Rating: 
Summary: Best Documentary of All Time
Review: America a country without a true left or even a political centre has produced one of the great populists of modern times in Michael Moore. In this documentary he investigates the reasons behind the high incidence of gun deaths by young males. He focuses on two incidents, the killings at Columbine High School and another incident in which a young boy uses his fathers gun to murder. Moore finds that the reasons for killing are not related to guns. Canada being a country which has a large rural sector has a huge rate of gun ownership but hardly any murders at all. What is the difference? The according to Moore is that Canada is a much more harmonious and peaceful society. He goes to a Canadian city and searches for the slum area but can only find well maintained comfortable public housing. He speaks to Canadians and finds that there is less fear, less conflict and less lunacy. America by contrast is not only a country with guns, it is a country in which people are scared and always on edge. The deaths and murders stem from this conflict which stems from America being a nation in which there is little investment in public infrastructure and there are huge pockets of poverty. Moore however presents this message subtlety allowing it to come out of a series of interviews and stunts. He talks to the friends of the gunmen who were responsible for the murders at Columbine. He interviews a relative of Timothy McVeigh. Those interviewed are people who are seriously weird and the fact that they have open access to gun ownership is mind boggling. He travels to Canada speaks to law enforcement officers there about issues and looks at Canadian cities. He looks at the background of the tragic young boy and what the American welfare system required of the mother. Yet for a film dealing with such a serious subject one cannot stop laughing at the brilliance in which Moore portrays the lunacy of some aspects of American society. His genius is that he can make some young gun victims look like (and they probably felt) heroes in confronting the store who sold the ammuntion which destroyed their bodies and making them withdraw it from sale. He can also turn a very old and pathetic Charlton Heston into an embodiment of evil indifference. They used to say that the Truimph of the Will was the greatest propoganda films of all time. This is ahead of that by a country mile.
Rating:
Summary: Michael Moore's MAGNUM OPUS
Review: When I had heard that Michael Moore's new film, Bowling for Columbine, had been selected for Cannes in 2002, I knew that he had a winner on his hands. It would be six months later that I would find out that I was wrong. That he didn't have a winner, but THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER. Bowling For Columbine takes the controversy of gun control (that he wisely chose to keep it an open arguement) and makes his audiance realize that his arguement is primarily about fear. Guns are scary because guns cause fear. If they didn't, then a lot of people would not be dead, including those unfortunate souls in Columbine High School. Taking his arguement against fear, he does what any good debater would do, he elaborates it to include not just guns, but racism, greed, and good ole American bull(dung). The end of this movie is probably the most satisfying, as Michael Moore pays a visit to Charleton Heston and without raising his voice or going into a "liberal tyraid", he brings the egotistical and unforgivably cruel actor-turned-NRA President down to his knees in the most sad performance by any actor (Heston, I mean, not Moore) Even before we get there though, Moore had already punctuated his points in the movie, leaving us feeling ahead of the game. By no means should Moore's work be considered entirely reliable, like blaming Dick Clark for the death of a little girl, but an argument meant to stir people to think about things, to think about how they live their lives and how they leave thier impressions on others that might be the next ticking time bomb. As for the controversy that came with his now infamous Acadamy Acceptance speech, I can only say one thing; "God Bless America".
Rating: 
Summary: Almost an exceptional documentary.....
Review: Let me start with saying that Michael Moore did one heck of a job when he shot this documentary....and got away with it. Not only did he get away, he got an Oscar as well. The documentary has its fair share of insights, the best in my opinion has to be the South Park interlude explaning America's identity. Truly apt. What held me back in giving this documentary a top grade has to do with some of Moore's actions which I can only label as typical American over-dramatization. The scene that readily comes to mind is when Moore places the photograph of the 6 year old victim of a gun related accident on Heston's front lawn. I mean, I'm sure Heston rubs me (and others no doubt) the wrong way and the racial remark he uttered was ghastly but even Heston didn't want a six year old to die as a result of a gun related accident. I'm sure he's as appalled as the next person about what happened. The way Moore leaves Heston's residence after placing the picture, bowing his head in quiet desperation, made me question his implementation of what I call a "Oscar trick card." But chances are Moore never looked at it this way and didn't realize he needlessly inflicted more harm to Heston that Heston did to himself. Moore should have let the interview with Heston speak for itself without driving home the message over the corpse of a six year old. A bigger problem with "Bowling" I have has to do with the fact that Moore never really addresses the cause of the disproportionally large counts of gun related accidents in the US. Although he shows us what it isn't, he should have persisted more in finding out what is. He knows the answer is there but ultimately only manages to hint at it. In a later interview he is much more focused on this point but still doesn't seem to recognise that he hasn't answered the question or fails to see that this question is paramount and deserves the answer he has set out to find. One of my favorite moments is the Marilyn Manson interview. Manson is being bombed by "respectable" Americans throughout this section, but he turns out to be the only person saying sensible things and arguing coherently and intellectually. A good documentary, no doubt, but rewarding it with an Oscar made me wonder about the quality of all the other nominations. In any event you should at least rent it and then decide if you want to make it part of your collection.
Rating: 
Summary: Fictional work at best
Review: How can this be accepted for anything other than a weak piece of fiction when Moore readily admits to taking editorial privilages in manipulating the footage and facts to agree with his distorted view of America. The Wall Street Journal even exposed the lies and hypocrisy of Moore's film. Please spend of few minutes and Google the facts behind this travesty.
Rating:
Summary: If you play with fire...
Review: First of all, Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is not only about what happened in Littleton, Colorado, over 4 years ago. This controversial documentary only uses that event as an example of a notoriously unique aspect of the United States way of life: the huge number of firearms among common citizens, and the final results when you live in a society where media vehicles, to make money and get audience rates, insists in installing an overpowering fear through the population. Moore's intention with this award winning movie is to understand why this happens. As a documentary written, directed and starred by a single person, of course it's subjective. Michael Moore tends to manipulate numbers and some facts to achieve his final goals. What is most interesting in " Bowling for Columbine" is the series of interviews with interesting people such as Marilyn Manson, Troy Parker and Charlton Heston, among others, and their opinions about the population having this huge amount of firearms close at hand. So, watching "Bowling for Columbine" is only Phase 1 of something everybody should know and care about. Phase 2 is to get more information about all the subjects and situations portrayed in the movie, and to decide how right (or how wrong) Moore is, and what should be done about the problem. Because, whatever the reasons, causes, etc., there surely is a problem. Moore only made it more explicit. Grade 9.0/10
Rating:
Summary: Popularity amongst hollywood does not equal reality
Review: After all the hype on how great this guy was I thought why not see this film. In the end I was left with the same thoughts after seeing the NSDAP (Nazi) and Soviet Cold War Films. Total bias and one side story telling. Dont bother with truth and objectivity. Clearly things are one sided and edited in such a way to protray his views. This is not a documentary but rather is progapanda just as KKK films or NeoNazi films are. All sway their views with facts, but facts from only one side. I really wonder about the education and objectivity of society today, a society that blesses this film. Wow. I agree with Gilberts post, this film sucks, but it is valuable to see, so that you can be reminded of how easy it is to sway millions with mere pictures and words like a magicians sleight of hand.
-Remy
Rating:
Summary: Misguided
Review: All of the negative publicity on firearms is misguided. We as a society has lost sight of the criminal himself, and focus now on the tool he uses. Firearms are not to blame. Liberals are. Their nit-picking and stupidity have eroded this county out from under itself. Gun owners should not be blamed or punished for the wronful acts of few. And lets not forget why Columbine happened.
Because two kids were being tormented so badly, they needed to strike back. Harsh? A little. Deserved? Definetly!
Rating:
Summary: A response to the viewer below
Review: There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary; indeed the less biased a documentary appears, then the more suspicious I am of it. Michael Moore can be insensitive, even cruel, as he most certainly is to Charlton Heston in this film, but I never doubt where he stands. I didn't get the impression that Heston "caused" Columbine, rather that Michael Moore, an NRA member, was chastising Heston for HIS insensitivity in holding NRA rallies in towns still affected by school massacres. You make a very important point in your review: "The question should not be how did they get the guns, but why did they use them?" and indeed the story of "Bowling for Columnbine" essentially concerns Michael Moore's attempt to answer that question. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is NOT the easy availability of guns that drove these kids to mass murder, but the harsh, competitive, alienating nature of American life. Columbine High School is described by one of its graduates (Trey Parker) as a living nightmare of degredation, threats malaise. A little boy would not have killed a little girl, he reveals, if his mother had been there to monitor him, instead of having to work two jobs and take an hours-ling bus ride to and from work. Moore also makes great play of the fact that Columbine manufactures the missiles with which America bombs civilians in other countries without warning. The film's principle flaw, and what has opened it to its detractors, is that Moore's centrepiece "stunts" (the Kmart protest, the Heston interview) appear to advocate gun control, when "Bowling for Columbine" isn't really about gun control at all, but an examination of the collective psychology of America.
Rating:
Summary: great, objective documentary
Review: I was skeptical of some of Moore's claims, but did my research and found that all of his claims, all of his stats are true. This is a great film, worthy of its praise.
Rating:
Summary: ...And the man throws yet another gutter-ball!
Review: ***Just as a sidenote before I begin: I recently looked at Moore's new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?", where the reader is treated to another childish dissertation from this simpleton. In the book, Moore goes into utterly boring and repetative soapbox-class speeches about how the people of this Country are being exploited and used by the 'Rich Robber-Barrons' and Politicians, so I was just wondering, Mike... After exploiting this tragedy of Columbine, how much of the profits from this film did you share with the victims of this shooting spree? This film is making fun at a very serious subject. The logic presented to the viewer in this film is about as insightful as a fortune cookie from your local Chinese take-out resturaunt. Moore seems more concerned about the gun lobby than examining the question of why these teens decided to turn their high school into a live-action video game. The question should not be how did they get the guns, but WHY did they use them? Why did they find human life so cheap? No answers here! The filmaker seems more concerned with own his political agenda than a legitimate search for the truth. The only thing I got from this film is Moore's opinion that Charleton Heston and Martin-Merietta were responsible for Columbine. It's all done with editing, and this man goes to town! There's no kind of sensitivity whatsoever to this film; it's more like watching a comedy. I have lost all faith in the Academy of Motion Pictures for trying to give this unsubstantiated clap-trap any shred of legitimacy. People, just because the camera moves around a lot and goes to everyday places, doesn't make it the truth. It also doesn't make it a documentary! You'd have a more thought-provoking experience watching "Walker-Texas Ranger" than wasting your time on this garbage.
| 
