Rating: 
Summary: Staged-umentary - Did Not Merit Oscar
Review: The opening, wherein Michael Moore receives a firearm in exchange for opening a bank account, was staged. The bank apparently indeed gave away guns, but there was a background check and the gift typically required six weeks for delivery. Staging that incident alone was sufficient to eliminate Moore from Oscar contention, but Hollywood doesn't care much for rules, so long as you're in their ideological camp. In another scene, we see a Lockheed Martin executive from Littleton CO in front of a large rocket. Moore says, "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' " Problem is, Lockheed does not make weapons in Littleton -- it makes communications and weather satellites there. The missile in the film is a refurbished rocket used to launch one such satellite, and not a warhead. Michael Moore is an extremely admirable businessman -- down and out, he began making films and became hugely successful. He is a superbly successful free-market capitalist rich white male now, having found the perfect target audience. Moore simply did not deserve the Academy Award for this movie, since it included staged, along with some inaccurate, material. You can disapprove of that all you want, but it is merely the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Funny, thought provoking, challenging. An instant classic.
Review: Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Moore, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE fully deserves its Best Documentary Oscar. In fact, I'll admit that before I even watched this, I just presumed Moore was some pudgy idiot and wasn't expecting much given his "Shame on you Mr Bush!" comments. The spirit of Jane Fonda sadly isn't gone. I could just imagine Dubya sitting in front of the TV in the White House, watching the Oscars. After thinking a couple of minutes, he turns to the First Lady with a puzzled look and says "Uh, Laura; honey. Was that chubby guy talkin' 'bout ME or 'bout DADDY? Maybe I'd better ring Mom."
But of course it was stupid & naive of me to approach my review in this manner. I may be a self-proclaimed "vidiot", but I'm a person who actually SITS DOWN AND WATCHES movies before I review or moan about them.
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is a doco everyone should watch. It's by turns biting, acerbically funny, disturbing, provocative, challenging & sobering.
Practically right off the bat, Moore goes into a bank with a hidden camera to open an account. As a token of their appreciation he is given a free gun! They may as well hang a sign in their window saying "PLEASE ROB US!". Ironically we later learn the fact that Moore won an NRA marksman award as a teen. Is this irony? Or hypocrisy?
Early on I remembered Charles Bronson's line in DEATH WISH 5: "Guns have their uses. IDIOTS with guns make me nervous." I felt that since the right to bear arms is in the U.S Constitution, no one should have the authority to impose their will upon others and violate those rights. Admittedly it's different in NZ, where gun laws are stricter: If an intruder broke into my house I would probably be forced to clock him on the head with my 2" thick Leonard Maltin Movie Guide a few times and hope it works out in my favor.
But check this out. Interviewed here are: 1. A Guy with an "Anarchist Cookbook" on how to make bombs & napalm among other things. (I'm not THAT kind of anarchist!) 2.Another guy who sleeps with a loaded gun under his pillow. Constitutional right? Or just bloody daft? 3. Moore's visit to Lockhead Martin- the World's largest weapons manufacturer. One of their officials is interviewed standing in front of a nuclear warhead and saying he's not doing anything wrong. This guy even goes so far as to say that Columbine-style killings happen all around the World every day. That's totally f***ed up. I must be reading the wrong newspapers. Other gems among BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE's many highlights is the finale where Moore goes one on one with Charlton Heston, who held a gun rally before the dust had settled on the Columbine Massacre, which makes his battle cry of "From my cold dead hand!" all the more disturbing. Heston also admits to leaving loaded guns lying around his house where his grandkids can get at them. His feeble assertion is "They know not to touch". How did this guy win an Oscar? Heston winds up looking like a right plonker in the end.
Also interviewed are Marilyn Manson, who channelled his demons into music; & South Park co-creater Matt Stone, who worked his frustration at growing up in a small town into comedy; as opposed to them shooting up their schools. While we're on that subject, there's a frightening clip of a schoolkid pulling A DOZEN guns he's had concealed in his baggy pants. Jeez!
Meanwhile, all the bible thumpers are blaming cartoons, Satan, toys, heavy metal, movies (!SPCS!) and Marilyn Manson (Who is actually a very intelligent guy. Maybe HE should run for President?). These clowns are just bad[].
There's also a funny animated sequence about the pilgrims & linking the NRA to the KKK, slavery and witch hunts.
While watching this I found within my personal views conflicting ideals. And yes, I'll openly admit a little hypocrisy. At least I can admit it. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is a movie that can be dissected and analysed and interpreted in countless different ways. So that's a good thing, right? And Chuck Heston should really be tipping his toupe to Moore. There's no denying the man has guts. An absolute must see.
Rating:
Summary: Moore's a fraud, but a good filmmaker...
Review: I enjoyed "Roger and Me" even though the film played fast and loose with chronology for dramatic effect. Unconscionably (unless you're of the end-justifies-the-means ideology) Moore edits two Heston speechs together, crops out whole paragraphs and stitches sentences together (watch the editing) - a review of this issue and text of the original speeches compared to what is shown in the film. Additional material is 'added' to the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988, and those with short memories or youth won't notice. There's more...do a search on this film on the internet, and you'll see what I mean. Moore doesn't come to the table armed ...with the facts, or reality, in this case. A damn shame.
Rating:
Summary: Well done Mr Moore!
Review: Over here in the Netherlands, the DVD is already on sale. I rented a copy of it as I recalled it winning some award but hadn't had any clue what it all about. After I watched it the first time, it stayed in the DVD player to watch it again later that same day. Mr Moore raises some interesting points about the whole gun ownership issue and the many problems that seem to be a result of it. In accordance with the slogan "guns don't kill people, men do", Mr Moore sets out to find the real answers to the problem. Of course it is not possible to give a definative answer, but he makes a good effort. At the very least it gives you something to think about and gives you room to discuss it further with friends or family. This is one of the great things about this film. It doesn't answer everything and challenges you to start thinking. The film combines a lot of humor with a critical view of American society and some painful truths. Whatever your opinion is about the subject of gun control, anyone with an open mind and a sense of humor will enjoy this film!
Rating:
Summary: Bogus
Review: Ok I'm Not One To Slander People But This Is Copmletely Bogus. At One Point He Makes It Seem Like He Bought A Gun With No Background Check.. In Actuality The Producers Went to The Store Earler and Pre-Bought The Weapon. Also This Is A Good Movie For The Anti Americans To Buy If You Don't Like The U.S And You Do Like Terrorism And Dictatorships Than Buy This Movie. I For One Will Avoid This Movie At All Costs After Wasting Money To See It In The Theaters. I'm Not Saying Don't Buy It I'm Just Giving You My Opinion Take It As You Will.
Rating:
Summary: finger pointers
Review: this film is not biased in any way. it does not say "guns are bad and should be banned" micheal moore, the director of this film is a member of the NRA... so we can be sure that he doesn't hate the murder machines (your beloved guns). this film does not spread "liberal propoganda" as many argument hungry, gun lickers would try to say, it simply asks a question; "why does America have so many more gun murders than every other country in the world?"
an answer is never found and a finger is never pointed. the only reason people say it is "anti-second amendment" is because they want it to be that way so they can start unnesesary arguments and defend ideals that aren't being threatend, just like Charlton Heston does in this picture. so if YOU aren't completely biased and irrational then see this picture and appreciate what it is trying to say and don't put words in Moore's mouth and start arguments that need not be started.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest documentaries ever!!!!!
Review: Bowling for Columbine was by far the best documentary I have ever seen, everyone should see this regardless of what your views are!
Rating:
Summary: Should be required viewing in every high school in the US
Review: The message of this film is so powerful and so important, it should be shown in every High School across the US. It is shockingly enlightening, and with the sniper shootings in Maryland dominating the news during the release of the film, the message is that much more relevant. Michael Moore combines images and music to create some spectacular contrasts. As he is walking up the driveway to confront Chalton Heston, chairman of the NRA, we hear the theme song "It's a Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood" from the Mr. Rogers childrens show. One photo montage uses a quick succession of images to transition from proud gun toting Americans to civilians being shot by soldiers. I don't know what else to say. Everybody should see this movie. ...
Rating:
Summary: Socialism Redux
Review: This DVD will be a hit in France...
Rating: 
Summary: Rush Limbaugh fans won't like
Review: ... Anyway, Bowling for Columbine is not really about the 'sport' of bowling or the infamous columbine school shooting, or even gun control, though these are related to the documentaries subject matter in an important way, but rather it is a film that attempts to answer the question "why is it that there is so much more violent crime in the U.S. than in a country like Canada, which has less gun control than we do, as much violence in entertainment, about as large an ethnic population, and a higher unemployment rate than we do?" Unfortunately this question is not really answered by Moore. He does allude to the idea that the socialization of medicare and the more compassionate social programs existing in Canada, as opposed to not existing in the U.S., might be the root of the problem, but from a critical assessment it is an assertion that is difficult to prove. Former NRA President Charlton Heston attempts to answer this question by saying "well we have probably a more mixed ethnicity than other countries." As a Mexican-American it is pretty enlightening to hear that my ethnic group and others can be so honored to be accredited for all of the rampant violence that goes on in the U.S.. but after hearing his odious explanation I remembered that he has something along the lines of Alzheimer's, and my annoyance turned into pity for the man and the fact that he is, after all, a redneck. I've read many reviews from many papers within the journalistic community and there seems to be unanimous disapproval of Moore's film. From a right-wing paper, for example, Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard attacks Bowling for Columbine with partisan-- how shocking a staunch conservative isn't positively taken by this film -- fervent derision, castigating Moore for not having an "idea [of] what he wants to say." Obviously those wanting a single cohesive argument out of this film, like Mr. Labash, will be very inclined to dismiss it with contempt, but for those who aren't as brash, and can approach this film without already having dismissed it to begin with, will see that this is a film layered with a multiplex of ideas.
The satire of this documentary jabs at the NRA (and no Moore doesn't seem to be for gun control), U.S. hegemony, the religious right, our ridiculous welfare to work programs (I'm for welfare reform but this program is a joke), and the media's hyperbole reporting on national threats (which isn't a bad thing for companies that can profit from it). Briefly returning to the Weekly Standard review, Matt Labash writes "Against the strains of Louis Armstrong's 'What a Wonderful World,' Moore cuts to a caption and image timeline explaining how we are guilty of everything from propping up tin-pot dictators to killing innocent civilians the world over" I can just see Labash rolling his eyes at the film for mentioning all of the harmless and forgivable things we (the U.S.) have done to other countries throughout our 'glorious' history as a 'democratically loving' nation; but seriously, it just vexes my sensibilities when people across partisan lines-- well especially those from the far right --get so uptight and bothered when anyone criticizes the powers that have been and be today for what can be accurately described as what Chomsky would call "international terrorism." Why is is that I so often hear conservatives chanting slogans like, "You're either with us or against us!," or "if you don't believe in my parties policies you're anti-american and an unpatriotic closet communist" (I wouldn't mind seeing another film satirizing the schizoid paranoia of communism in this country). Frankly, by challenging the powers that be and not allowing such international crimes to be registered as acceptable, I feel I am more at liberty to call myself an American than the these braindead slogan chanters. To show that I am politically independent, or perhaps moderate, I shaded a star from my rating because I disagreed with two sentiments expressed by Moore in this film. One idea I cannot concur with is that the media deliberately attempts to demonize blacks and hispanics, specifically on shows like Cops (They should really call that show "trailorpark cribs"), and the other being that we are defenseless victims of media propaganda, or as Marilyn Manson called "a campaign of fear and comsumption." Does the media and their advertisers create needs in order to stimulate consumption? Yes. But it's not as if people are forced against their will to bite the bait. An on the issue of media unfairness, people generally prefer that it propagates biased information, in so far as it is in accord with their accepted prejudices. The media certainly tangles information up not only how it covers, but what it covers, and as McKenzie Wark wrote, "CNN's Ed Turner tried to defend the station's approach in terms of the liberal understanding of the freedom of the press and the distinction between propaganda and information. His respondents, like the opinion polls, seemed to want propaganda." Overall I enjoyed the film and found it very refreshing to finally see a figure like Moore counteract the extremes of those self-congradulating, self-righteous right-wing radio talk show hosts. AND NO THIS FILM IS NOT ABOUT GUN-CONTROL!
| 
