Sounds more like oppurtunist Moore has a "Passion" to gin up the same controversy that another filmed got in order to garner more attention...and thus, advertising. Nice try, donutboy.
Sounds more like oppurtunist Moore has a "Passion" to gin up the same controversy that another filmed got in order to garner more attention...and thus, advertising. Nice try, donutboy.
The only difference is I paid money to go see the Passion and I won't even pay one cent to see this raggy piece of shiite that Moby DICK Moore puts out.
What a joke. Am I correct in recalling that Mel Gibson didn't go around whining how no one would finance "The Passion"? Didn't he have to pay for it himself? I seem to recall that he took a big risk, and a lot of liberals hoped it would ruin him financially. As for Michael Moore's film, give me a break. Like President Bush has time for this crap. Someone should ask Michael Moore why he can't get Mrs. Heinz Kerry to finance the film? It would be a good investment for her, right? I'm sure she can afford it. Why doesn't he ask her for the money? Funny how the left's "artistic freedom" always ends up costing someone else's money... why doesn't Moore pay for his film distribution himself, like Mel Gibson did?