Rating: 
Summary: Moore deceives the audience over and over...
Review: David T Hardy deconstructs most of his movie on his web site. Read it and think about it. I mean, why would Moore start the movie about gun control and end it on mass media?
Rating: 
Summary: Best Documentery I've ever seen
Review: This interesting and truthful documentery takes a look at the gun control in the United States. It brings up that Canada has a very low gun death rate, so does every other country. But every other country in the world is a civilized as us but a lower gun death rate. It also talks about the our [the U.S.] deadly history. It also takes the tragic look into the Columbine massacre and the hometown little girl. Moore visits the Michigan Militia, K-Mart Headquarters, Littleton, CO and the entesive interview with Charlton Heston. I gave this 5 stars and I advise for every American to see it
Rating: 
Summary: Good arguments, but leaves some holes
Review: First, I liked this documentary/humor film, and I agree with Moore on some of his key political convictions and perceptions, such as the our government's enormous bias toward rich. Having said that, however, I would like to make a few criticisms of this film. 1) Moore makes the interesting observation that in Canada (as well as most European countries) there are far fewer gun murders (per capita I assume). Then he points out that -- oddly enough -- gun availability and ownership in Canada is still quite high -- underscoring this point by going to a Canadian Wal-Mart (as himself, an American citizen) and buying (without any problems) lots of ammunition -- the implication being apparently that Canadians must have even more availability to guns and bullets than he did. (Evidently for an American to be able to buy a gun must be more difficult, but he doesn't go into that.). So far, so good, for this shows that having guns around doesn't necessarily turn people into killers, at least in Canada. He then shows how Canada has no slums, nor indigent people wandering around, since Canada takes care of the poor and disenfranchised -- an excellent point. Thus, the conclusion seems to be that this is why Canadians don't kill each other like we do, and even don't lock their doors! Most feel "taken care of" -- and thus less fearful, even if guns are still relatively numerous. Again, so far, so good. But later in the film he seems to retreat from this thesis by implying that the real problem is -- after all -- the ready availability of guns, especially handguns, and drops the social welfare part -- especially during and after the interview with Charleton Heston. I don't get it -- is violence here due to both a) this ready availability of guns coupled b) with our callousness toward the poor, or is it just one of them? He seems to state at first that is must mainly be the latter (using Canada as a sort of proof), but then drops it. If he consistently postulated that perhaps America could drastically reduce its murder rate by leaving guns alone, and instead doing something about the enormous inequality our system promotes, maybe more people would be receptive to his message -- I don't know. Unfortunately he is vague on this, but should be commended at least for bringing the economic factor into the debate. 2) He brings up many of the foreign interventions such as our (U. S. A) overthrow of the democratically elected and very popular leader, Mossedegue (spelling?) in Iran in the 1950's, and his replacement by the dictator, the Shah. Likewise, Moore mentions many other of our imperialist crimes, like Vietnam. But when Moore mentions Guatemala, and the United State's overthrow of the democratically elected President Arbenz, he fails to mention that the dictatorship that the United States replaced him with proceeded to ban guns, limiting all such ownership to the police and military, leaving the poor Mayan population completely vulnerable. The government consequently proceeded to murder and terroize the poor for decades. Moore's argument and thesis would have been much more sophisticated if he mentioned this, and delved more fully into the issue. For Guatemala isn't the only example of fascists imposing gun control. While he briefly shows a sign at an NRA convention that shows other dictatorships that had/have gun control and gun registration (Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, Stalin's Russia), he doesn't delve into it, nor mention the obvious fact of how many left-wing heros and peasents throughout history have felt compelled to use arms against murderous, thieving, fascistic governments (the Zapitistas, the Sandinistas, the East Timorese, the American Indians, etc. etc. ), and how perhaps they may have been more vulnerable if gun control had limited their ability to defend themselves. Moore asks a right-wing radical at one point why he doesn't take Gandhi's path of civil disobedience. Moore doesn't bring up the irony of gun control: spiritual pacifism (such as Gandhi's) is supposed to be a voluntary, non-coercive, volitional choice of the individual, (or a "state of consciousness" rather than a pretentious intellectual idea), and not something imposed by the muzzle of a government gun. Although Moore is "thought provoking," he doesn't go deeply enough into this distinction between volitional pacifism and government enforced disarmament. . 3) Lastly, I feel that Moore should point out that, while European countries are generally far more "progressive" in having a welfare system for the masses, he fails to mention that many of them still are guilty of horrible imperialistic policies. England, for example, aided and traded with Indonesia during its 25 year occupation of East Timor in which 300,000 were murdered, despite being "progressive" with its own folks. Likewise, according to Noam Chomsky, "progressive/socialist" countries such as Holland, Canada, and Australia also were happy to remain Indonesia's ally (and make money as a result) despite Indonesia's blantant mass-murder policies. In addition, Canada still abuses its native peoples, robbing them of their land. Canada also imposes draconian sentences on those protesting the deforestation of its public lands. Thus, just because there are less murders in a "progressive" country, or has a more humane welfare system, doesn't mean that everything is "a-okay." Some "progressives" can still be downright murderous to other countries and peoples, even while being nicer to their own subjects, an important but neglected point . . . Still, I enjoyed the DVD, and praise Moore for many of his perceptions. The part about Dick Clark taking advantage of the system was very good.
Rating:
Summary: Mixed Feelings
Review: As my title suggests, I have mixed feelings about Michael Moore's latest work. While I will admit to being a bleeding-heart, peacenik, liberal, I must say, this film is a little troubling. I cannot stand talking heads, like the people on CNN and Anne Coulter (sorry if I misspelled it), screaming for blood just because people don't agree with them. I don't think there are very many anti-Americans living in the country and it is simply rediculous to argue that people of the democratic, or otherwise liberal, ilk should be hung for treason. Unfortunatly, it is this very same kind of propaganda I see coming from Mister Moore. While his ideas are not so far out as Ms. Coulter's, I still fear anyone who can rally up so much animosty against any one group of people. So to the point, I believe that the point the movie puts across is very admirable and must be exposed, but just remember to take it with a grain of salt. Michael Moore has admited to being an entertainer before anything else, so it is safe to say that "Bowling for Columbine" is just that, entertainment. As far as that goes, "Bowling for Columbine" is excellent. It is perfectly fine cinnema and is a great choice for rental, or for buying. So, just remember, enjoy the movie and even learn something from it, I don't want to totally discredit the film's value. It is important for movies to appear that make us think and the one certainly does that, but don't take everything you see at face value. Bravo to Michael Moore!
Rating:
Summary: Canada, Land of the Free, Home of the Sane
Review: My husband and I have been married for five years now. He is American, I am Canadian; he moved to the Great White North soon after the immigration paperwork was processed. Forgive the biographical details, but they will serve to highlight one of the many interesting facts this movie illustrates, i.e. Americans are Freaked Out, Canadians are Laid Back (as Moore points out, we Canadians love our violent Hollywood flicks, our videogames, our hunting rifles -7 million of them for 10 million Canadian households- we are plagued by unemployment and poverty, and yet, we don't go around shooting each other). When we were struck by the East Coast blackout recently, my better half was at work; later that night, as we talked about the day's events, he told me how upset he'd been that nobody "cared" when it happened. "Everyone just went about their business. It could have been terrorists, the world could have been going up in smoke" etc. I was very puzzled and surprised. I tried to comfort him, to understand why a power failure had upset him so much (I didn't realize that the blackout had struck the capital right away. I'd figured they might have heard something on the news. However, that was not the case; when the power went out, no one had any idea what was going on, save that New York, Toronto, and so on, were in the dark -in Quebec, just on the other side of the river, we still had power). Basically, my husband had been infuriated by what he'd perceived as our Canadian Indifference: while he was picturing the Apocalypse, the customers kept drinking their beers, not looking particularly alarmed. I myself, when I heard there was a blackout, did not first think about armed conflicts, kamikaze rebels, or computer sabotage. This difference between Americans and Canadians is one of layers that make up Moore's film. My husband loves to watch CNN; I can't stand it (the Propaganda Network or the Paranoia Channel would be more accurate, in my opinion). Moore wonders, why is it that Canadians don't behave the way we do? A clip of our average news bulletin is then shown, with ministers advocating civil, courteous discussions as opposed to "let's turn (country) into a parking lot." Following this, we see a man coming out of a Canadian hospital, having paid nothing to get his injuries looked after. The most important point Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine is that a caring society, a society that looks after its own citizens, particularly the downtrodden, produces people who find the idea of going on murderous rampages incomprehensible. A society that is compassionate is less likely to be swept away by absurd notions such as "Your Neighbour is Out to Kill You: tonight on 48 Hours." To prove this, Moore goes to Toronto, where he discovers a shocking truth: people don't lock their doors. Fear is the weapon of choice for those who wish to subdue others, to mold them to their own agendas (for instance, "if you don't wear brand X, you're a loser," all the way to "if we don't fund those guerillas, other, more dangerous -i.e. less profitable- evildoers will eventually destroy us"). It's my hope that after a few more years of living in Canada, my husband will have been healed from the damaging effects of his native land's Fear Factor mentally. I am saddened for my American Neighbours, most of whom are in fact very friendly, and wish Bowling for Columbine was required viewing in every single American home.
Rating: 
Summary: On par with his other films, but...
Review: I've always enjoyed Michael Moore's films, and even more his tv shows. His humor and ability to show both sides of an argument are great aids and he used them to his advantage in everything up to this film. The humor, though tasteful (not to mention pretty funny) takes center stage, leaving Bowling for Columbine empty of any legitimate cross-arguments from pro-second amendment activists. Besides, put yourself in Heston's shoes. If you had a rabid anti-gunner, (Moore who has every right to be so, God bless him) barking at you that your president of an orginization out to make sure anyone and everyone can buy a gun, how would you react? Besides, editing can go a long way in making someone look bad. I do suggest that EVERYONE see this movie. If your anti-second amendment, you'll get great laughs and enjoy hating Heston even more. If your pro-second amendment, you need to see what the other side is saying. Besides, if you write this movie off as being bad just because it doesn't carry your own political views, than your just as bad as the people you oppose. Oh, yeah... Oscar nomination, certainly. Winner, I don't think so.
Rating:
Summary: Moses is crippled!
Review: Excellent film. The scene with Heston is memorable. Heston is revealed as nothing more than the inarticulate, vile,foul,racist, has been that he is. The scene with Dick Clark isn't flattering as well. See Dick run away just as he does with taxpayer funds for his business' that provide low wage jobs to welfare recipients. Talk about welfare!!! What a lowbrow move Dick!!! Make a buck no matter what the cost huh Dick? I'm looking forward to Moore's film about Bush.
Rating:
Summary: Yawn...
Review: If you like movies that reinforce your political beliefs, you might like this. If you feel a film should be forced to at least make an attempt to entertain you, then best leave this one on the shelf.
Rating:
Summary: A Humorous, Poignant, Sad, and Entertaining Movie
Review: Some of the reviews you'll read here will actually be more interesting to you once you've seen the movie. They go into great detail and offer interesting points of view that will likely blend with your own impressions. I simply want to add that I think most people will enjoy the sincere tone and gentle demeanor of Mr. Moore in the film regardless of their (or his) politics. This is a movie that will entertain you from the first scene through the end, and it will have you thinking long afterward. I personally had no experience with Mr. Moore's work (his books or movies) prior to this, but I was moved to tears during this film and also found myself laughing very hard at some of the subtle humor that often gets woven in. I read on a website that two groups of lawyers went through this film before it was released (along with other "fact checkers") to make sure all statistics and facts stated in the movie were entirely true. I never had an intuition that they weren't (there's little in there, in terms of pure facts or statistics, that you wouldn't have heard before), and the film is notable for it's authentic manner throughout. It makes sense to me that when confronting the NRA (or any other powerful Washington lobbyists), you'd want to have your facts just right to avoid lawsuits, etc., and aside from what appear to be some angry-conservative "reviewers"....no one's ever contested the facts here. Bottom line...this is a WONDERFUL documentary, and it's one you'll be glad you took the chance on if you've been "on the fence" about it, so to speak. I really can't speak highly enough for it. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: This film gets people thinking about gun control
Review: This is a great film to get people thinking seriously about gun control. If for no other reason its message should be heard all over the USA. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)
|
