Rating: 
Summary: bowling for truth?
Review: please see bowlingfortruth.com it will straitin you out on this issue. the movie is a fake. lies all the way. its actually funny how he lies and spins the facts.i am a fan of dockumentarys and there are plenty of facts to support his views so why is it he has to lie? any way just check it out.www.bowlingfortruth.comthanks a lotenjoy your day.PhiPPs
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Tread On My Rights To Own Guns
Review: While I do agree that this movie is neutral, there are some in our Great Republic that take it to extremes on one side of the aisle or the other. I, like Moore, was brought up around guns and have my share of experience with them. Of course, I've never killed anyone with a gun, and hope I never have to. On another note, a gun, whether in a storage case, or lying on the night table by the bed IS NOT going to just GO OFF and kill somebody by and of itself...it requires human interaction. In the case of a kid getting ahold of Daddy's .357 Magnum and blowing his playmate's guts out, DADDY should be held responsible for not securing that firearm, NOT the manufacturer who made the thing. It's how the end user uses it, that determines what happens. I think that we're a equally divided country on this, as well as other issues. But guns are indeed the last check against foreign invasion, tyranny in government, and, lest we forget, the crazed psycho breaking into your house in the middle of the night. Let's face it, the cops CANNOT get there in time to prevent a crime, they do the best they can to prevent crime in general, but they can't be everywhere at once. Otherwise we WOULD be in a police state, and therefore no longer a free country...is that what we really want ? Thanks Michael for putting a neutral, but whimsical perspective on what is definitely a hot issue. And only outlaws will have those "evil" guns when guns are outlawed. I'll take two Smith's and a couple Remingtons, please !
Rating: 
Summary: I am not political
Review: I don't know anything about politics, but still I found this movie to be one of the most informative movies I've ever seen. Some of the points in the movie are one-sided and he sets up the people to give the answers that suit his cause. However, aside from that, some very strong theories are presented. Some that are new to me and some that are not. I couldn't tell you if I was liberal or conservative. I can tell you that I like this movie and learned much from it. Just try to ignore Mike Moore when he appears and acts like a dingle.
Rating: 
Summary: The two stars is for the DVD , not the movie itself
Review: The movie itself deserves a higher star rating. It is the DVD that scores low points, particularly for the dreadful commentary provided by the interns and receptionists. I am sure that Moore intended for this to be a populist idea, but it is simply a voice over by a bunch of 20-somethings (if they aren't 20-something, they certainly sound it, if not much younger), being silly, trying to impress each other with witty remarks that are basically stupid and painfully superficial. It is, for the most part, a rant of a bunch of kids making fun of everyone in the movie whose ideas don't agree with theirs. I found this to be extremely insulting to the actual gravity of the film. In watching the movie, I thought it was to Moore's credit when he interviewed people whose agenda he didn't agree with while (usually) offered them respect in return, not rolling his eyes behind their back. The 'everyman' stance he takes can be effective when he's talking one on one with hucksters with guns; but when the crew ridicules them for the entire commentary section (the full run of the movie) it completely undermines the serious message of the movie, and reduces it to what sounds like a bunch of stoners goofing in front of a TV. The problem with that is that one wonders what Moore's agenda REALLY is. I would hate to think it is as self-serving as his detractors claim he is, purely out for profit and for ego-boosting. The other clips included in the DVD are also for the most part incredibly self-indulgent (the looooong section where he tells, second by second, what it was like to win the Oscar). The movie, however, is very good; but it must be noted that for all the chilling information and horrible facts about the right that he presents (probably true), there's a good deal of propogandizing on his own part (note the subliminal mushy music during the sections where he makes HIS points). He's also a bit TOO anti-American (as are his dippy interns and receptionists), who make fun of things by saying "oh , that's SO AMERICAN!" It's an insult, and to say something is "SO AMERICAN" is a terribly ignorant comment. NYC and the deep south are both American, but as different from each other as France is from Greenland. Moore may be more ignorant on the realities of the rest of the world in terms of their bloody pasts. America's past, in reality, is not nearly as bloody. And the fear factor he overstates has been in place globally for centuries. Besides all this , however, Bottom line: Gun control is serious business, and we have serious problems with it, and with the disastrous realities of poverty and violence. If the film brings us any closer to solving those problems , then that's all that matters. The question is, of course, will it?
Rating:
Summary: The documentary you should see
Review: Usually when a docu wins at the Oscars, we all go, "Oh, that's nice". In fact, the only reason I've ever gotten excited about the "Best Documentary" category was because my husband's step-Aunt was nominated (and won) in 1998. Otherwise, documentaries are films we know are important to see, but are forgotten in the trail of ficticious movies. Enter "Bowling for Columbine", the Academy Award winner in 2003. If you aren't familiar with Michael Moore, you've probably heard about his breakthrough documentary "Roger & Me". This docu is just as thought provoking and revealing. Many people tout it as a film against gun control. But it is so much more than that. Armed with irrefutable logic, Moore interviews parents of slain Columbine students, Marilyn Manson (who served as a nice little scapegoat), students from Columbine HS, and local stores (like Wal-Mart) that sell guns and ammo. Along with 2 students that have bullets permanently logded in their bodies, he takes them to the K-Mart headquarters to try and "return the bullets". He also tackles the many roots of the problems, one of which is the frenzy the media supplies in abundance to keep the public in fear. Statistics don't lie- most countries have less than 200 people die each year from guns- we have over 11,000. That's no coincidence. From chasing Dick Clark down his driveway in a Minivan to interviewing NRA president Chartlon Heston, Moore is relentless in getting the public to be aware. DVD extras are a-plenty here- from Marilyn Manson's video "Fight Song" (the one that stirred up the Columbine blame game)to the interactive teacher's guide (a guide that can also be downloaded at Moore's website that gives teacher's tips for showing this film and initiating discussions), you'll get more than your moneys worth. Wonderful, insightful docu. Whether it angers you or voices your opinions, "Bowling for Columbine" will make you look twice at the real state of our nation- and that makes it all worth while.
Rating:
Summary: Why more violence in the US?
Review: Moore tries to provide answers to the question- what makes the U.S such a violent country? Before I go any further, just want to mention something to those who criticize Moore for not mentioning countries in Africa, South America, or Russia and the old Soviet bloc. We have to compare apples to apples here people. Compared to democratic, industrialized, developed -nations, the US ranks #1 in murder PER CAPITA. (though Moore doesn't mention per capita, only raw #'s). That being said, Moore points out that all the common scapegoats for violence (poverty, movies, video games, single mothers, gun ownership etc) exist in other democratic industrialized nations. So what is it? What makes the US so different? Moore points out the politics of fear. Media coverage concentrates on the negative. "If it bleeds, it leads" as the old saying goes. And our politicians in their demagoguery love to stoke our fears of crime. This does not happen as much in other countries. Therefore everyone has an inflated fear of crime. But that doesn't explain WHY crime rates are higher here (specifically, murder). Moore hints at it, but doesn't lay it flat out. So what is other major difference between the US and other modern countries????.............Give up? We are a world superpower (the first TRUE one as well). As a superpower, we use violence (war) or threat of violence and sanctions to secure our interests. I feel this message is subliminally planted into all of our heads, that violence is justified to get what you want, and the US has followed this model since the late 1940's. It ok to bomb other countries when we don't like the leaders that have been elected, or if they don't play ball with multi-national corporations. This mode of thought is so embedded into us, we don't even think twice. And god forbid someone points out the wrong in all of this. So we apply the same standards to our fellow US citizens and we would apply the citizens of the world. "We don't like what you're doing, so I am going to hurt/kill you". I may be way off base here, but it is the only difference I can think of that can cause such a difference in the levels of violence between the US and other countries. Moore also points out it all began with puritans being persecuted and afraid of the British government. But that kind of social turmoil has existed in other countries. Look at the reign of terror in France and the ensuing French revolution. The wacky French seem to have gotten over it. What about the Spanish inquisition? Wouldn't Spanish be permanently afraid as well? So Moore's argument that the colonists' fear of the British falls short. In the end, I think one must fall back on our actions on the world stage. As long as we condone the use of violence in our foreign policy, we will always have extraordinary levels of violence in our own streets.
Rating:
Summary: A sorry excuse for an American
Review: I'm absolutely disgusted by this man and after watching this DVD I must say that he is absolutely obnoxious. He complains about everything while bolstering his wallet and waistline with the money he is making from creating this trash. Save your money buy something good.
Rating:
Summary: One Star and rightfully so.
Review: The reasoning for this is simple. If you take what Mr. Moore states at face value it can be extremely damaging to your psyche. The fact that he compares the death by guns in England with the US as raw numbers (not per-capita), and goes on to compare the same number with France, Germany and Canada is outrageous. Where is Russia in all this? And Argentina, and for that matter most of South American figures? Are these not worthy of note? What about Africa (which Mr. Moore only sees fit to mention in slavery, I'll get to that in a second). Besides the fact that Mr. Moore picks and chooses what he shows, and leaves out all that which contradicts him, is utterly obvious to anyone with a higher than grade school education. The more I thought about what I had seen the less I could believe I had fallen for his propaganda (I fail to find any other reasonable name for this drivel). The thing I detested the most was the portrayal of Africans, being taken from Africa, as hapless idiots. His depiction of all Puritans and their offspring as scared to death individuals who are waiting for the "black man" to attack them boggles my mind. Despite this there is one area in which no one could hope to defend this contrite rubbish, which Mr. Moore seems to spew forth. If you watch closely (right after he shows all Americans as desperately scared individuals), he states that the reason for us buying new Fighter Jets is due to Lockheed martin playing on American fears. At this point I almost turned off this propaganda. I am in the Air Force, and his understanding of this particular situation is so far below par it's embarrassing. If there is anything I can relay to individuals who watch this, it is simply this. Do not watch this movie with a closed mind. Think for yourselves, and you will see the misleading, deceit, and over simplification of issues which Mr. Moore Portrays. In all I have but one thing to say.
Shame on you Mr. Moore, you have sold out your values and have lost a once firm supporter.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, but contradictory
Review: The movie was entertaining, and I enjoyed Moore's style and humor. Unfortunately, his argument is, I believe, flawed. The movie begins and ends with accounts of two school shootings (one in Colorado and one in Michigan). Moore uses these incidents to raise questions about (and provide possible answers to)the United State's staggering amount of gun violence. However, the middle portion of the movie contains an examination of the way in which the media constucts an overarching sense of fear by focusing on and overplaying tales of homicides and other violent crime. Taken together, these two points seem to cancel each other out: If the gun violence is bad enough to make a movie concerning its causes, then why critcize the media? It would appear that they are doing everyone a service in reporting a very real and growing problem. However, if the criticism of the media is justified, and the fear it engenders is a myth, then how are we to interpret Moore's accounts of school violence? It would appear that he, in his presentation (the images of the shooters in the school, the 911 tape) and narration, is doing exaclty what the media is criticized for doing. The movie becomes more confusing with the presence of Barry Glassner, who wrote The Culture of Fear. In the book, Glassner criticizes the media for focusing on anecdotal accounts of violence that play on our fears, and ignoring general trends (such as the fact that youth violence has been decreasing). But anecdotal accounts are precisely what Moore uses to start and end his film. The movie was entertaining, and I would recommend that others watch it. In the end, I did not find his arguments very persuasive.
Rating:
Summary: Even-handed portrayal of American Society
Review: This film is full of interesting interviews, no matter how you feel about Michael Moore. The truth is sometimes unpleasant, but Moore does not shy away from it. He really does a good job of displaying American's schizo attitude towards guns and violence in society. My jaw hit the floor when Moore focused his attention toward Marilyn Manson; resulting in some of the most articulate and insightful statements about contemporary society from a person that I have heard in a long time. No kidding. This is a very important and entertaining film.
|
