Emin Avakian, staff writer: Michael Moore, filmmaker and liberal, wanted nothing more than to bash George W. Bush for every wrongdoing the President did while in office. Perhaps this excitement caused the movie to be more critical than educational.

Geghard Arakelian, staff writer: Moore’s intent was to portray an unnecessary conflict. A documentary such as this will seem biased from a political standpoint since Moore’s argument was that the core of the conflict was brought on by the Republican administration. “Fahrenheit 9/11” may blame political groups but it delivers as an excellent documentary by bringing out the truth.

AVAKIAN: Watching this movie made me wonder if this was a documentary about the Bush administration or a movie straight from Moore’s book, “Dude, Where’s My Country?” In other words, if you’ve read the book, you’ve seen the movie.

ARAKELIAN: Sometimes words will not paint a picture clear enough for the imagination. “Lord of the Rings” was a series of books before it was a series of movies but its content in movie-form still received renowned acclaim from audiences. “Fahrenheit 9/11” may have similarities with “Dude Where’s My Country?” but a book and movie are two different genres of entertainment.

AVAKIAN: This movie could have been a groundbreaking film. Movies are not about preference of political party; they are about putting a piece of art on the big screen. Moore, a known hater of the president, let his personal opinions get in the way of making a good picture.

ARAKELIAN: Art, regardless of form, is a finely crafted opinion. Opinion is what made “Fahrenheit 9/11” so intriguing. Moore’s spite for Bush did not jeopardize the documentary. This was seen throughout the film when Moore filmed U.S. soldiers and Iraqi terrorists fighting and both liberals and conservatives protesting.

AVAKIAN: “Fahrenheit 9/11” was made by Moore to let the people know just what was going on in Iraq and other war zones. He succeeded in doing this, but this was not his main objective. Moore’s main goal was to shift the election toward Democrats, but I ask you: Who is the current President of the U.S.? Focusing on the election caused this movie to be lackluster.

ARAKELIAN: Again, though Moore spites Bush, his objective was to portray a conflict veiled in secrecy. Moore quotes Orwell, saying: “what matters is not who wins or who loses, but that war is continuous.” Moore documents on this theory and does anything but a lackluster job. His political agenda complements his overall thesis, which is backed with more than enough fact and logic.

Final Thoughts

AVAKIAN: This movie had the right idea about informing the people of the U.S., but in the end, Moore’s focus on getting President Bush out of office made this movie unwatchable.

ARAKELIAN: This movie was shockingly unforgettable. Moore once again reveals the flaws of American society.