Rating: 
Summary: Required viewing regardless of political views
Review: This documentary was undoubtedly one of the most powerful cinematic experiences I've ever had. It saddens me when people label Moore as liberal or this or that, when in fact he is a) Human and b) American. Moore doesn't attack Republicans any more than he does Democrats, what he argues for is a sane society where we don't kill each other. As for those who come out of the woodworks to challenge his facts, check out his website, where he cites sources for all the data presented about gun deaths and other info. In terms of the DVD, it features tons of extra commentary and material and is well worth the money. This film should be required viewing in schools; whether you are pro or anti gun, the debate should be public and open to all.
Rating: 
Summary: mixed feelings.
Review: This is certainly a great movie to watch to spark your emotions and inspire debate. But there are a lot of things wrong with it, which I'm sure other reviewers have already pointed out. However...it's also got some extremely hilarious parts. I thought the interviews were all well edited in the sense that it makes anyone who doesn't agree with Moore look like a total jackass. While that's not what I like to see in a documentary, it IS pretty funny.
Rating: 
Summary: The Quintessential Angry White Male: Micheal Smoores
Review: Marketed as a documentary, in fact it is just a movie. Facts are flawed, dates and times altered to give Moore's argument the appearance of credibility. Watch "The Reality of Reality Shows" Moore utilized the same methods. Freedom to bare arms and freedom of speech are both protected equally under the constititution. Any argument you can make restricting free speech you can make for restricting freedom to bare arms and vice versa. P.S. Micheal; ever hear of Slim Fast or Gillette?
Rating:
Summary: Don't watch it alone or you miss the real value
Review: I want to make two points:1. The real value is in the conversation this will initiate between you and the other people you watch this with. 2. Most don't know what "documentary" actually means. So on with my review... This is a wonderful movie. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the views provided or the methods employed to express them, if you watch this with a group of people I guarantee this movie will inspire hours of great conversation and debate. I first saw this in a theatre with two friends - we saw this in Berkeley, CA (very liberal), and our group consisted of a person from rural Wisconsin, a person from rural/suburban Illinois, and a person from urban Detroit. We each have different experiences and opinions related to guns and gun control, and we each definitely had a few new issues to think about after seeing this. As soon as we left the theatre, we started talking and we kept going for at least 2 hours. Some say this movie in not balanced - yes, obviously there is a bias in the movie which should be expected since the movie is trying to convey a message. Still, for all those who knock it as completely skewed, for every issue touched you will find arguments presented for both sides. If your side of the argument winds up being "the loser" in the movie, look forward to debating with your fellow viewers about it :) Regarding this movie containing fiction or partial facts and being misleading because it is presented as a "documentary", to be blunt, those critics are naive. "Documentary" refers to a style of film-making, it does not mean someone merely films spontaneous reality. Spinal Tap is an example of a documentary film that is completely fictional (but it's still a documentary). Regarding partial truths, what can you expect when a lot of issues are covered in such a short amount of time? Finally, if "misleading partial truths" or "fiction made to look like fact" is so disturbing that you can't bear to watch the movie, please cover your eyes the next time the US shows "evidence" to the UN of WMD or else you'd be scarred for life :) Get it. Watch it. Watch it with friends/enemies/strangers. Talk about it. It's great!
Rating:
Summary: This is an absolute must have
Review: Michael Moore is an genius when it comes to putting things down in the fundamental truth that they are. Bowling For Columbine is an essential for anyone who has a love for America. His Oscar extra on the DVD should be one of the first things you see, to prove his reasons for the acceptance speech at the Oscars for the documentry, and his love of this country.
Rating:
Summary: Two examples of why this is a fictional piece
Review: He talks about the Lockheed Martin facility in Colorado building missiles (weapons). They don't, they build rockets for satellites and deep space probes. Second, the infamous gun scene was staged, a fact acknowledged by the bank teller herself. Enjoy it, free speech is great, but not all speech, or movies, are great. Don't get suckered.
Rating:
Summary: Freedom of Speech!
Review: It is absolutely wonderful that nobody here raises the question ,if such a movie should be 'allowed'. However Frederick II of Prussia is quoted as having said "I have an agreement with my people. They are allowed to say what they want and I am allowed to do what I want"An absolute monarch,he expressedthe attitude of the present administration.
Rating:
Summary: An amazing achievement
Review: This is the best treatment of the gun control issue which you could ever hope to see. Although Michael Moore is rightly considered a far-left liberal, he is by no means anti-gun (he grew up in Flint, Michigan and is himself a lifetime member of the NRA), and his movie does not so much blame guns as view them as one small piece of a larger problem. Other aspects of this issue that are highlighted in the film include the climate of fear created and aggravated by the US media; the failure of the US to provide adequate social services to the poor (we see a single mother who is forced to commute several hours a day in a impossible struggle to make ends meet); the ridiculously easy access to ammunition for handguns (Moore portrays the successful efforts of several Columbine survivors who petition K-Mart to ban the sale of these bullets); and, of course, the pathetic and self-serving rhetoric of the NRA (illustrated through an unbelievable and often hilarious interview with NRA president Charleton Heston). Moore's in-your-face film-making technique is brilliant; his disarming, Lt. Columbo-like manner results in startling statements by his subjects--for example, the brother of Terry Nichols, convicted Oklahoma City conspirator, saying that access to weapons-grade Plutonium should be restricted because "there are crazy people out there"; Charleton Heston insisting on his right to bear arms but admitting that he does not need the many loaded guns in his home for protection, etc. Moore asks all the right questions in a variety of situations, from trying to get Dick Clark on the record to quizzing Canadians about their low homicide numbers to interviewing Marilyn Manson (who offers a surprisingly serious, thoughtful, and intelligent perspective). Moore also does an incredible job of balancing humor--ie, an animated look at the history of America from the creators of South Park--with horror--namely, the raw video footage from the Columbine masscre. This remarkable documentary was awarded a well-deserved Oscar; it is absolutely a must-see regardless of your political views.
Rating:
Summary: Fear and Consumption equals the US empire
Review: Bowling for Columbine just tells us what we already know. Why don't we watch the news anymore? Fear. It's the same explanation for our over-consuming society. Can we crawl out of our shells before the 'wars' we wage kill as many as Hitler?
Rating:
Summary: Made me gain respect for what he had to say
Review: After attempting to read 'Stupid White Men' in its entirety, I was skeptical about watching 'Bowling for Columbine' to say the least. The former had made me think that Moore really didn't have much of a point, but the film, having just watched it, helped me gain respect for what he had to say. Plus, now that I see how extreme the reviews about the movie are (most of them being either 1 or 5 stars), I feel my gut confirmed that there's something important that he's trying to say, and I for one, want to listen to it. This documentary is long (some 2 hours) but it needs to be so: the issue presented has multiple dimensions and Moore is very effective in their presentation. Bringing back terrible memories from Columbine HS shooting and the killing of a 6-year old by a classmate in Flint, MI, Moore ponders once and again why (all other things being equal) would the US have such a high gunshot death rate, compared to all other first world nations. My first thought, when I saw the figures that he presented (US having 11,127 gunshot deaths in a year, compared to Japan's 39 or Canada's 165), was that he was not being fair, since he was leaving out the country's population. Well, taking the time to compute how many persons per million get shot to death in all the countries he compared the US against (consulting population figures in the CIA factbook online), it turns out that this number is 7.48 times higher in the US than its nearest 'gunshot death rate' neighbor (Canada) and a striking 127 times higher than Japan's 0.30 persons per million killed by a gun in a year's time. So his point is still clearly valid! "All other things being equal", as I said before, is very broad, yet he tackled on most issues I can think of, when comparing the US with other countries in terms of possible causes for how violent we are: history of violence (think Germany and WWII, Britain and massacres in India), amount of guns owned (in Canada, almost 70% of the families own guns), violent movies or violent games (global broadcasting, display and sales of these make them available equally to audiences everywhere -indeed, the point can be made that a large number of violent video games come from Japan, where the issue is nowhere as critical), etc. (spoilers ahead, if you don't mind them)
Granted that something is wrong when a 6-year old shoot another one in school, after discarding alternate hypothesis and interviewing people ranging from pro-gun control activists to NRA's very own Charlton Heston (no comment on him...) Moore comes to the conclusion (one that I particularly agree with) that we, as a society, are being bred in a culture of fear: the media feed us with the most absurd stories day in, day out, which put the fear in us, though some law enforcement officers argue that crime numbers have actually gone down, which results in an escalade of gun and bullet purchasing. This unfortunately is not helped by the 2+ year-long stand of the US in its battle against terrorism, with frequent terror alerts and attacks on Afghanistan and Irak taking place, since more and more people end up fearing that the terrible tragedy of September 11 could strike them close to home soon.
(end of spoilers) Where does he want to go with his work ultimately? God only knows. We'll have to see what he brings back in 2004 when he releases his next movie, right before the election. But one thing is for sure: most likely you will have a hard time seeing things in the same way after you see this movie.
| 
