Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Too sanctimonious and self-contradictory
Review: Michael Moore's documentary on the violence in America, "Bowling in Columbine" has some good points. It has positives and negatives. While it gives some facts they are not complete. Firstly, for all the problems in America, its violence and gun culture, he does not break it down into states and find out why it is more in some states and not more in the other. Every country has its share of problems, while Canada might be safe in some things, it has more economy problems and scientific creativity is not as much there as it is out here.

If Michael Moore feels so strongly about it, he must try to change the minds of the people. But he cannot do that. The reason, he does not have the moral high ground for it. The people who appreciate the movie will already not have guns. The people who believe in guns will not be swayed by him. In Bowling for Columbine, the audience is led to believe that the two teenage killers at Columbine high school may have been inured to violence by the proximity of a local weapons factory. Yet it later emerged that the factory produced nothing more lethal than rockets to launch TV satellites. The film critic Richard Schickel labelled Moore 'the very definition of the unreliable narrator'. In Bowling for Columbine, he posits the theory that America's gun violence problem stems from a culture of fear created by a racist media. The film critic Richard Schickel labelled Moore 'the very definition of the unreliable narrator'.

Also, I did not like the way he went to get the interview with Charlton Heston. While I am not an NRA member or a person believing in guns as a solution for this, I do not think that he understands enough. He uses a simplistic solution for everything. He must straightout say what he wants and try to get what he wants. After all, despite what Heston stands for, he is atleast honest about his opinions. While Moore talks about Gandhi and so on, to get Heston to talk to him, he uses a different guise which is not altogether appropriate. So, he is using the same media tricks that he complains about when it suits his ends.

Next comes the paranoia about security. He talks about how much Americans are paranoid about it, well here is the hypocrisy, he is one of the most paranoid of them all. But during the same series of dates in London, he complained about the lack of security so vehemently that the Roundhouse staff threatened to boycott the show. One reporter of the Guardian newspaper got a taste of the air of paranoia surrounding Moore when, because he was without a suitable pass, a friendly PR snuck him into the main press conference alongside his entourage. Suddenly, one of Moore's assistants turned to him and demanded to know who he was. The PR explained that he was with her. This was in London, which Moore shows as safe, surely if Moore has no problem with England he should not be so paranoid. Thus even documentaries can be "fictitious" to an extent. I am not sure how much I can believe such a person. Whenever he is questioned, he points out about facts that neither be proven nor be disproven. I am not sure that this is the spirit of true documentaries.

Rating:
Summary: Every American Should See This Film
Review: I know that a lot of NRA members,hunters,and gun enthusiasts refuse to watch this film because they think that it is going to be a 2 hour NRA bashing, but the movie is nothing like that. Sure, it touches on the gun issue but it also covers the many other problems that America has. I found this documentary to be very informative as well as entertaining, and I hope to see more good stuff like this from Michael Moore in the future.

Rating:
Summary: Lost in the clutter is a little nugget...
Review: Much of the information presented here was not new to me. The strength of the film is the way in which Michael Moore puts it together. What I took away from the film is the difference between news in the U.S. and other countries, namely, that in the U.S., the focus is exhaustively on violent crime, disasters (both natural and human-caused), and other topics (snakes loose in your neighborhood!) that are designed(?) to make viewers afraid.

Rating:
Summary: Wake up call
Review: Thus spake St. Michael -
* Manufacture, distribute and glorify the means of violence, and VIOLENCE is what you will get.
* Make firearms easily available, and people WILL avail of them.
* The media choosing to report only violent acts makes for a more violent society in a symbiotic sort of way.
* This nouveau-culture has a recent history of imperialism, racial suppression and genocide. These vibrations are everywhere hovering below the surface - in the Wild West's tales of "heroism", to the idol worship of serial killers, to the recent attempts at "liberating" Iraq.

Most people who own and use firearms evoke one of more of these reasons , as seen in the film - (#) That it is a birth-right in a hunter-gatherer sense of the word (#) That one needs firearms for self-protection when the nation's policing agencies have failed to deliver (#) For hunting - invoking an atavistic hunter-gatherer era, since clearly one does not need to hunt in the modern age.

Gun control in the US is insufficient, and the cultural climate is far too permissive. That, and Charlton Heston is not cool. Just watch the interview and squirm at his pre-Cambrian views.

Moore effectively marshals several facts and lines of thought towards this ineluctable conclusion - Violence and the Tools Of Violence is an industry, and people somewhere are profiting from it by playing on the fear ever present in society.

The way I look at the Daily News has changed forever after watching this documentary. The violence-bias is obvious, and totally unnecessary.

Michael Moore's comparisons of US figures of reported violence with reported violent acts per annum in other White Industralised Countries is very revealing.

Definitely worth a look and then, a lot of subsequent introspection.

Rating:
Summary: You Don't Want to See This Film
Review: Michael Moore would do all of us a great service and quit making dogmatic documentary films that serve his selfish self-interests. Bowling for Columbine raises a lot of questions, but answers none. The film is subversive in it's own way, as it takes bitter and unnecessary swipes at the current Administration that has nothing to do with guns or gun control.

The story line is very scattered and muddled. There is no through line and no arc in the story. Furthermore, there are no thought provoking points being made and little thought was made into the interview questions. The camera work is shoddily atrocious and the sound is equally bad. You would think Moore might have learned something from his second venture into filmmaking (Roger and Me, his first film was shot in 1989).

Furthermore, we see the obese and blubbering Michael Moore trying desperately to steal too many scenes that depict him as a, "working class Joe". After watching this amateurish, poorly made, and tasteless effort you can't help but think this film is a vehicle for Moore's bloated ego. Also, Moore must be vilified for insensitive and crudely racist overtones of his little animated piece in the film depicting the evolution of American History. You really get the feeling that Moore is trying to be his own "Leni Reisenthal" in making this horrible depiction on the American society.

One more final note: Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11 has unfortunately won the coveted and most prized (bigger than the Oscar statue) international film award, "The Palme D'Or". Somewhere, Sergei Eisenstein must be rolling over in his grave. I haven't seen the film, Fahrenheit 9/11, nor will I ever (this must be boycotted by all of us and censored). You get the immediate feeling that this film is a disgrace and an insult to the American public and any person who has served in combat.

I served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and I'm very, very proud of it. It was a just, virtuous, moral and righteous war and the people who protest it don't see that our country, if not for the efforts of our Government, might be living in a Communist society today if we never intervened. Furthermore, somebody needs to tell Michael Moore that Pat Tillman died for our freedom and President George W. Bush lives to make us free for our future. Michael Moore Move to Canada Now.

Please select and voice your vote by selecting YES, you approve of this review. Thank you.

Rating:
Summary: Not my last post
Review: The bottom line is this, you decided to post assumptions about me that are flat out false, so as far as I'm concerned, any personal "attacks" were instigated by you.

As for your most recent post, there you go again using words that I never once used in my previous posts. I never claimed you were calling me a racist, but rather a "xenophobe". If you knew anything about me at all you wouldn't dare call me anything of the sort. In fact, you wouldn't even imply it. Again, you may want to stick to the film, not the reviewers. You decided to throw both of those words out there, not me.

And if you think for a second that comparing the per-capita diversity of Canada to the U.S. is adequate for exposing the social ills of the U.S. as Moore does, that's fine, but please don't be offended if I laugh. Again, try looking at the diversity of the two nations in their entirety rather than picking and choosing statistics that further your cause. Try the CIA world fact book folks. That will provide you with all the statistics (racial, religious, economic, social, etc.) you need to get an accurate view of both nations. Again, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

No, I absolutely don't abhor calling out ethnic diversity as one of the major causes of crime in the U.S. simply because I'm not living in la-la land. Now 'ethnic' is very different from race, so don't get the two confused (race being a single part of the whole that makes up ethnicity).

Calling guns tools of freedom makes total sense. If I remember my history correctly, we won our freedom from the British with guns, not harsh language. If you want to make this comment into something else it isn't go right ahead, but guns are tools of freedom, granted they are not the only tools available (but debatably the most effective).

You imply that I have an 'agenda' . . . well what about you? Giving this movie five stars exemplifies 'agenda' (which you have done twice now), and in doing so you epitomize hypocrisy. Now, let's see if you'll actually stick to your word and not write another review.

As for me, yes, I have an agenda. If you want to know what it is go to either www.boortz.com or www.lp.org

Rating:
Summary: raw
Review: The only other film out there like this is Supersize me! They are both in a league of their own and a must for anyone who
wants to see non-Disney versions of the USA.

Bowling For Columbine is worth the money for the interview
with Charlton Heston alone. The footage with Heston is a pure, raw exposition of Heston's opinion as Leader of the NRA. There can be no mistake: Moore simply asked the questions, put a mic in front of the man and Heston did the rest.

Don't let anyone tell you that this film lies or that's it's full of untruths or that Moore twists the truth. He just puts a mic in people's faces and they tell the story. If you think the people in the film are liars, that's up to you, but listen for yourself and keep in mind who's doing most of the talking.

The volume of reviews of this film and the venom with which people attack Moore are enough to tip anyone off that Moore has brought up an issue that matters to all Americans and that is as sensitive as religion, patriotism, or racism.

Rating:
Summary: Last Response...I promise
Review: I will use only a small space and then will leave because personal attacks are inherently unproductive. Although, I do think that I must respond to the insults levelled against mine.

First, I never called you (Evan Martin) a racist. I said: "Unfortunately, this reviewer is emblematic of the culture of fear that "Bowling for Columbine" postulates is responsible for the proliferation of gun violence in the US. Finally, the reviewer goes on to blame diversity, ie Black folk and immigrants." Then YOU (Evan Martin) continue by saying: "I simply stated that we live in a diverse society while Canada is a more homogeneous society made up of mostly white people, or should I say a more ethnically unified nation."

Uhh? This is the exact point that Moore countered in his movie "Bowling for Columbine". Canada, it turns out on a per capita basis, is actually more diverse than the US.

Even if you challenge the stats in the movie, even you must admit that your comment QUOTED above is tantamount to stating that diversity (less ethinically unified?) equates to greater crime rates, or at least some form of some sort of social unrest, is somewhat abhorrent if merely morally so.

You then claim that the US and Canada cannot be compared. Actually, elementary methods of statistics allow us to compare a country of 30 million and 300 million, given the correct methods are used, their assumptions and inferential limitiations are well understood. I will not go into great detail about these methods, but if you want, you may find information online or you may purchase a book on population statistics from this great site, amazon.com (Lying with statistics is a good choice, if you are unfamiliar with the methods).

Another criticism states: "He (Moore) demonizes the tools of freedom and those who own them countless times throughout the film." Tools of freedom? Where did that come from? I thought you were to claim that gun ownership was necessary for personal protection, now you decree that guns are tools of freedom? Where did "tools of freedom" come from? I don't even know what to say, your assertion is patently irrational. "Demonizes"? Aren't guns created with one purpose in mind: to launch a projectile with sufficient velocity in order to cause trauma, be it man or beast? How do you demonize that?

Not that it matters, but I am a gun owner and I believe that there is nothing wrong with owning a gun or guns. I disagree with the NRA's 2nd amendment argument, but that's not important right now.

In conclusion, I stand behind my original assertion, that some of the reviewers are either inherently biased against the film and its filmaker or did not view the movie with an open, rational mind. Please note that I quoted the other reviewers at every stage possible in order to clarify his/her position. Hence, I have merely responded to the attacks levelled against my previous review, with the reviewers own words in order to expose them for who they truly are.

The ultimate decision, however, is up to you the reader. Listen to a couple of people who don't see eye-to-eye on the meaning of this movie or watch it and determine what you think for yourself. I encourage you to do the latter, and hopefully create your own thoughts about it, whether you agree with me or the other reviewers.

Thanks for reading.

Addendum: I would never reveal my "real" name to you or anyone else on the internet. That is not a lack of "stones", that's called being "smart".

Rating:
Summary: See the movie and decide for yourself
Review: You will notice that the majority of negative reviews for this film aren't actually about the film itself. Rather, the critisism comes from die-hard right wing advocates who despise Michael Moore, his politics, and the threat he poses to their beliefs. It appears most of them haven't even seen the film. Some reviews even explicitly state that fact!

Love or hate Moores position, you owe it to yourself to see this thought provoking film and come to your own conclusion...

THINK FOR YOURSELF!!

Rating:
Summary: Irony at its best
Review: I watched "Bowling for Columbine" in my AP Gov. Class. I did think that Moore made some good points, but there were so many half-truths, ridiculous assertions (like a link between the massacre in Columbine and the US military action in kosovo--which was in response to genocide), and slanted interviews that this cannot be taken seriously.

I realize that a documentary is created to convey a particular point of view, but this is nothing more than a collections of one-sided potshots.

First, when he goes to Walmart with two victims of Columbine and then walks up to the ammo department. Come on. What the hell are they supposed to say?

Then, he interviews lunatic militiamen, who say they need m-16s to protect their family, and the brother of Ted Khzynskey (who <surprise surprise> supports the 2nd amendment. It is at this point that he makes a good point "Should the right to bear arms include nuclear weapons?" But come on, if you want to create a legitemate discussion, how about interviewing someone who doesn't belong to a fringe group or live in a shack.

Naybe that's what he was trying to accomplish whan he interviewed Charleton Heston (an elderly man with alzheimer's). In this disgusting segment, Moore condescendingly asks Heston questions that he has not been able to answer in his own documentary. Then he drops the Columbine bomb.

Again, he has refused to debate a 2nd amendment proponent who is not an old man with alzheimer's, a crazed militiaman, or a dirty, insane mountain man.

Finally, the irony: Moore's film, which scolds the media for sensationalism, is just that: sensationalist. "AAHHHHH!", he tells us, "look at the people who own guns! Look at the people who can't answer difficult questions when i ambush them, shove a microphone in their face, and play the Columbine card. Conservatives are taking over. AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!"

This is not so much a documentary as it is a self-righteous partisan's effort to show that he is a Man of the People who isn't affraid to ruffle feathers. Yeah, we get it. I see through it. Unfortunately, many do not.