Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Very informative
Review: Whether you like Moore's political views or not, this movie is informative. It doesn't make the case that guns are the problem, Moore is in fact a card carrying member of the NRA. He looks at the root causes of problems and seems to actually care about the human beings whose lives are lost and affected by gun violence.

I was shocked (first visit) and pleased (second visit) with the K Mart response to Moore's footage at their headquarters in the movie. It shows that people can make a difference and bring about changes even if only in small ways and after some of the damage has been done.

To gun enthusiasts, yes, you do have the right to bear arms, I don't think Moore is claiming otherwise. It would be undesirable to remove our consititutional rights, however, with rights come responsiblities. It seems wrong that to drive a car in America requires a demonstration of skill and insurance but to own a gun does not.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Propaganda
Review: Like Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, Michael Moore is an entertaining propagandist, but that's about it -- an ideologue flailing away at one of the most important issues of our time. He thoroughly fails at his mission of finding out why Americans kill each other with guns and instead descends into the leftist mantras of America's the world's great Satan (sometimes deserved), NRA bashing (also sometimes deserved) and "inanimate objects made us do it" (let's get K-Mart). He even totally loses it and tries to blame one killing on Dick Clark.

Moore uses his standard tactic of bushwhacking people with a camera and creative editing (fun but ultimately pathetic). That Chuck Heston was dumb enough to let Moore anywhere near him with a camera, blows my mind. I guess he really does have dementia.

Ironically, Heston's ill-advised musings really do touch on a HUGE factor in America's gun violence rate as compared to other countries -- one that Moore is completely unable to recognize or explore because of his own bias. I'm talking about black-on-black inner-city violence. Few people, especially an agenda-driven leftist like Moore, are willing to point out that if you remove unfortunate inner-city blacks from the murder statistics, America's gun murder rates are about the same as Europe's. It's sad, true, and thoroughly un-PC to mention it. In total denial, Moore even suggests that Canada with its much lower gun-violence rate is as ethnically diverse as we are, which is absurd (Canada is 13% non-white, 2% black).

Obviously, this does not mean that we do not have a problem, and there are a large number of social/historical factors that figure into why the urban black portion of our society is suffering as it is. However, it does make one wonder about the quality and objectivity of Moore's "investigation."

Moore hardly even mentions the inner-city crime issue, but surprisingly Heston does (indirectly). Moses obviously has thought and read quite a bit about our gun-related social woes (God, I would hope so). Unfortunately he did not have the forethought or finesse to explain it to Michael. I suspect that even if he had (maybe he did), the tape would have wound up on the cutting room floor -- smug, pseudo-Nazi, gun-lobby leaders are far more entertaining and in keeping with Moore's agenda. In short, this film is more about justifying Moore's poorly thought-out opinion than about exploring the issue.

It's also important to understand that the film's centerpiece, the horrible, graphic school shootings, have little effect on our murder rate. They create media frenzies (especially when they involve whites shooting whites) but they are a very small part of the picture. FAR more kids drown in pools (around 300) in the USA every year than are shot by their classmates at school. To his credit, Moore did quite nicely touch on the media distortion factor.

In summary, this movie is worth watching, and it's quite scary or funny on occasion. It makes some good points. Just make sure to take it with a grain of salt the size of Montana (you know, that state full of white gun nuts).

Rating:
Summary: Hit and Miss
Review: Usually I want to watch a movie twice before judging it--I couldn't bring myself to do it with "Bowling for Columbine". First off, I'm not conservative or liberal. I'm not Democrat or Republican. I voted for George W--only because I didn't see Al Gore as a better alternative (I may have been wrong)--I don't plan to vote for him this time. All those disclaimers out of the way, I had a few problems with this film.

First, as a resident of Michigan, I didn't appreciate the way Moore portrays my state as teeming with gun nuts and wackos in the first part of the movie. I've lived in the state for 25 years and the closest I've come to a gun until now is the display case in the sporting goods department. I have cousins and whatnot who are avid hunters, but so what? Owning a gun to hunt deer isn't going to lead someone to murder any more than fishing or swatting a fly. And that, I think is the flaw in the entire film.

Much of the movie is dedicated to searching out why America has so much gun violence, but it's simplistic to think there is one single cause. There are a multitude of reasons--social, economic, psychological, and so forth. Moore's conclusion that Americans are driven to gun violence because George W and the media pump us all with fear is erroroneous. Our legacy of violence dates back long before the current administration and the TV news.

One question that gave me pause is why there is so much violence here and not in Canada. Again, there are no definitive answers; we all have to draw our own conclusions. I think, however, that would we to enact all of Canada's socialist policies at this minute and tone down the evening news, it would still not solve anything.

What really repelled me was some of the cheap, sentimental exhibitions Moore uses against KMart, Dick Clark, and Charlton Heston among others. He all but accuses them of being morally responsible for the murders of the Columbine students and the little girl in Mt. Morris. While those kind of theatrics were acceptable in "Roger & Me", I thought they were misplaced here. Sure, KMart sold ammunition to the Columbine killers, but they didn't know what it would be used for. They didn't pull the triggers, so to me it was wrong to dump the acts of two desperate murderers on their shoulders.

But the one thing that really made me shake my head and laugh is the way Moore uses the same tactics as the media he demonizes. Much of this movie is an expose that we should be afraid that we're too afraid. In his mind I'm sure it's OK because it's for a good cause, but to me it's the same concept of sensationalizing events to get a reaction from the audience.

In terms of filmmaking, I thought this movie never seemed to have focus. It was always bouncing from one issue to the next--starting with the Oklahoma City bombing and Michigan Militia and ending with the confrontation with Charlton Heston, it touches on so many subjects and ideas that it's hard to keep track of it all. The "bowling" metaphor in the title sailed over my head; I never figured out what bowling had to do with anything except that the Columbine killers went bowling before committing the murders (so?).

The reason I give this 3 stars is because as much as certain parts of the movie annoy and anger me and as much as I would label this propoganda instead of a documentary, it made me think about a lot of things. While I don't think Moore does a good job tackling the issues--I believe a "hands-off" style that would present the facts and let viewers make their own judgments would have better served the purpose--he brings up some tough questions to which there are no easy answers. You should watch this movie...at least once.

Rating:
Summary: It is time
Review: First, let me say that Bowling for Columbine is one of the most engaging movies I've seen in a while. As someone who has grown up thirty minutes from Moore's hometown of Flint, I have always had an affinity with Michael Moore's work, but Bowling for Columbine strikes me as far superior to anything this director has done before.

Bowling for Columbine, though it definitely has an agenda, strikes me as being more even-handed than Moore's previous film and television work. I loved Roger & Me, but Bowling for Columbine is so much broader in its scope and reasoned in its execution.

Moore does not, as some have suggested, slam or use the "tactics of guerrilla journalism" on the people who come off looking really bad (James Nichols, Lockheed Martin, Charleton Heston) in this film. He hands them the rope of his questions and lets them hang themselves with their own words and actions.

Bowling for Columbine's simple documentation speaks more eloquently about the state of American politics than the hundreds of schills and pundits on the evening news. In Bowling for Columbine one can visibly see America's descent from freedom and liberty into a state of fear and despair.

As much as I love my home state (Michigan--which comes off very poorly in this film) and my country, Bowling for Columbine makes one thing crystal clear: it is time for a change. The politics of hope and reason must win the day against George Bush and the politics of fear and death.

I give Bowling for Columbine a FULL five stars.

Rating:
Summary: Bowling for Columbine
Review: After reviewing this DVD you would surmise that Americans are running around shooting each other like the wild west-and that is what Moore wants you to think. If you read about how Moore conducted his research and how Moore manipulated the facts and truth for his end you will find that his rendition of the truth does not add up. Just look at his comments from the awards. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion-that is what makes America great. This should definitely not be in the category of documentary-"fiction would be a better choice. It is said that many will view this and believe this is how life is in Moore?s America-thank God that is not the way it really is!

Rating:
Summary: Thank God for this Film
Review: First of all, I have absolutely no interest in politics. I don't identify with the conservatives, and have even less in common with liberals in America. That being said, I found 'Bowling for Columbine to be one of the greatest films to come out in last five years....although that is not saying much given the current culture drought in America. This film cuts through all of the other bs out there like a knife. I'm just glad a film this honest is so widely available to the American public. Moore's heart is truly in the right place, and he has taken a huge risk by making this film. Clrearly, here is someone with integrity, a dying breed in this country. Before you bash Moore and his film, ask your self why you have so much negative energy in you....and how you could attack someone who is trying to make a positive difference in our society. When was the last time you tried to make a difference?

Rating:
Summary: A must watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: First off I would like to say that every American owes it to him or her self to watch this documentary. Michael Moore dives into guns in America in his "Bolling For Columbine" documentary.
This is not a anti gun movie but a well crafted investigation and eye opener about guns in the US. Mike's doccumentary finds itself looking into many horrors about guns in America from slavery to Columbine to the KKK and the NRA.
Also examined, is The "Culture of Fear" conspiracy. It suggests that Americans are kept in a state of fear in order to control and manipulate there actions.

Rating:
Summary: trite
Review: silly,surperficial, and not worth the time or film. Dont waste your time on this one.

Rating:
Summary: not all documentaries are scientific--this one is proof
Review: When many people hear the term, "documentary," they assume that the film is absolutely factful and truthful, thanks in part to the excellent efforts of The History Channel. But, in this case, I think those people have been duped. "Bowling for Columbine" deals with an issue that is so large and complex that it cannot be successfully dealt with in a movie of any length. There are so many variables involved in gun violence that any gun-control documentary must delete, generalize or distort the information beyond accuracy, truthfulness and usefulness to society. Consider just a small sampling of the possible variables that an accurate, reproducible scientific study would have to include:

1) population density (urban vs. rural areas-many more people own guns in rural areas, yet most gun-violence occurs in the metropolitan areas)

2) racial/ethnic violent crime rates (most gun violence is due to underage gang bangers from black, latino and other minority ethnic groups)

3) the effect of literally thousands of different gun control laws affecting thousands of jurisdictions (walk from one city to the next and the gun control laws change--what effect does this have on criminals?)

4) gender/age/income differences in the crime rates (lower income young black males are the most violent, upper income elderly white females the least violent)

5) ownership/legality of weapons used (most gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders with stolen guns)

6) what about the estimated 2 million times a year guns are used to prevent crimes?

and the list goes on--any documentary that addresses gun control accurately and truthfully would literally be years long!

Michael Moore, in order to add more emotional influence to his documentary, selectively presented just a tiny fraction of the variables involved in studying gun control, just to support his particular point of view. Think about it--Charlton Heston is only one person (a leading figure of a large organization); he in no way is an accurate statistical representation of the millions of gun-owners (law-abiding and criminal) in America. Likewise, a few striking examples of gun violence--no matter how tragic--aren't enough to draw an accurate conclusion about this huge issue. This is unacceptable behavior from a documentary maker and does a great injustice to the now-misinformed people of America. "Bowling for Columbine" is the sort of emotionally-charged fluff that is perfect for the outspoken rabidly-anti-gun Hollywood elite to use to strengthen their unscientific point of view.

Rating:
Summary: Fear, Fear, Fear comes from.....
Review: religion. As much as I respect Michael for going out and doing these types of films to get the average American thinking I believe Michael needs to look inward. In Stupid White Men he talks about the way to solve the Catholic/Protestant problem in Northern Ireland by Protestants converting. Mr. Moore do you not see that people live in a fear mentality because so many people actually believe that they will burn in hell forever if they don't live a life according to religious dogma? People developing a conscious of action not based on bettering society but fearing that some all powerful imaginary friend, god, is watching and may punish them in eternal hell. The whole paranoia coming from religion.
The film lacked one important piece that is the cause of so many inner city shootings. The gun lobbyists paying off the government so no new laws of gun control get passed. A few hundred bucks added to the price of a gun that identifies fingerprints and only allows the owner to shoot it would reduce shootings. The gun manufacturers could use the money they pay their lobbyists to create the technology. But that would reduce guns sales from people replacing their stolen guns and they don't want to lose gun sales. I loved the cartoon in chapter 17. It put the Southern mentality in perspective. Yes, I live in the south.
[e-mail]