Rating: 
Summary: OHHHHH! MAN Really makes you think
Review: No pun intended but this movie blew me away! Walking out of the theater, since I had to drive for forty minutes just to see it since the sort of movies my hometown of Topeka plays are like Bubble Boy and every other mindless Hollyword turns out just to make a quick buck from Junior High kids, I had a lot of time to think (sorry got of track there) This movie is much different than Michael's other films Roger and Me(which I think isn't quite as good as this yet comes pretty close) and the Big One. It isn't about how heartless corporations affect the population. This is about how the population affects itself. HMM interresting concept. Most reviews I have read have praised the movie and rightly so but some slam as saying that the movie is anti-American for being anti-second admendment. Let me say that this movie is not anti-gun. The message is more or less, Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but why do poeple kill people, espically at the alarming rates that Michael point's out since our neighbors to the north and our European neighbors, have homicide rates that are mere fractions of our rates. Why then? What causes this violent mentality in America that cuases us to shoot and then ask questions later? Where does that come from. Michael Moore has also been critcized for not providing any answers for the audience. I don't think that was his intent. His intent for this one was to display the information and let the audience judge for themselves. So far I would consider this Michael's best film so far. I strongly recommend that all Americans, well everyone in general, but espcially Americans and especially after the attrocities of 9-11 view this film. Because weither you are pro or anti-NRA or pro or Anti-Gun Control this movie will cause everybody to think.
Rating:
Summary: horrifically hysterical
Review: What a great film. Bravo to Moore for pointing out what a nation of nut cases we've become. My sixteen year old has been pestering me to buy a gun for years (for protection, of course). I tell him,"Ain't gonna happen." It's reality vs. paranoia and the reality is I'm far more paranoid of keeping a gun within access of a curious teenager.
Rating: 
Summary: shame on you, Michael!
Review: I was told before I had seen this movie, that Michael Moore was super-smart and super-funny, and that this was one of, if not the, best movie of the year. He is somewhat funny in this piece, but not too smart (but he is caring). This is one of the worst films of the year. If you want to see a great film, watch "The Pianist." This doc. starts out in an amusing fashion, but disintegrates into some ill-founded ideological crusade against everyone and everything American. Canadians don't lock their doors because they are not afraid, like Americans are, is what Moore discovers... Amusingly enough, every Canadian Moore talked to had been burgled at one time or another. Maybe the 'door-locking' principle is not so bad after all. The doc. loses almost all credibility at the point when the cartoon "A Short History of America" starts. After that, it's Moore versus the world (or America) and no one is sure why or towards what purpose (except that he doesn't want little kids killed, which no one wants except psychos). His 'ambushes' of Dick Clark, Charlton Heston, and K-Mart are pitiful in Moore's attempts to tug at your heartstrings to push home his point, which is simply that he doesn't want little kids killed by guns. This could have been a powerful documentary on a sensitive and serious subject. "Bowling for Columbine" is not it.
Rating: 
Summary: starts off good, then...
Review: the first part of the documentary is fairly good and entertaining, with moore only interjecting with humorous barbs every now and then. about halfway through the movie though, the bottom falls completely out of the film. moore evidently was not sure what the overall direction of the documentary was going to be, and so he vainly attempts to evaluate and judge elements in american society regarding violence and the roots of violence. moore himself becomes a large part of the documentary from the middle on; unfortunately, the film ultimately resorts to being a poorly made propaganda piece, and nothing more. i personally am not a member of the nra, do not own any guns, and vehemently believe in non-violence as a way of life. but i do recognize that the documentary is almost criminal in some ways, by the twisted logic that is so very prevalent in the documentary. moore is setting up the viewer for ambush, and trying to encourage a change in the american way of life but this film is definitely not the vehicle to make that happen. some examples of error/bad taste= 1.there are errors in the reporting of statistics in the movie that do not fairly represent gun violence around the world. 2. the american media is definitely focused on reporting 'doom and gloom' to get ratings but it is naive to suggest that the media is some sort of quasi-racist organization out to discredit american black males. i have lived in large american cities all my life, and if a white female shoots someone it receives the same amount of media attention, if not more. 3. moore should be ashamed of himself for the section of the movie where he trots out two students shot in the columbine massacre; after bringing them to k-mart hq (with a media posse),k-mart agreed to stop the sale of handgun ammo. of course, the problem with the columbine situation was the troubled killers, not the availability of ammo as there will always be a place to get ammo (legal or otherwise). 4. the final scene where moore throws potshots at charlton heston, nra pres., is frankly embarrassing (for heston too, for a unforgettable gaffe). moore ends the 'documentary' by placing a picture of a dead girl at the entrance to heston's home. how very clever, i'm sure all the soccer moms cried over it. nevertheless, there are bright spots to the film, like the serious interviews with marilyn manson, matt stone (south park creator), et al. there are some humorous interviews as well (kind of inappropriate when the mood of the film later turns to be 'moore's odyssey'): terry nichols' brother (ok city bomb), michigan militiamen, et al. this film receives two stars (generous), but i still recommend everyone to see it (though it is not one to buy). just have an open mind when you see it and don't get caught up in the wave moore is poorly attempting to drown you with.
Rating:
Summary: EVERY AMERICAN MUST SEE THIS MOVIE
Review: "Bowling for Columbine" questions our society and the way we run things. This movie brings up wonderful ideas and asks perfect questions about America. Not many Americans really knows what our government does, "Bowling for Columbine" addresses some of these issues. To be a true American, you must see this movie
Rating:
Summary: Think for yourself
Review: Many other people have given a low down on the film already so I'm gonna get right to the point;It seems to me that there are a few people out there that don't like the film, or the message, or simply the way Michael Moore presents it all. The only thing I have to say to that; good for you. Now I don't say that because I disliked the film, because I liked it, but because if there's one thing this film does well, is that it makes you think. So like it or dislike it. However if you dislike it for reasons of Party affiliation, then I reccomend that you see the movie again, and read about the events you see from multiple sources and make an informed, independent decison. Don't just say you know about it because you heard it in passing when the events happened, read about it.
Rating:
Summary: Criticizing Entitlement to Fear, Violence, and Murder
Review: Criticizing Entitlement to Fear, Violence, and Murder Michael Moore's caustic, and critically important documentary, "Bowling For Columbine" will outrage anyone with extremist attitudes about the United States and gun ownership, but will probably resonate with anyone who wants to know why so many Americans kill each other. While Moore is often labeled a leftist, this film is more practical than it is radical. Compelled to understand how and why incidents like the Columbine shootings took place, Moore examines America's longstanding preoccupation with crime, violence, and gun ownership, and he comes to some pretty surprising conclusions. Moore debunks many prevailing myths about the relationship between gun ownership and violence in America. Gun enthusiasts will be pleased to learn, according to Moore, that it is not easy access to firearms alone that results in so many gun deaths in America. After all, guns of all types are readily available in Canada where the murder rate per capita is far lower than the United States. In terms of America's violent history, Moore points out that nations with an arguably more violent history, including Germany, Japan, and Britain also have a far lower murder rate per capita than the United States. If you believe that the answer must be all of those violent movies and video games, then think again. Moore demonstrates that most developing nations, share America's enthusiasm for violent films and video games, but have a much smaller murder rate per capita. More even examines the assertion of several of his interviewees that it is minorities, particularly black people, who cause so much violent crime. Walking down the streets of Canadian cities, Moore demonstrates that they are as multiethnic as any major American city but hardly as violent. So why does America have a much higher rate of gun related murder and violence than the rest of the developed world? The answer, according to Moore, is fear. With the help of a hilarious but completely accurate cartoon, Moore demonstrates that from the moment of the Pilgrims' arrival, America was practically founded on fear. Unsurprisingly Moore also demonstrates how successfully the media--particularly televised news--and politicians profit from whipping up fear. As if this were not enough, Moore exposes some of the more outlandish things that popular culture and advertising instruct us to be afraid of such as escalators, prescription drugs, and African "killer" bees (the European ones are supposed to be OK). One can't help but remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous declaration that Americans had nothing to fear but fear itself. Although "Bowling for Columbine" is riddled with humor, Moore never resorts to insulting his subjects, even if they seem bizarre. When interviewing members of the Michigan Militia, for example, he treats them with seriousness and respect. Similarly, when interviewing a security consultant in Littleton Colorado, Moore accords him dignity and respect when the detached and objective individual suddenly becomes emotional about the Columbine shootings. Even the supposedly scandalous parts of this film such as Moore's interviews with Kmart management, Dick Clark, and Charlton Heston involve no more than his simply showing them the end results of their beliefs and actions. It is fascinating to see this documentary in a theatre and to observe the audience's reaction. A friend saw this film in a mall theater with a mostly teenaged audience whom he was sure did not connect with it at all, yet when the film ended the Audience burst into applause. When I saw this film in an upper middle class theater, the older, more affluent audience simply sat stunned long after the last credit had passed. It seemed that having been exposed to a simple but well concealed truth they were now eager for some type of resolution, which, of course, the film could not deliver.
Rating:
Summary: Are we really free?
Review: The genius of Michael Moore is not that he makes you laugh (even Adam Sandler can do that!), but that he makes you think after you laugh. Certainly this is not a guffaw-fest, anyone familiar with Moore's work can tell you that his work is fueled by outrage as much as it is by humor. But despite its unfortunate marketing as a "hilarious" film, this is an important movie to see. In fact I would say that everyone in high school and college (and all of you who are beyond that too) should go see this movie. Forget learning about the seperation of powers, this movie should be required viewing for every single class on civics, political science, anthropology and sociology. There's a certain naivete to the views of those who argue that Moore shouldn't have "ambushed" K-Mart, Charleton Heston or Dick Clark and that he overplayed the role of racism in US society. First of all, Moore tried unsucessfully for two whole years to get a sit-down interview with Heston. The tactic of turning up at his house (using a Hollywood Map of the Homes of the Stars) was a desperate last-minute tactic. Anyone who has tried to get a straight answer from a powerful corporation or individual with publicists, assistants and "communications directors" will know that you will only get a straight answer when it suits THEM and never when it only suits you. Sound paranoid? Just try calling your local HMO. With regard to the racism. Maybe Moore was being a bit glib (ditto his laundry list of US foreign policy disasters -all of which are extensively documented by the way by non-partisan groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and by reputable right and left-wing academics -and I don't just mean Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky although I have no quarrel with them-, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Le Monde, and even the Frankfurter Allgemeine). But the essence of his argument is sound. Racial hierarchy in this country was and is structured by fear. Before the Civil Rights movement, this fear and intimidation was aimed by groups of white people at black people (e.g. the Klan). After the 1950s, this fear was increasingly fostered (often unconsciously or semi-consiously) among white people. The South Park style cartoons were a bit heavy handed but they were probably a better creative choice than some boring academic sitting in an office, and you would NEVER have gotten people to say stuff on camera because they know its not cool to go there. But they say it, you all know (if you're Euro-american) because you've heard them say it around you, if not directly to you. Likewise fear keeps people (both black and white) from interacting with one another as equals. It may not be "fear for my life" type fear but there is a sense of social distance which is the legacy of this fear that ultimately paralyzes the undoubted goodwill that most people have towards one another as individuals, and more often than not renders meaningful human contact between the races contingent, superficial and fragile. I remember walking around St. Louis and noticing all the well-to-do blocks of houses with security fences, guard posts, 24-hour armed response signs, burglar alarms, one-way street signs and concrete barriers placed at the intersections of their streets with those of the adjacent lower-income (working and poor folks) neighborhoods (oh yeah, the poorer folks were mostly black too) to stop people even driving into their streets from the "wrong" side of town. Talk about Fortress America. And these people are free and happy and open-minded? I really don't know. Moore points out that fear (along with the demands of the "New Economy" on poor people) is one of the biggest contributors to social problems (including gun violence) in the United States. A lot of people are taking this idea seriously now (it's not just Moore's own personal bandwagon). Maybe you don't feel like you fear others, but how about this: Do you trust them? If you don't, I would argue that some of that is based in fear -of something whether its the power of a boss to fire you or the idea that you might not be able to feed your kids if "something" happens to you. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be careful but the difference between caution and suspicion is much subtler than you think. One of the best things in the movie was a comment by a Canadian who said something like, "When we see Americans locking their doors and putting bars on their windows, we don't see them as protecting themselves, we see them as having imprisoned themselves in their own homes." Think about it for a second, are you really free? Go see the movie and tell me what you think.
Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: As an anti-gun activist, I looked forward with anticipation to Bowiling for Columbine. However, fifteen minutes into it, I wanted to run for the door. I suppose I had forgotten Moore's other messes of movies and books in the process, but my suspension of disbelief came to a crashing halt the moment Moore began his "Wonderful World" Ode. Moore simply cannot reach out to the other side, and instead contents himself by relying on propoganda (sp?) and dogma to boost his Hitler-esque visual rants---thats right, i compared his style to Hitler. He edits with all the moral fiber of a tabloid journalist, and he hammers his one-track message millions of times into your heads--subtlety is a key in arguments. What makes me concerned is Moore's hostile attitude. He paints opponents as neanderthals and bloodthirsty, self-interested, cold-hearted hypcrites. Yet what Moore doesn't seem to realize is that this only adds to their cause. Despite Moore's isolated worldview, the right has by and large been forgiven of its hard-line stance. What scares people, and why I get so many doors slammed in my face and funding dropped to anti-gun programs, is that the left has become, in their eyes, a group of radicals who don't listen to anyone but their mantra, ignoring the human cost over ideals. Moderate leftists are seen as Clinton-ites, merely twisting in the wind. Had Moore used his movie to showcase those on the fence in the argument, or gone for more healthy criticisms of the gun-movement (financial backing by the companies, safeties, etc.), he could affect far more change. This movie, far from encouraging me in my cause, discouraged me, and made me question whether I was actually right in my convictions--and I'm on Moore's side, to an extent. In the end, the movie is a failure. It will rpobably be shown in underground meetings for Communist student groups and radical environmentalists in Berkeley--and then ignored, as all propoganda is in the end.
Rating:
Summary: The question of Bias
Review: Well, I will spare you daft Americans a discussion of Les Cahiers de Cinema, but the question of Bias does not apply to documentaries the way it does in new reporting (which is inherently biased anyways, thank you, Ted Turner.) Bias is created by the frame of the camera simply excluding some of the scene. This is oft cited as a reason why Michael Moore's film fails. The people who use this as a reason are simply uneducated, or perhaps ignorant of film language. Documentary begins, is fulfilled, and ends with bias. Otherwise, there is no story. Does the Decline of Western Civilization have no bias?The fact that Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is the most prescient, well executed, and downright dangerous to Bush and his oil-huffing cronies cannot be denied. He says what no one else has the nerve to say. America needs some serious cleaning up. Don't be fooled by Bush, simply because his reading comprehension and language is as bad as yours... get out there and think!
|
