so "united" after 9/11. It goes back to the 2000 vote counting controversy, and points out that previous Administrations turned a blind eye to terrorism (and certainly didn't fund intelligence to weed out potential threats). The second part of the film shows John Kerry, from Vietnam soldier to anti-war protester, who highlighted his Vietnam days in his DNC acceptance speech but ignored his 20 year Senate career (he often voted against intelligence and military funding). It also points out that Kerry wants to be reactive rather than pro-active; if another attack happens, Kerry says he'll respond to it while Bush wants pre-emptive action instead.It covers the mindset of Islamo-fascist dictators like Saddam and our own efforts to democratize the Middle East, and interviews the likes of columnist Charles Krauthammer, conservative talk host Michael Medved (a colleague of Kerry's at Yale), andSen. Fred Thompson. Do not expect any yuks here; it's serious business, and it outlines the fork in the road that lies ahead in the upcoming election: pre-emptive action against the terrorists, or appeasement.