Rating: 
Summary: ignorance is death
Review: I wish I was shocked by the appaling reviews of Michael Moore's film, but I am not. The bad reviews are sent in by the exact same life time members of the NRA that Moore was trying to get through to. It's sad that the people who need to be enlightened the most are also the ones who are the least likely to become so.
I thought this film, although perhaps inacurate in some facts had a great intention and a powerful message. Every child in america should watch this film and only then will they be able to make a real decision on what they think is right with regards to gun law and the constitution.
Rating:
Summary: A documentary with a strong message
Review: I have seen it twice now, once in theatre, and once on DVD. First time I saw it I was impressed, but sceptical about the editing and selection of material. At first I felt that the film was not very good as a documentary, but good as a propaganda film. Now I also think it is good as a documentary. There are no falsehoods in the film. Rather, he has chosen his interviewees well to show what nuts are out there, waving guns. He also tries to show that the gun culture is based on a faulty premiss (crime is on the rise, and we need guns to protect us). He tries to show that the US has a no more violent past than the rest of the world, but is rather a culture based on fear.
I come from Europe, I am not allowed to buy weapons other than for hunting. I do not feel particularly unfree. If I have to protect the freedom of my country, I happily don my military uniform and do it collectively. We are actually allowed to buy automatic weapons. The requirement is that we are members of good standing of a shooting club and no criminal record. Most people seem to be able to live with that.
Rating:
Summary: im not much for politics
Review: im not aggressively opinionated, or even old enough to vote, but i loved this movie. it was devastating and humourous and ingenuis.
Rating:
Summary: A Must-See for all Americans
Review: Every American should see this film. It's the shocking horrible creepy TRUTH about the violent nature of this country. The film does not have all the answers. It explores issues and requires the viewer to actually THINK. (Sort of an unusual concept already.)
Please be aware that all of the negative reviews here are totally POLITICAL in nature. Keep in mind that the NRA is the the strongest lobby in the good old U.S. of A. They are here lobbying on Amazon.com, trying to influence you. Of course, gun-lovers are going to be threatened by this movie. Of course!
See the movie and think. Maybe we can all do something about this problem in our culture. Maybe I can do something about the gun store that is in walking distance of my home.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely worth seeing, but not a documentary
Review: The good elements of this film are many. At times, it's hilarious, it's well edited to maximize humor and shock value, and it addresses a vast number of issues important to the American landscape in the 21st century. That being said, it isn't really a documentary. Webster's defines the term 'documentary' as "presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film." The problem with this film is that it does editorialize, since Moore himself is more the star of the movie than the people and events he is documenting. I happen to agree with much of what Moore is trying to convey, his stance on gun control, the culture of fear in America, the relatively low gun murder rates in other countries. But the way it is portrayed is so one-sided, that it is almost offensive as a viewer to watch such a subjective presentation of what is really a pretty sound argument. What becomes clear by the end of the movie is that the film is less a tribute to the victims of the Columbine tragedy, and more a launching pad for Moore's political agenda. Don't get me wrong, I found the film tremendously entertaining, but also a little insincere. Also, Bowling for Columbine addresses almost too many different issues. From gun control, welfare reform, terrorism, American foreign policy, the NRA, the KKK, gang violence, Marilyn Manson and many other issues, Moore opens up so many cans of worms that one almost forgets what the film is about in the first place. Sure, each of these things are supposed to be linked to gun violence in America, but we never really find out how. For someone as opinionated as Moore, one would expect more answers and fewer questions. It's shortcomings aside, the sheer substance contained in Bowling for Columbine makes it a must see. If you can get past Moore's biased presentation, you should really enjoy this film.
Rating:
Summary: Not "liberal propaganda"
Review: I happen to be a diehard liberal. I don't find that Michael Moore is in any way biased, except against politicians. He is too busy focusing on the inherent violence of American culture to worry about taking sides. He is a genuine American hero, not afraid to speak his mind to reach his intended goal.
Otherwise, this film is funny in spots and makes me cry in others. It is so powerful that I would show it to a high school class and my redneck family regardless of the consequences. Any one telling you that this is a partisan film is dead wrong. This is a film about Moore's genuine concern for America.
Oh, and watching Heston make a fool of himself made the film worthwhile. It's not like Heston was in a position to defend himself. He's just not there anymore. It does, however, say something about the NRA.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with everything Moore says, and I have my own numerous and varying theories about violence in society. Watch it and agree or disagree. I don't care. Just quit the status quo bickering about common sense and realize that intuition is not always correct. As one of my law professors once told me, "practice humility, you may learn something"
Thanks for reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Misleading Title
Review: I thought this was a very powerful film when I first saw it. Three weeks later, I learned that the majority of the events in it were actually staged, and the film took on a whole new meaning for me. The film is called "Bowling for Columbine." In the film, Moore explains this is because the two killers were bowling the morning ebfore the shooting. This is simply not true. They had a bowling class, but they didn't show up for it, presumable because they were planning to kill a bunch of people. Moore however specifically states they were bowling. In the scene where Moore gets a free gun at a bank for opening an account, this is also staged. Moore appears to fill out a couple of short forms, and then they hand him a loaded rifle. In actuality, Moore was there for almost two hours, and had to pick up his gun at a separate location. The scene that shows him walking out of the bank with a gun was a staged scene shot two months later. Moore visits a Lockheed Martin plant, and interviews people there about the "missles" they make in their Littleton facility. What he doesn't tell you howevre, is that the scenes with huge rockets in the background is also misleading. The Lockheed Martin facility in Colorado makes no weapons of any kind. The rockets that Moore tries to pass off as nuclear missles, are used to carry weapons and telecommunications satellites into space. Although LM does make weapons, they don't do it at the facility he was at. This could have been a really good movie, if it wasn't filled with deception and mistruths. (...)
Rating:
Summary: One of the best documentaries I have seen
Review: This is a film that explores the darker side of our country, provoking discussion on just why the United States is generally so violent. This film touches on a wide base of materials, including: the columbine massacre, the NRA, gun control, fear as a commercial tool, scapegoats for violence, and many more topics. There is a lot of information circulating which accuses the film of fallacy. I beleive that Michael Moore's own statements (posted on his site) and common sense defend his work. From Michael Moore Dot Com:
"I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain."
Rating:
Summary: stop and think
Review: I find that this movie draws a big difference in opinion between the left and right. This movie was asking us to stop and look at why might America be the violent culture it is. Through out it you can see the Moore was trying to go certain directions with it, but found his assumptions to be not really what he was expecting. I don't think any where in this movie does it say you shouldn't own a gun, because guns are evil, it even says that Canada has a lot of guns. If Moore didn't put in his political opinions this movie would be a whole lot more accepting of the right. So when a conservative watches this movie and you don't agree with his political view then don't make that the may point in the movie. Moore brings up good questions and as Americans this is something we should be concerned about and want to stop, why should we not be concerned about people killing each other. One person mentioned that Moore has a lot of unfinished points, because he doesn't have the answer to why people kill each other, this isn't something that can be solved so simply and by one person. I found this movie to be very good and everyone should see it atleast once so that the question goes through our heads and maybe we can make a difference some how. To the person that talked about boycotting Farenheit 9/11, don't limit your mind. We must always look at things from both sides, so that we can understand why others feel the way they do even if we don't agree with them, understanding of each other is what the world lacks.
Rating:
Summary: Ok, just a call for people to think for themselves.
Review: I would consider myself a republican. I have seen this film. Micheal Moore is nothing more than a propagandist. He is very good at making people (IE Charlton Heston, Dick Clark) look stupid. The Heston interview was heavily edited, along with the Heston speech. Also, Moore ambushed Dick Clark. It was a calculated move to make Clark look like a cold hearted SOB. How would you react if I did that to you on your way to work???But lets not destroy his film cuz thats not why i wrote this review. I wanted to ask those of you who say that people who hate BWC are "right wing NRA whacko's who haven't seen the film" if you are democrats?? I have seen this film, I am a republican, but I am not an NRA member, though I do believe responsible, law-abiding Americans should be able to own guns. Anyway, my point is, you democrats who heap praises on this film just because it follows your set of beliefs are just as bad as those so-called "right-wing NRA whacko's who haven't seen the film." Moore doesn't do a very honest job of proving his points. He is very offensive, assaulting, and insulting to those he interacts with in this film. (...)
|
