Rating: 
Summary: question non-authority
Review: one question considering the amount of respect given in the majority of views expressed here: why do so many intelligent people find it so easy to question the obvious flaws in authoritarian groups and yet blindly take faith in the voices of fellow peasants when these voices sing the praises of peasant logic? in other words - how many of you [who like this film] have gone objectively into the so-called enemies camp and as vigorously questioned what your brother peasant is doing? knees jerk...and god simply must weep at how few of his meek do anything but compain and agree and think that they are smart. ignorant arrogance without action, interesting. three stars for instigation.
Rating: 
Summary: Some call it propaganda, i call it brilliant
Review: I have lived in conservative colorado springs my whole life so, michae moore's statistics on guns actually did not suprise me in the least bit. What did is what has happened to our land of the free. this movie rather make me agree more with gun control, has turned me on to a problem. Something is seriously wrong with the country. Just because you have the right to own a gun why would you? why can't we as americans calm down about every single threat some other country has brought on? The most disturbing part of the movie is that there are no answers, only questions. Moore films this thinking just like everyone else in America/ what can we do? absolutely nothing. The country is nothing more now than a dirty piece of toilet paper.
Rating:
Summary: FEAR OF TRUTH
Review: I liked this film and recomend showing it to your local NRA meeting.I get creeped out reading these one star posts.I think we should get rid of all guns.Let's be honest my fellow americans,we've become a nation of hate and fear.If we'd make life good for all our citizens,we would not have to see sense-less killing every night on the news.Take a hand gun out of a NRA member and he'll tremble and pee his pants...No if,ands or buts.Anyway,this is a great portrait of what a wacked-out nation of fear we've become.I had someone tape it off of cable-tv,so I can't tell you about the dvd and the extras but I enjoyed this film and look forward to Michael Moore's next film," FARENHIGHT 911".
Rating: 
Summary: Hmmmmmm
Review: Anyone who knows anything about Michael Moore's political ideology knows what to expect from this movie. Moore edited the entire movie to his liking, twisting facts to look a certain way on screen. For the most part, liberals will bow down to this crap while political conservatives will find it repulsive. As for me, I'd love to receive a .308 rifle for opening a bank account, especially after having been car-jacked at gunpoint by thugs who likely acquired their gun illegally on the streets. I'm extremely thankful I live in a country where a law-abiding citizen can walk into a bank and be rewarded for his patronage with the tool of freedom. I wonder how many guns Michael Moore owns?
Rating:
Summary: Watch "Bowling for Columbine" for True Insights
Review: First, I would like to state that this movie was entertaining, but that is not what makes this movie incredibly valuable.A couple of reviews made horrible and misanthropic points. First, so what Mike Moore is overweight or even obese? How does that make the message he creates any less true? That's like saying Bush never completed his duty, admittedly soft, in the Air Natl Guard (whatever is the correct term), so his economic policy is flawed. This is a rhetorical method called "Argumentum ad hominem" - meaning when you can't counter the argument attack the personal characteristics of the messenger - PATHETIC! Another reviewer stated that the scenes were staged. Perhaps, but A BANK HANDS OUT GUNS for opening an account!?!?! Even if it takes 10 days, holy crap! The aforementioned reviewer, obviously, did not watch the movie with an open mind, which is rather pathetic. The real value of this movie is that it asks: "why do Americans have such an abnormally elevated number of gun-created fatalities?" This question has not been answered by anyone. I too was labouring under the illusion that it was GUNS that led to gun violence, but that turns out to not be the case. The actual reason why Americans have such an elevated number of gun deaths is due to a culture of fear created by powerful business, economic and political interests. Once you realize that it is an irrational fear, fostered by the media in search of ratings, businesses in search of profits, and politicians in search of election, you start to understand why Columbine happened. Guns don't kill people - Angry Fearful People kill People. Brillant, truly Brillant. It is sad that we are not afforded a greater number of opportunities to actually learn the truth. Thank you for reading.
Rating:
Summary: This has some good elements, which I will explain below.
Review: But there are problems. Michael Moore is astonishingly fat. The man is fat. That alone calls his credibility into judgment. How can I take a man seriously who cannot control his own carbohydrate intake, really? And can you trust him? He could be hiding anything in those greasy rolls of fat. A hacksaw, a machete, even a AK-47. He could slide it out and take any one of us down at any time. And why? Perhaps we unwittingly stood between him and the last Krispy Kreme doughnut. What a pity. No one's life deserves to end on the business end of an AK-47 while pudgy hands grasp greedily for overly sugared confections. That is why he makes a good point about gun control. We should work to keep guns out of the hands of children and fat man. One time this dude who looked frighteningly like Dom DeLuise walked into Outback Steakhouse in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin with a Glock and started screaming "Give me all your pork ribs and no one gets hurt!" It's because the guy's barbeque sauce blood ratio became low and the man became disoriented and confused. The cops slapped the cuffs on him while he was finishing off a side of steak fries, and the man claimed he didn't remember anything after his wife told him they were having Chicken Caesar Salad for dinner. My point is, gun control is good if it will keep guns out of the hands of crazy fat men like Michael Moore. Just think of the late Chris Farley. Would you trust him with a gun? No way. But he deftly sidesteps the issue of whether fatties should have guns. In this way, I think he does a disservice to his project, and I can only give this work 3 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: The strikes are few and far between in Bowling for Columbine
Review: I don't belong to the NRA nor do I support their mission. That being said, I found Bowling for Columbine to be without merit for the following reasons. First, Moore's many interviews add little to our understanding of the tragedy at Columbine High School. In fact, the film reminded me more of David Letterman making fun of his guests than Charlie Rose trying to understand the meaning of a serious problem by talking with intelligent people with information to share. Additionally, without the variety of point of view needed to give balance to the discussion, the film dragged on and on. Next, Moore's editing of his material was similar to the tiny bits and pieces of information shown on the evening news to hold the attention of a public needing constant stimulation and entertainment. Moore needs to take a lesson from Jim Lehrer who stays focused on his subject in order to arrive at reasonable closure. Also, Moore juxtaposes images to manipulate his audience and suggest valid comparison where none exists. Lastly, Moore takes a shotgun approach to his documentary. He fires his blasts here and there hoping to get a hit and occasionaly he does, but the hits are few and far between. At the end of the film Moore interviews Charlton Heston, looking much the worse for wear and tear, and tries to get Heston to tell us why Columbine happened. Heston hasn't a clue and neither does Moore. I thought I might get some insight about the tragedy at Columbine, but all I got was tragedy turned into a bad Hollywood film. Bowling for Columbine fails as a documentary and fails as a Hollywood entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: entertainment with a message
Review: Not everyone appreciates Michael Moore's sense of humor, and his political views are far from subtle. If you are angered by people who don't worship America, guns, and private property, your will find this film very annoying. Me, I think it's a classic.
Rating:
Summary: I liked it, but....
Review: I like Michael Moore's films and Bowling For Columbine is no exception. In fact, I've seen it twice. (Something I rarely do.) Plus, I've begun to watch tapes of his TV shows and I will be one of the first in line to see his next effort. I think Michael Moore comes across as a man of great conscience. He uses his camera as a mighty weapon against injustice where ever it may hide and this includes topics the mainstream media will not touch. Particularly corporate crime. It takes a scandal of monumental proportions such as Enron to even register on the radar screens of the major news outlets. There is much to be proud of in Bowling for Columbine, but there are also some things for which Michael Moore should be ashamed. Michael Moore should be thrilled that he was able to play a part in ridding K-Mart of its bullets, it would not have been done but for the deadly aim of his lens. That is by far the most powerful scene in the film. Yet, he uses the same tactics in one of the most heartless scenes ever-committed film, the cinematic sucker punch of NRA president Heston. Yes, we got to see Mr. Heston humiliate himself by suggesting that America's gun violence is due to the fact that we are "ethically mixed." Heston said it of his own free will and he should be held accountable for it. It's what Moore does next that is despicable. He chases Heston with a picture of Kayla Roland and leaves it outside his house when he refuses to look at it. Heston DID NOT deserve that. There are other things in the film that are not shameful but rather absurd. The day of the massacre at Columbine was also the day of the most aggressive US bombing of Kosovo; I will concede this was an ironic coincidence. Moore takes it a step further; he tries to compare Lockeed Martin's production of WMDs with the carnage at Columbine. That's just silly, and according to another reviewer that plant may not even make WMDs. Oh, and let's not forget Moore's undying love for Canada. Moore could very well have a point about Canada being less violent, I don't know, I haven't looked into it. But does it strike anyone else as a little odd that Bowling For Columbine would be produced by Alliance Atlantis, a Canadian company? Its things like these that serve to weaken an otherwise strong film. Moore might also have a point about the media helping to create a more fearful America, but that was no more a cause of the murders at Columbine than shock rock, video games/movies, or even *sarcastic laugh* lack of prayer in schools. Everyone wants to know why Columbine happened and they seem to forget that the killers have already told us. They said, "we're doing this because you made fun of us." The siege at Columbine was the reaction of two teenagers pushed over the edge by merciless ridicule. Of course this doesn't excuse what they did, but you cannot ignore that this is an answer almost unanimously echoed by other school shooters. The most perplexing moment in the entire film comes when Moore speaks to a group of Canadian teenagers about what they would do instead of picking up a gun. Shockingly they said they would tease the aggressor into submission. This suggestion was made by the one with green hair and a face piercing, the type of person that typically gets harassed at a regular high school. I know because many of them came to the arts magnet high school I attended to escape such things.
Last but not least I would like to address Moore's now infamous Academy Awards acceptance speech. I think he should be absolutely ashamed, and should have issued an immediate apology. What he said is irrelevant. I have a problem with when and where he said it. I am sick of celebrities thinking that just because they are famous everyone wants to hear their opinion. Richard Gere comes dangerously close to condoning the events of September 11th in a room full of firemen, Sean Penn takes it upon himself to prove there are no WMDs in Iraq, and the Dixie Chicks insult the President on foreign soil. That incident is my favorite because their comments finally fell on very unfriendly ears, which just happened to be the ears of their fans. I thought that incident would turn into a public relations firestorm from which they would never recover, and as such serve as a lesson to other entertainers that the world is not their pulpit. Alas, the backlash was ridiculously short-lived. I find Michael Moore's rant to be particularly disappointing because unlike Gere, Penn and the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore could have said something of great importance, let's not forget that Moore was given those five minutes to reflect on his film, and on Columbine. Instead he wasted it on something that was completely unrelated. For those who say that "Bowling for Columbine" wasn't just about Columbine, then I would argue that using the tragedy to try and make a "larger point about American violence," which is a polite way of saying "to further another agenda" (a spin on par with those spewed by O'Reily) is a shameful an exploitive thing to do.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Anti-American.
Review: 'Bowling for Columbine' is an excellent and funny movie about the gun control problem in this country. My main problem with it was that it was too anti-American. Michael Moore tries to make the United States look like some evil empire, while downplaying negative aspects of other countries. Some people have questioned the facts presented in the movie, but I don't know about most of those facts. I'll have to research them. Worth the watch though.
| 
