Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Why are Americans so afraid?
Review: I wish I'd taken the time to go all the way to the "artistic theater" in my city to see Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" last winter. Instead, in waiting for the DVD, I've had my reaction to the actual film blunted by Moore's antics at the Oscars, and, to a degree, by all the "extras" in the second disc of this set.

You start out believing this is a film about gun control. Don't get me wrong, I think that is what Moore had in mind. But as he meanders through the facets of the issues (and he does it admirably), the most compelling question arises...when did Americans start having to be afraid to live here? When did the violence in our society begin to affect the way we feel about our lives, and what role does the media play in sensationalizing the dark side of society and underplaying what is good about America?

I've read the scathing reviews here about how Moore's film is "not really a documentary", just a film piece to portray an unanswerable question and the issues from his point of view. OK, you're right about one thing. It's not a documentary, it's a thought-provoking film. So, it didn't really HAVE a category in the Oscars (kind of non-fiction films???)and shouldn't have won the award.

Moving right along, it is doubtless that Moore filmed more of a "spoof" of some things than a true nonfiction piece...the vignette about the bank that gives away guns and the "History of America" presentation. Moore's scene with Dick Clark and his editorializing about Welfare to Work -- neither one of them should have survived the cutting floor. What he needed to present was the thought that many children get involved in violent acts and come to possess guns (and drugs, etc.), because their time with thoughtful parental mentoring is limited. That's true, but for reasons far more numerous that because of "Welfare to Work".

For most of the film Moore acts like a reasonable artist, and invokes thoughtful and insightful scenes, like the dialogue with Marilyn Manson, with Matt Stone, with the principal at the Buell school,in a fair presentation of the Michigan Militia, in much (not all) of the Heston interview and in the coup he pulled off by nonviolent protest at K-Mart headquarters in Troy, Michigan. Moore never tells us why Americans are so afraid, because he admits that he doesn't know, and that no one really seems to know why, or how to negate the fear.

Moore's film is fascinating, but Moore dilutes his message, and reduces its meaning, by his own actions. His interview (on the "special" second disc), with Charlie Rose is memorable, but the rest of the disc is Moore sounding off. It seems that Moore can, for the most part, conduct himself appropriately to make sure his message is heard when he is filming, or when he is talking to someone of equal intellect. Taken out of those parameters, he feels he has a bully pulpit for all of his views about what is wrong with America, whether they are germane to the film or not. His sarcasm and seeming glee at the fact that he can say whatever he wants, truly reduce his effectiveness.

With that said, "B for C" must be seen. Try not to watch the second DVD. While I preferred "Roger and Me", the poignancy of
"B for C" and the questions it raises (which will hopefully be followed by some solution-oriented actions by the nation) are memorable and provocative.

A fine film, a fine effort. Next time, Roger, don't make the second disc, and don't make speeches. Go to political rallies for those.

Rating:
Summary: the answer to his question
Review: In answer to the primary question he poses ... an answer that he won't like, being the rich white liberal that he is.

In 1992, murder rates for American blacks were 43.3 for every 100,000 blacks. Whites committed murder at about one eighth that rate, or 5.1 murders for every 100,000 whites. The murder rate for American whites was therefore lower than that of Britain or Italy, despite the wide availability in America of firewms.

Robbery rates were similar. In 1992, the black rate was 1,343 per 100,000, while the white rate was 126. The figure for American whites, though higher than that of any European country, is not strikingly higher than the rate of 90.4 for France.

Rating:
Summary: What a farce
Review: This "documentary" should be called a propagandamentary. Everyone who praises this film should watch it again. This time turn off the sound and emotions and just watch Heston's tie. You might feel "had".I must assume the only reason this film won an oscar is because the nominating commitee never saw it.

Rating:
Summary: Misleading and un truthful
Review: bottom line, the bank he got the gun from doesnt actually have guns on site. Thier "vault" is off site. This was a clever editing trick meant to decieve. Also about half way though the movie he basically proves that guns arent the problem, people are. However he keeps harping on guns.

I enjoyed the movie, but think for yourself. Moore is a deceptive person.

Rating:
Summary: a thought provoking documentary, and entertaining
Review: A Film by Michael Moore

Winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Michael Moore does a good job of both informing and entertaining in this documentary. Moore takes a look at the gun culture in America and tries to find out reasons why there might be so many gun related deaths in America as compared to any other country. As with other works of Michael Moore, he takes some facts and details and makes an emotional case and an emotional argument for his position. This is something to keep in mind when watching (or even reading) Michael Moore.

The film takes a look at the rabid gun culture in America, but as it investigates the most common arguments for why there is so much more gun violence here than in, say, Canada, Moore is able to give strong arguments against those common explanations (we have more guns, history, diversity, movies, etc). The movie also looks at the Columbine shootings (showing actual footage and using 911 recordings) and also looks at some of the history of America. In some places America does not come off looking very good, but America's history is not a pristine and spotless history. The film is both educational and entertaining.

Some people have questioned details in Moore's film. From everything that I have read, Michael Moore stands by the details in the movie. I am not knowledgeable enough to say who is right and who is wrong, so I'm not even going to attempt to break things down point by point. Even so, it appears to me that Michael Moore is trying to make more of an emotional impact than a purely logical one. This is both the greatest strength and weakness of the movie. It is definitely one of the best of 2002 and worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: Michael Moore Wants To Be A Movie Star
Review: Let's see, where to begin?

I gave this movie a rating of two stars, which seems pretty fair. What I took into account were several factors: story, entertainment value, and overall cohesiveness.

First up, the story, which is one worth taking up and exploring in our American culture. The story of dealing with gun control and gun violence is a worthy one, however this story begins strong but quickly loses focus and becomes weaker as the minutes roll by. "Bowling For Columbine" quickly becomes less and less centered around its title; I expected some gainful insite into the lives and reasons surrounding that fateful day in Littleton, Colorado. However, the viewer is left with unanswerable questions as the focus of the movie transfers onto "right-wing gun nuts." The movie's story then dilutes itself further as Moore, more so the actor in this feature rather than a director/documentarian, rudely and snidely corners everyone from the Michigan Malitia to Charlton Heston with spur of the moment questions that have no easy answers. Questions which Moore himself does not have any conclusive answers to. Yes, it is true that in the United States we have a problem with gun related violence, but "Bowling For Columbine" presents no true answers in its very weak story.

On the issue of entertainment value: this is the reason why we all watch films. Films are meant to entertain, we watch them to have a good time. I did not have a good time watching this movie. Personally, I found it very boring. What attributed to my boredom had a great deal to do with the sporadic nature of the story, jumping from one unrelated incident to another. In general, I found it hard to watch a very biased movie. Additionally, being a filmmaker myself and having attended film school, I found it very difficult to watch a movie that considers itself a "documentary," when the filmmakers of "Bowling For Columbine" ignored every definition of what a documentary is. A documentary captures life as it happens; the camera tries in every event possible to be invisible to the subject it is capturing. This movie is the exact opposite; the camera is poking the subject in the face as Moore badgers those he doesn't agree with and carefully questions those he does so as to gain his desired affect. The movie poster for "Bowling For Columbine" says it all. Moore's name is at the very top like an A-List actor; "Michael Moore in: Bowling For Columbine." Being a filmmaker myself I often have very liberal views, most of which have to deal with entertainment, freedom of speech, and censorship. But I beleive that anyone truly watching this movie with a balanced and fair eye, which is how I viewed this film, can spot the one-sidedness of this picture and the blatant propaganda spouted by Moore.

Finally, the cohesiveness of the picture is rather loose. From the shoddy film techniques to the sophomoric humor, any attempts at truth in this feature simply can't hold water. The editing techniques used take conversations out of context and the "South Park" inspired time-filler cartoon perpetuate very fantasic lies that hold absolutely no merit.

Overall, I didn't find this movie entertaining, informative, or truthful, all of which I look for in a viewing experience. Especially when it comes to documentaries and important subjects.

Rating:
Summary: Conservatives Will Hate It!
Review: But those with less rage will enjoy it. Not reeeeeally a "documentary" since it's orchestrated to include some facts and exclude others for laughs but nonetheless, it pokes fun at aspects of American life that some embrace and others despise. It won't open your eyes but will ring true with the left side of the spectrum. If you belong to the NRA and love George W. Bush stay away, unless you want material to use to send hate mail to Moore, and watch FoxNews.

Rating:
Summary: Waste of time
Review: For educational value, these 2 hours may captivate a small percentage of people who are otherwise unaware of the political issues surrounding gun control. Unfortunately, it is very one-sided, and a conservative filmmaker could easily put together a film in rebuttal.

For entertainment value, this film had none. It wasn't funny (despite many reviews) and it primarily focused on American tragedies, which shouldn't be considered entertainment.
Don't waste your time or money.

Rating:
Summary: Not a Comedy
Review: I just noticed that Time magazine reviewed this movie as "Hilarious". Huh?? What were they thinking???

This movie was anything but funny. Most of this movie, maybe too much, was documenting the tragedies that have faced American society (indeed some were of an international magnitude) in recent years.

Moore does jump on your emotions, after he has conjured them, to exploit many inconsistencies between public opinion (national policy) and humanitarian efforts. One may call this political investigation "Shocking" or "Outrageous", but if you think this is "Hilarious", don't consider yourself a friend of the human race.

Rating:
Summary: Garbage
Review: This movie is garbage. Michael Moore is a dangerous liar with a camera.