Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: A wonderful documentary exposing the terrible state of gun control/misuse in the united states. Moore doesn't have all the answers, but he definitely makes you sit up and take notice.

Rating:
Summary: I think I've got him figured out
Review: I thought about this rather fictional film and wondered why someone who was seemingly intelligent would make a such a travesty:

Michael Moore obviously knew about Hollywood's liberal bent. By catering to it, he assured himself a place at the Oscars, wide distribution of his film, plus as much financing as his devious little heart desired. In other words, it was about the money, not the truth.

If he had stopped at his two previous films, namely "Roger and Me" and "The Big One", he would barely be above the economic level of a Flint machinist.

He was also bright enough to cater to the whims of the Disney corporation by going on a country wide campaign against anti-sodomy laws. He has friends (and money) at Disney forever now. You betcha.

And once again, proving that he knows what side his bread is buttered on, he has become a spokesperson for General Wesley Clarke, Hollywood's pick for Prez. A "Peacenik" voting for a general - Imagine that!

I thought it rather ballsy of him to actually come out at the Oscars and rail against the war in Iraq. Funny - how the Hollywood elite are all for gun control, except when it comes to shooting up Arab countries. Consequently, Moore got loudly booed, but I have to hand it to him, he had guts to do that - but you know, he only did it after Oscar was firmly in hand, all bills had been paid and his check was in the mail.

Also, to show the depth of understanding of gun issues by Moore, I present the following quotes:

From the movie:

Michael Moore: "Why not use Gandhi's way? He didn't have guns, and he beat the British Empire."

Not from the movie:

''Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.''

' Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

Also not from the movie:

''The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.''

-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

As for the movie itself, not since I first saw Tiny Tim sing "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" have I been so utterly fascinated and repulsed at the same time.

Rating:
Summary: Michael Moore Sold Out
Review: I used to have respect for Michael Moore before he sold his soul by endorsing a pseudo-republican military man for president. How can someone who proclaims such loyalty to progressive causes throw his support behind a former general who was the commander of the very war Michael Moore criticized as being a "slaughter". He rightfully and harshly condemned the unilateral aggression of this country in Kosovo, but then praises and endorses the man who prosecuted it. Not only is this hypocritical, but it clearly shows that money and fame have gone to his head. He is now more concerned with supporting the Establishment candidates and could care less about whether that person has any true beliefs and convictions about core progressive causes.

He is all talk. He backs up his talk by endorsing a candidate who admits he voted for republicans ranging from Nixon to Reagan to Bush Sr. WTF?? Unless he can back up what he says with endorsements of people who are not in direct contradiction with what he claims are his core beliefs, then I have to conclude he is just milking us all for our money and patronage of his books and films at this point.

I will not buy any more of Michael Moore's works unless I am convinced he is not a fake. If he was truly anti-war, he would not endorse a general who many consider to be a war criminal when there are so many other TRUE anti-war candidates who can win! He is obviously trying to cash-in with US (the little people who buy his work) and climb the social ladder wtih THEM (the Establishment Elite who handpicks generals to run for president). Imagine if Flush Limbaugh had endorsed Arlen Specter for President in 1996! That is the equivalent, and I am sure his fans would have left him too!

MICHAEL MOORE SOLD US OUT!

Rating:
Summary: This Movie Is Not About Guns!
Review: Contrary to the average description of the movie, BFC is more about fear than guns. Guns are used as the vehicle to ask the question: why are we so afraid? Michael Moore brings up the interesting point; Americans seem to be a nation full of fear. This can't be argued, especially after our reaction to 911. Why does Canada have more guns per capita than America, but far fewer murders? Why do they feel safe enough to keep there doors unlocked in a big multi-cultural city like Toronto? These are just a few of the questions asked in this excellent look at our culture, and what makes us who we are. I'd ask anyone who watches this movie to do so with an open mind... Republicans who can't see past their anti-liberal rhetoric need not apply.

Rating:
Summary: People please
Review: I have never read so many idiotic reviews in my life. One star reviewers rarely eclipse 8th grade English skills while five star reviewers seemingly cannot think for themselves. Ignorance ='s Bush people. Watch the movie, it is interesting if nothing else.

Rating:
Summary: Good points, too much simplicity
Review: Moore brings up some good points and brings to the surface somethings we may forget, for example, the insanely high rate of homicides in the United States when compared to other nations and the like. But a lot of the information that Moore presents is extremely simplified and not completely accurate. This is frurstrating especially when you reach the end of the movie and realize that there is no real point other than to point out that the United States has a lot of violence, but no questions are answered, only more questions made, and some of these are extremely pointless and should not even have time devoted to them.

Rating:
Summary: Moore's Mind as Flabby as his Body
Review: Mr. Moore's mind is as flabbily-exercised as his body. His findings force him into admitting that though the Canadians have plenty of guns, they don't shoot people like Americans do.
Therefore it's not the guns, right? It must be something else, maybe even, dare I say it?--evil PEOPLE doing the shootings, not inanimate objects.
But in the face of this admission he couldn't avoid, Moore keeps his blinders on and steadfastly urges for Americans to keep blaming their guns for crimes, not themselves. Moore's prejudices win out over his logical thought. Which is what hardcore PC Fascistic liberals tend to be like anyway.
Whatever you think about Charleton Heston, Moore was appallingly rude to him. Thus Moore shows himself to be a touchy-feely fascistic barbarian in his personal demeanor towards others. Sure, he sugar-coats his hatred for certain people, but the hatred is there. Boy is it ever. That's why intolerant people like Moore are called "PC Fascists" by thinking people--the new fascism in America is coming from the left as well as the right, it seems.
Moore's use of statistics is arbitrary and he never gives his sources sufficiently either. This is pure intolerant politically-correct Fascist propaganda.

Rating:
Summary: Strip away the politics for a second
Review: Let's forget for a brief moment that Michael Moore is now the darling of the left and the poster-child for all that's wrong it on the right. Even if you love Michael Moore or hate him (love is too strong a word for me but I like him well enough), the way to seriously evaluate his work is to look at in the context of how he presents it and make your own judgements. One of the flaws I find with Moore, not just in Bowling for Columbine but in his other films as well, is that he does have a tendency to go too far. Part of it is probably passion for his subject matter, part of it is probably shock value.

With regard to BFC, I would say that Moore does an excellent job of drawing attention to the gun culture in America and draws a number of eerie tangential conclusions from that core. Does all of it work? No. Does he make some good points? Yes. Should some of it be taken with a grain of salt? Of course, but if you don't find yourself giving some serious thought to your own positions on some of these issues, then you are too far gone in your own ideology to ever come back to earth.

There have been numerous arguments over the facts, such as they are, presented in the film. If you go to Moore's web site, he cites sources for all of the information in the film. If you don't like him, then don't bother because it won't mean a thing. However, for the curious, it can provide some info that may help how you react to the film overall.

I will admit that the film had me completely hooked, particularly with its analysis that America is not a violent country but a fearful one, but I'm deducting a star because I do think that in the end, he sandbagged Charlton Heston. Moore's reasoning and passion over the events that moved him to seek out Heston are very powerful, but knowing what we now know about Heston's Alzheimer's (some of which is very evident in the film), you can't help but feel sorry for the guy regardless of how you may have felt about him previously. This isn't to say that Heston is at the mercy of the disease during the interview, but since there is now no way to ever be completely sure it comes across as in poor taste. It does make one wish that Heston was not ill and could actually debate Moore with his full capacities - THAT would probably have made for one hell of a scene.

Keep an open mind!

Rating:
Summary: A very sad documentary about violence in America
Review: It saddens to see me that there is so much violence in this country. This documentary deals with the controversial issue of gun control, so you will must likely press the "no" button under "Is this review helpful?" just because you do not agree with Moore's ideas of taking control of guns in America. Of course this documentary is biased because Moore is from the point of view that screams for guns to be harder to access. If you don't agree with Mike, you will hate this movie and hate me for writing this review, but I can't make everyone happy. In fact, NO ONE can make EVERYONE happy.

Parts of this film made me choke up because violence in America is so sad. Why did a first grader shoot his classmate? Why did the Trench Coat Mafia destroy Columbine high school? Why are there over 11,000 gun related deaths in America every year when in Germany there are less than 400, in France there are less than 300, in England there are 68, in Australia there are 65, and in Japan there are 39? No one seems to know the answer.

Rating:
Summary: Heavy-handed but still thought-provoking
Review: If "Bowling for Columbine" weren't so manipulative and one-sided, it would be far more brilliant and more effective. It definitely should not be counted as a documentary, as there is not even an attempt at impartiality. That alone, however, does not prevent it from being thought-provoking and intriguing. You can (accurately) accuse Moore of taking cheap shots at easy victims, but the most frightening aspects of the movie are the things that the various interviewees say in all earnestness and volition, without being provoked or tricked into it. Much has been made of Moore's heavy-handed approach and the fudging of facts (this latter element I can't judge on, but it seems no greater or less than our daily misinformation in other news sources), but he does seem right in one thing: the all-American way to handle a threat--from the American Indian to the Russians to Islam to street mugs--has always been, more or less, "lemme just get a bigger gun".