User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 495 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JoeS.
    Sep 24, 2007
    5
    Anyone who voted this movie a "0" is completely wrong. I'm not saying that I believe everything this movie tells me, but I'm not saying I don't believe it either. The point is not to take sides my fellow Americans. To completely put all your trust and faith into Bush or Moore is wrong. It is not un-American at all to distrust and disagree with our president. Again, I Anyone who voted this movie a "0" is completely wrong. I'm not saying that I believe everything this movie tells me, but I'm not saying I don't believe it either. The point is not to take sides my fellow Americans. To completely put all your trust and faith into Bush or Moore is wrong. It is not un-American at all to distrust and disagree with our president. Again, I don't necessarily believe or take to heart what Moore has presented, but I respect the fact that he's going out on a limb to question someone of high authority. Moore isn't an "America hater", if anything he is more American by questioning and thinking freely. So don't take sides, because you don't have to. Think for yourself, and remember that questioning your government will never be a bad thing. Expand
  2. Nov 2, 2010
    6
    A good documentary but your enjoyment of it will depend too much on how you feel about sensitive political issues. I believe that most of what is portrayed here is relevant and true and wish more people would at least have an open mind about this.
  3. Feb 24, 2013
    6
    It's clear that Michael Moore often has his own agenda, but I'm sure if he could prove any of the things he says in this film, a lot of people would be in prison. Some things are VERY interesting and really makes you think, while other stuff is complete bull meant to serve his personal agenda, never the less, it was entertaining and it does gives you something to think about.
  4. ZsuzsaB
    Oct 10, 2004
    4
    Very partial....it is not enough to listen to just one side, we have to listen to the other side as well and after it we can make our opinion...
  5. StanleyT.
    Jun 26, 2004
    4
    Jeff L.: That second argument is the classic Marist/Stalinist argument, and it's never going to work in this country. In my opinion, this was Moore's least persuasive argument in the film. I also thought that it was tasteless of him to demonize Colin Powell, the one person in the Bush administration who is a true hero and stand-up guy. I would agree with another post below, that Jeff L.: That second argument is the classic Marist/Stalinist argument, and it's never going to work in this country. In my opinion, this was Moore's least persuasive argument in the film. I also thought that it was tasteless of him to demonize Colin Powell, the one person in the Bush administration who is a true hero and stand-up guy. I would agree with another post below, that if you're against the action in Iraq, there's only one candidate to vote for -- the person that Moore endorsed in 2000 - Ralph Nader. Kerry would have gone to war with a little more international support, but if you buy into Moore's logic, Nader is your only option. Actually, the best choice for Democrats would have been Howard Dean, the only major-party candidate who opposed the war from the start. Kerry is the old-Money, Yale Skull 'N Bones guy just like Bush. If you are truly persuaded by Moore, your only choice this fall will be Nader. And to be honest with you, he makes a hell of a lot of sense. Expand
  6. JasonS.
    Jun 26, 2004
    6
    Why do people think that documentaries are supposed to be balanced? They're not newscasts; they're commentary on a subject a filmmaker feels strongly about. While this movie was strong on evidence and drama, it's all still kind of boring. Too many scenes went on too long and it wasn't as hard hitting as I expected. I did appreciate that Moore brought to light Why do people think that documentaries are supposed to be balanced? They're not newscasts; they're commentary on a subject a filmmaker feels strongly about. While this movie was strong on evidence and drama, it's all still kind of boring. Too many scenes went on too long and it wasn't as hard hitting as I expected. I did appreciate that Moore brought to light Bush's fear campaign of the last 3 years. Expand
  7. JedV.
    Jun 27, 2004
    6
    Stirring and maddening, but not a great movie. I needed no further convincing that Bush is a bad president, but had hoped for a lucid presentation of new evidence that I could use to combat pro-Bushites. Alas, despite some excellent moments, the movie comes off as a vindictive, uneven portrayal of Michael Moore's passions and personality.
  8. LiamS.
    Jul 9, 2004
    5
    As a Canadian, one would expect (given Canadians' apparent undying love for Moore and his work) that I would love this film. Sadly, this film is a poor follow-up to Moore's brilliant documentary: "Bowling for Columbine." This movie, to use a reference more appropriate to Columbine, uses a scattergun approach that addresses too many issues, and only addresses each superficially As a Canadian, one would expect (given Canadians' apparent undying love for Moore and his work) that I would love this film. Sadly, this film is a poor follow-up to Moore's brilliant documentary: "Bowling for Columbine." This movie, to use a reference more appropriate to Columbine, uses a scattergun approach that addresses too many issues, and only addresses each superficially and in an unsatisfactory manner. The viewer is left with the distinct impression that Moore rushed this film into production to coincide with the U.S. election, and slapped together a hodgepodge of material that would shock viewers, but not necessarily inform or enlighten them. I can't recommend a film that does that. This film would have strongly benefitted from better editing. In short, I wish Moore had given this film the depth and intensity that he gave Columbine. Expand
  9. garthd
    Oct 26, 2004
    6
    As a left-leaning intellectual myself, I find myself agreeing with many (though not all) of Moore's ethical points. What bothered me very much was that this film came across as propaganda. At times it was a clever, insightful, persuasive documentary, but often it seemed manipulative. I really believe that frank, fair, straight, balanced, un-manipulative truth as expressed from both As a left-leaning intellectual myself, I find myself agreeing with many (though not all) of Moore's ethical points. What bothered me very much was that this film came across as propaganda. At times it was a clever, insightful, persuasive documentary, but often it seemed manipulative. I really believe that frank, fair, straight, balanced, un-manipulative truth as expressed from both sides of an argument is far more persuasive than propaganda. This film may simply just polarize the left and right further instead of working towards compromise. And it sets a precedent for both sides of the political spectrum to lower the standards of debate and problem-solving, when higher standards are desperately needed. A lingering view of Bush making funny faces is embarrassing more for the viewer than for Bush--it is simply not valid criticism, and I would worry about the wisdom or acumen of someone who would change their view of Bush based on Moore mocking his appearance. Surely Moore himself could understand the folly and impropriety of being mocked due to one's physical appearance. But it did importantly shed public light on some serious conflicts of interest and potential corruptions. Another concern I did have was the footage of numerous Arabs interacting with U.S. officials. I felt the film could be criticized as racist, or at least prejudiced, in this regard, as it seems to invite the viewer to view Arabs automatically as enemies, and therefore government officials depicted with them as engaged in corruption or even treason. Expand
  10. JeffH.
    Jun 25, 2004
    5
    Clarification: Michael Moore himself describes the film as an "op-ed piece."
  11. GeraldJ.
    Jun 27, 2004
    5
    When are we going to find the next generation Michael Moore? Bush, his father, Rice, Powell and the lot are such easy targets for a good, solid, unimpeachable documentary, but Moore leaves himself open to attack by serving up such a soft lob that critics of this film can slam back into his face. He makes some amazing emotional pleas, but he includes so many unfouonded cheap shots that he When are we going to find the next generation Michael Moore? Bush, his father, Rice, Powell and the lot are such easy targets for a good, solid, unimpeachable documentary, but Moore leaves himself open to attack by serving up such a soft lob that critics of this film can slam back into his face. He makes some amazing emotional pleas, but he includes so many unfouonded cheap shots that he undermines his central and critical points. Will somebody please get it right??? Expand
  12. ShannonP.
    Jul 24, 2004
    5
    Moore has a quick eye for hypocrisy (in everyone but himself), but he?s no Rhodes Scholar. There is a much stronger case to be made against the war than Moore is able to muster. His emphasis on the relationship between the Bush and Saudi royal families is misplaced, and some of the conclusions about 911 that Moore is willing to draw or suggest from that relationship are just silly. George Moore has a quick eye for hypocrisy (in everyone but himself), but he?s no Rhodes Scholar. There is a much stronger case to be made against the war than Moore is able to muster. His emphasis on the relationship between the Bush and Saudi royal families is misplaced, and some of the conclusions about 911 that Moore is willing to draw or suggest from that relationship are just silly. George Dubya is one easy target, but rather than take dead aim, Moore shoots from the hip and hits Dubya in the butt. It?s entertaining, but ultimately this is a lost opportunity. Expand
  13. VictorB.V.
    Jul 3, 2004
    6
    Sophmoric, and it's too bad because Moore brings up some valid issues. Critical flaw: one-sided filmaking. This is his fatal flaw. This is what stunted the potential of the movie. Sure it's a box office history maker, but it could've been a political history maker as well if it just more even handed. Moore has a strong view on his issues, but defends them poorly. He makes Sophmoric, and it's too bad because Moore brings up some valid issues. Critical flaw: one-sided filmaking. This is his fatal flaw. This is what stunted the potential of the movie. Sure it's a box office history maker, but it could've been a political history maker as well if it just more even handed. Moore has a strong view on his issues, but defends them poorly. He makes intuitive leaps and presents them as facts when he doesn't have to in order to make his point. It laeves the door wide open for critics to dismiss his entire argument. Expand
  14. EfeB.
    Aug 30, 2004
    5
    Moore's film is more of a personal attack rather than a studied and carefull examination of bush's administration and the iraq war. unlike his great film "bowling for clombine", fahrenheit lacks the well packaged storytelling and dark humor which made the columbine watchable. moore makes a critical mistake by showing us the parent of a deceased soldier. her statements and state Moore's film is more of a personal attack rather than a studied and carefull examination of bush's administration and the iraq war. unlike his great film "bowling for clombine", fahrenheit lacks the well packaged storytelling and dark humor which made the columbine watchable. moore makes a critical mistake by showing us the parent of a deceased soldier. her statements and state is unquestionably painful and shockingly real that i wanted to pray for her well being and health and felt emotionaly raped by moore because he had no right to put her under his microscope and disect what was allready "known" to be painfull, he basically needed her for the movie's "weight" and that was in bad taste. having allready won acclaim on columbine and rightfully so, moore took a bigger more global issue to film. everyone can understand why he has chosen the subject matter and respect him so. however, fahrenheit chooses a "side" right from the start of the film and that side is an anti bush and anti war side. in his columbine movie we could simply be on moore's side since he talked about guns in the hands of kids, no one in their right mind agrees that guns and kids should go together. however in the case of fahrenheit, half of the american nation are bush supporters and many think america has done a good job getting saddam out. not to mention the obvious hatred towards terrorists and muslims. moore's fahrenheit gets lost between all these subjects and somehow elliminates all reason and logic and terror and simply focus on bush, he even puts in a clip where bush tells moore to "get a real job", this is yet another mistake by moore and the film becomes nothing more than a cinematic come-back towards the president. i would have expected moore to tackle the hatred towards muslim people and why there is terrorism in the first place. because presidents come and go, but the state of the world stay a little longer. in the end, moore becomes what he hates...like bush who has stirred the middle east and disturbed the bees nest, moore further scares allready scared americans and further generates hatred towards americans from the rest of the world and nothing gets resolved other than an award at cannes film festival in france. kudos to moore on being a good filmmaker but are we surprised that "french" people enjoyed this movie? i say...lighten up moore, have some freedom fries. Expand
  15. DanielJ.
    Jun 23, 2004
    5
    I'm copying below a user review posted by someone calling themselves "Right Fight". It's obviously a fake, someone pretending to be right wing, articulating a mentality that some on the left ascribe to conservatives. The disingenuousness of this straw man argument is right in line with Moore's film and politics. from "Right Fight" This film is dirty, destructful, untrue, I'm copying below a user review posted by someone calling themselves "Right Fight". It's obviously a fake, someone pretending to be right wing, articulating a mentality that some on the left ascribe to conservatives. The disingenuousness of this straw man argument is right in line with Moore's film and politics. from "Right Fight" This film is dirty, destructful, untrue, left-wing propaganda. Moore knows nothing of loving his country and should be taken to court for this (and possibly executed). It's just this type of film that is destroying our society, a society with good, traditional, catholic values built on male dominance and female subserviance, male and female marriages (no gays for me, thank you!). If you see this, you are just as bad as the rest of them. lets bring an end to the left wing! :) Expand
  16. Andrew
    Jun 24, 2004
    5
    Movie is mostly a rehash of the same rhetoric coming out from Moveon.org and the DNC. Nothing too suprising.
  17. EloiP.
    Jun 25, 2004
    5
    This movie could have been MUCH better if it were a bit more even-handed. Not EVERY soldier in Iraq is completely dissolutioned, has become a democrat, and likes to torture prisoners. But more importantly and more concretely, I happen to know about 10 friends who joined the military when I was around college age, guys who all grew up in one of the two wealthiest suburbs of Los Angeles. This movie could have been MUCH better if it were a bit more even-handed. Not EVERY soldier in Iraq is completely dissolutioned, has become a democrat, and likes to torture prisoners. But more importantly and more concretely, I happen to know about 10 friends who joined the military when I was around college age, guys who all grew up in one of the two wealthiest suburbs of Los Angeles. They all were raised in nice areas, with nice houses, had cars when they were 16, but felt the need to give service to their countries. And most of them happened to be white. Those people do exist. They are not ALL poor minorities who join the military as enlisted men. Moore's message is SO one-sided, that he drowns the power out of his well-reasoned message, which was stated toward the end of the movie: If these wonderful young people are willing to give their lives for our country, our leaders owe it to them not to go to war unless it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Such an elegant point, and something which could have been explored with more nuance than simply showing graphic images of bloody Iraqi citizens to prove that war is to be avoided at all costs. Was the military action in iraq absolutely necessary? You be the judge. I just wish that Moore given it a better shot. Expand
  18. AndrewB.
    Jun 26, 2004
    6
    Worth the time / effort to see... It's not anti republican, or democrate, it more anti-oil, and the people that are drunk on the stuff. Bush is a BAD man, (Dumb too!) there is no doubt in any thinking persons mind about that. But this film is chopping, poorly constructed and certainly doesn't flow... but that being said, it does shed light on the Saudis and how much control they Worth the time / effort to see... It's not anti republican, or democrate, it more anti-oil, and the people that are drunk on the stuff. Bush is a BAD man, (Dumb too!) there is no doubt in any thinking persons mind about that. But this film is chopping, poorly constructed and certainly doesn't flow... but that being said, it does shed light on the Saudis and how much control they have over our Nation. I mean, come on, the White House Cops coming over to protect the Saudi Embassy? Wow!!! The part about Bush reading (seeminly to himself) "My Pet Goat" a full 8 minutes after the Attacks started is worth the movie alone. This isn't a great movie, not horrible so I give it a Six. Expand
  19. TerryS.
    Jul 26, 2004
    6
    I'm a little puzzled by so many Democrats running so hard and fast away from Michael Moore at the convention this week when we all embraced him during the first 4 or 5 weeks of this film's release to the tune of $100M in box office returns. Are we embarressed by it? Ashamed by it? Do we think it will fuel more votes for Nader? (it seems like this latter point may be the most I'm a little puzzled by so many Democrats running so hard and fast away from Michael Moore at the convention this week when we all embraced him during the first 4 or 5 weeks of this film's release to the tune of $100M in box office returns. Are we embarressed by it? Ashamed by it? Do we think it will fuel more votes for Nader? (it seems like this latter point may be the most important, as Nader is the only true anti-war candidate). In fact, I still think that Disney is the mastermind behind the F911 backlash. Disney knew that if they just released the film and made their modest proft, it wouldn't make much of a ripple. By rejecting the film, they created a furor with it, forcing the anti-Bush movement so far to the left that they alienanted all of the Clinton-Republicans and Clinton/Centrist democrats who are happy that Hussein is out of power. Give Disney a little credit here. They duped us all. Expand
  20. Dec 6, 2012
    6
    A very superficial, but critical look at the events of 9/11 and everything that followed afterwards. Having seen this in the late 2000's after previously watching many documentaries about 9/11 possibly being a conspiracy perpetrated by rich powerful men, possibly some in or with connections to people within the US government, I found this film to be really superficial and timid in askingA very superficial, but critical look at the events of 9/11 and everything that followed afterwards. Having seen this in the late 2000's after previously watching many documentaries about 9/11 possibly being a conspiracy perpetrated by rich powerful men, possibly some in or with connections to people within the US government, I found this film to be really superficial and timid in asking any tough questions. I highly recommend you watch the Internet movie "Loose Change" instead, the 2nd edition if you can find it. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is alright, just don't use it as your main source of information. Expand
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 43
  2. Negative: 1 out of 43
  1. Moore stays "on message" here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in…So the real question is not how good a film is Fahrenheit 9/11 -- it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest -- but will a film help to get a president fired?
  2. Reviewed by: David Gates
    60
    That's the real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11: not the message, but the method… Moore’s default mode is overkill: he even notes that on the night before the attacks Bush slept on "fine French linen." Surely scratchy muslin wouldn't have stopped the evildoers.
  3. 70
    Fahrenheit 9/11 offers the thrill of a coherent explanation for everything, but parts of the movie are no better than a wild, lunging grab at a supposed master plan. [28 June 2004, p. 108]