Rating: 
Summary: Not "fair and balanced," but powerful. And entertaining.
Review: In "Bowling for Columbine," writer/director Michael Moore first documents the phenomenon of guns in the U.S. as only he can. He shows us the extreme right-wing nut cases, at which we laugh, and more scary people like the brother of convicted Oklahoma bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Moore then explores and debunks various explanations for why Columbine (and similar tragedies elsewhere in the U.S.) could happen. It turns out that deaths by gun is an almost uniquely American phenomenon among industrialized countries during peacetime. Why is this? Moore's thesis ultimately seems to be that our economic system makes it profitable to keep people in fear, and our culture permits and even encourages this. For example, news shows get more ratings when they report tragedy than when they report good things, which gives the casual viewer the impression that tragedies are commonplace and good things are rare. Black males are particularly demonized (NOT by Moore, but by our media and even society, according to Moore). In this "climate of fear," people are more anxious and less cautious with respect to buying, storing, and using guns and other weapons. Kids are especially vulnerable to this fear, and scared kids who have access to guns is a very, very bad thing. Along the way, Moore effectively juxtaposes humor at the ludicrousness of it all with disturbing images and messages, which serve to warn us about how dangerous our situation has become. One scene I found especially effective an interview Moore did with an official at Lockheed Martin, a corportation that produces military hardware and happens to be the largest employer in the town of Columbine. Moore asks the official whether Lockheed's presense in the town may have indirectly contributed to the Columbine tragedy, as kids see their parents
get up and go to work every day in a factory that makes weapons of mass destruction. The official says of course not, the Columbine tragedy involved two boys using a gun to kill innocent people, whereas Lockheed makes weapons used to defend our country. Immediately following this interview is a series of news clips of actual acts of U.S. aggression or U.S.-sponsored aggression in which U.S. weapons or other U.S. military support and training resulted in thousands of deaths. Bowling for Columbine is a movie with an agenda. It is not "fair and balanced" in the words of Al Franken (or was it Fox News?). We see only the scenes that support Moore's agenda. Surely there were other scenes that Moore omitted because they added nothing to (or even contradicted) his agenda. That said, Bowling for Columbine is a superbly done film with a powerful message. It is also entertaining. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine, but lacking depth
Review: Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a fine documentary, as far as the art of the documentary is concerned--good camera work, juxtapositions by montages, scene building, and even some traces of a plot--but its point of view is slanted to the point that the film loses, consciously one must admit, all sense of objectivity. Rather, the object seems to place practically all guilt for the shootings on gun ownership and the NRA. It is also determined to debunk Charlton Heston, laying on him the onus of insensitivity, and even stupidity. Moore, doubtless, is presenting his film as an indictment of the the far right and its obsession with guns, and he is honestly concerned about the violence and the carnage in this country, blaming it all not just on the mentality of some people and groups of people but on the right to own guns. It is not people but guns that kill people. While all this is abundantly documented (without actually violent scens one might expect), the film only gives superficial explanations as to the causes that produced the killings. The comparisons are given between countries with extremely low crime rates (Australia, Germany, Japan, and others) and America--comparisions overwhelmingly depressing if you are American--do little to offer insights into this horrendous gap. A documentary has to have a point of view,and this one does: I am against guns, and the NRA is the major culprit, Moore says. Yet, the documentary, meritorious as it is on a certain level, fails to offer a truly insightful and convincing reason why "we" are what we are; to say that the NRA (and Heston) share the blame for the carnage is one thing; to fully explain where the desire for gun ownership comes from is another.
Rating: 
Summary: Please research
Review: I just want to say one thing. I was excited to view this movie, but before doing so I researched it a bit. I was more than a little concerned to find that the movie uses a number of deceitful techniques with editing to strengthen Mr. Moore's position. Before you watch this film, I think it's good to research it a bit, then go in with open eyes. I hope this will help some of you.
Rating: 
Summary: A shot in the dark that lets in a little light
Review: Between Michael Moore and Charlton Heston, it should have been easier to determine why the U.S. is such a violent place. Moore made roundabout allusions to it, while Heston made a valuable but thoroughly vague hint. Those of you who choose to examine the facts instead of relying on demagogues already know that the Department of Justice tells us all we need to know. We live in a mixed salad, not a melting pot--ethnic tension, poverty, a weak welfare system and selective access to healthcare perpetuate a cycle of despair and violence. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Japan, Germany and Australia have largely homogeneous societies, and almost all developed nations except for the U.S. have universal healthcare. Canada, unfortunately, is showing increases in crime in all its major cities due to its fast and loose immigration policies--but it does have universal healthcare. Does that sound discriminatory? Well, are you interested in realities, or the flailings of demagogues like Michael Moore?
Rating: 
Summary: Waste of money
Review: Rarely does one see so blatent a piece of propoganda. The segments that seemed even or objective seem more a result of poor discipline than any objectivity. It is full of not only mis-information but it is just plain malicious to those he does not agree with, and rude as heck to some people who's only crime was being there. This is the cinematic equivelent of letting your hyperactive child loose in the china shop after a case of Jolt soda and a Hershey bar, the man is out of control.
Rating:
Summary: Great start, nails the gun control issue, then derails.
Review: This is a great documentary on the issue of gun control in the USA. As a proponent of some sort of gun control, I think Moore nailed this aspect of the film by showing the widespread availability of hand guns and automatic weapons, and the gun culture that is America. He begins with a hilarious bit about a bank that gives away a free gun when you open a checking account. (What happened to toasters?). His use of media images of military bombings, murders, and the infamous Columbine tragedy, highlight the need for some sort of control in this arena. The depictions of media creating fear at every turn was excellent, as if we needed any more reasons to not trust everything the media throws our way as reality. However, the film quickly derails into often absurd and even embarrassing tangents. Perhaps the most glaring of these illogical assertions is that somehow the "work for welfare" program in Michigan is at fault for a 6-year-old who kills a classmate with a loaded handgun brought from home. The music played during this stretch was beyond an obvious attempt at some sort of victimhood celebration. His attempts to corner Dick Clark as a cause, because a restaurant that bears his name employs some welfare recipients, was a complete embarrassment to Moore and anyone who would buy into such tripe. His attempts to play racism, and play to the victim mentality of the liberal left were sad and pathetic. What started as a needed and apolitical message about violence is somehow now related to Moore's socialistic worldview? He really lost me here. There are a few other interesting aspects he explored. He takes two of the Columbine victims to the K-Mart headquarters to protest the fact that K-Mart sells bullets. (The Chris Rock sketch on bullet control is worth the price of admission alone, and is a better solution.) What Moore seems to forget is that his beloved Flint, Michigan's main manufacturing product was automobiles, which through misuse kill more people than all the bullets sold at all stores combined. Would he protest one of those places? Even more absurd is that fact that he states to Charlton Heston, leader of the NRA, that he Moore is in fact a member of the NRA! Moore even shows him his membership card. Then he proceeds to try and blame Heston for the killing of the 6-year-old? Did anyone actually miss this blatant hypocrisy? Overall, this is typical Moore work. His attempts to demonstrate the problem of gun use to kill others in our culture, as it compares to the rest of the free world, was excellent. However, in the end, Moore offers no solutions, plays the victim aspect to the fullest, and leaves the viewer with nothing more than an inside look at his socialistic agenda. One gets the impression that Moore really has no idea how to solve these issues, nor what their cause is, beyond implementing a program of socialism or communism. A wasted effort, which could have been a much-needed message on gun control.
Rating:
Summary: Two-thirds good, one-third manipulative and stupid!
Review: I wish I could split my rating - because this movie can be divided into two parts. The first hour and a half was extraordinary. Moore managed an honestly objective look at the subject, exploring with what at least appeared to be an open mind the reasons for the gun-death rate being so high in America. Many good points were made and sound arguments brought out (I was particularly interested in the argument about the negetive re-enforcement of U.S. news media and how they and their advertisers use fear to sell their own newscasts and the products they advertise). Truth be told, no one makes a pseudo-documentary like Michael Moore! However, as he often does, Moore manages to throw away any good points he earned with the first half by drowning the final thirty minutes of the movie in an attempt to lay the blame for Columbine and other shootings at the feet of K-Mart, Dick Clark, and Charlton Heston! Moore's style in these segments echo the more irritating portions of Roger and Me - the idea tha because someone says something stupid (or refuses to speak at all) when a camera is suddenly shoved in their face, therefore they MUST be to blame for all of society's ills! Moore needs to learn a little respect for other people if he is going to try to be a mouthpiece for the causes he believes in. Like I said, I think he has alot of good things to say, but these guerilla-camera tactics draw attention away from the good and instead reveal what an a**hole he can be. I mean - what's the deal with the whole Dick Clark encounter?! Let me lay this out for you - a 1st grader shoots another 1st grader. We learn the gun came from his uncle's house. The kid is living with his uncle because his mother cannot afford to house him or put him in day care. She can't because she is on welfare and expected to (I believe the word he uses is FORCED TO) work outside of Flint in Dick Clark's such-and-such restaraunt. So what does Moore do? He heads right out to interview Dick Clark, and stands in appaled shock with that "shame-on-you-Dick-Clark" look on his face as Clark refuses to talk to him and drives off. See what I'm saying? The fault for the shooting is laid on Dick Clark because a restaurant he's probably never stepped into which happens to have his name on it hired a woman whose son stole his uncle's gun and shot a girl? That's Dick Clark's fault? Where is the interview with the school for the gun making it into the classroom - how about interviewing the mother for being so removed from her son he would be led to do such a thing - how about intervieing the uncle for having a home in which a first-grader could even handle a gun, much less take it out of the house! What's worse is the commentary track by his interns and assistants. Kudos for a great idea, letting the "little guy" talk for once. But the result here is just a Michael Moore fan-club. The kiddos on the commentary clearly worship the ground he walks on and hope to be him when they grow up. So - FIVE stars for the first portion of the film that is a credit to Moore and all who worked on the film. But ZERO stars for the final act in which Moore sabotages his work and the work of those who helped him by being pretentious and trying to earn a few extra viewers with "controversial filmmaking." That averages to about THREE stars as a total - and even THAT is generous, considering!
Rating:
Summary: Well Deserved Oscar
Review: What a great documentary Michael Moore has made. Finally, somebody asking the right questions and making a film worth viewing. Congratulations Mr. Moore on winning the Oscar. It certainly was well deserved.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: I am not a fan of Michael Moore based on my brief experiences with his beliefs and rhetoric. In addition, while I don't affiliate myself with a particular party, I am "right of center" in poltical-speak. Having said that, EVERYONE should see this film. If you get beyond the pro-gun anti-gun arguments and rhetoric, you get to the crux of this film: Why is America full of people that are SO afraid? This film offers some opinions, but obviously can't provide a concrete answer. However, that's the power of this film. Maybe after viewing this film, Americans will look a little deeper at ourselves, society, media, and our beliefs and ask ourselves what we're afraid of.
Rating:
Summary: He gets some facts wrong, but none central to his argument!
Review: Yes, this DOCUMENTARY is not perfect, but no documentary, film, or any piece of work for that matter is. And as far as him not being completely objective, of course its not. Complete objectivity is impossible. Subconscious bias exists in a medium such as film or news(as Moore points out in the film). Therefore, I have no problems with the way Moore protrays the events. I actually think that his portrayal is quite insightful. He doesn't claim to have concrete answers to the problems, which can be a problem not just in documentaries, but in non-fiction writing as well. Instead, he takes an honest look at the problem. He does a good job of tying events together throughout the film. One of the best things about the film is the way that he is able to tie violence in America to greater social problems(The Beecher School shooting and the Welfare to Work Program is the best example and one of the better parts of the film). While he is sensationalist in some cases, he does a good job of not trying to attack innocent parties(The Michigan Militia was portrayed quite neutrally and is a good example of this.) His segment on the scapegoating in the media was terrific as well and he does a great job of breaking down the myth of the "Sinister American Culture." Another good example of this is the fact that the only violent music movement that I can remember occured in Norway where National Socialist and Racist/Fascist bands led by Varg Vikernes burned down 50 churches and at least two murders were tied to the movement(Read Lords of Chaos by Michael Moyinhan). Yet, both Norway and Scandanavia have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world.
However, one part that upset me was his portrayal of Canada as a sort of modern utopia(and this is coming from someone who loves Canada and is planning to move there.) For example, the buildings that he calls Canadian slums are not Canadian slums at all. Read the East End Plays by George F. Walker and you'll find that Montreal has slums just as bad as the US. He also tries to portray Canada as non-racist, and while multi-culturalism is more prevalent in Canada, there are in fact a lot of problems with racism(particularly against the Natives, but also with the assimilation of other cultures and racist immigration policies that are even worse than the US). Another problem with portraying Canada is that the Provincial(State) governments hold more power than the national government, creating very different environments from province to province. Alberta is as conservative as the US, while Quebec is extremely liberal(Ontario is Moderate Conservative). For more info on Canada, read Reflections of a Siamese Twin by John Ralston Saul and Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values by Michael Adams.
Nevertheless, I can't necessarily fault Moore for this, as it would take years to do an accurate documentary on Canada. Like I previously mentioned, none of this weakens his argument, nor is that important to the film(I feel the existance of slums and racism actually strengthens his argument). He does a great job of stirring debate and portraying the complexity of violence in America and throughout the world. This should be an absolute necessity for anyone who cares about discovering our American identity(as much as we like to deny it, that includes violence). The interviews were also extremely intelligent and well-done. This work is both disturbing, yet inspiring. I thank Moore for both his courage and his determination to seek the truth behind such as complex issue. An absolute classic!
|
