Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Great, and not as dangerous as its opponents think
Review: I'll be fair first. I don't always like Michael Moore. While some of Stupid White Men made me laugh, other parts were offensive to me, particularly a chapter devoted to his own foriegn policy "ideas." His next film is going to be called Farenheit 911, and he's said that he's determined to release it in October 2004, right before the election. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I worry it may be hard to sit through a movie that was created entirely to slander someone.

That's why I like Bowling for Columbine, because I sense honest intentions behind it. Moore comes from Flint, Michigan, a place where a little girl was shot by her classmate shortly before Bowling for Columbine was shot. He's sad to see these happening to our nation's children, and he wants to know why. The most valuable part of this film, at least in my opinion, is how it systematically refutes "explanations" for gun violence.

-Charlton Heston blames it on a "mixed ethnicity," but Moore claims Canada had an even bigger mix, complete with a lower crime rate.

-Violent video games? Japan has much more violent games than we do, and their homicide rate is much lower as well.

-Violent history? Germany was once home to the Nazi party, and they have a lower rate than us.

One possibility he raises that I always found very reasonable was the description of enormous high school prssure that was discussed in his interview with Matt Stone. Kids are cruel to each other growing up, and I think the reason those Columbine kids snapped was because of years and years of teasing by their classmates.

Conservatives seem very intimidated by Bowling for Columbine, I'm not sure why. It doesn't seem so dangerous to me. Do you think that a movie would be enough to ever change the policy of the president? Anyone who heard the "with us or with the terrorists" speech should know the answer to that. But then again, some of these people who flip out over the Dixie Chicks or Tim Robbins stating their opinions never seem to be able to grasp that these isolated incidents of free speech are pretty harmless.

Moore is often called an Anti-American, which is a term I think is overused and rarely appropriate. Osama Bin Laden is an Anti-American. Moore would not like to see American destroyed, he would like to be a place with less violent deaths and discontent citizens. Moore doesn't hate America, he loves America. The free speech he's grown up with has given him the opportunity to write his books and make his movies. He is certainly anti-Bush, but why should that make someone anti-American? I'm sure plenty of conservatives were anti-Clinton or anti-Carter of anti-Kennedy, but I would never call them anti-Americans. Our real enemies are people who would destroy crowded buildings in NYC, not people who voted for Gore.

Yet, despite all this, the attacks on Moore's film are often totally vicious and off-base. A disturbing number of the reviews on this site, and many others, attack his weight more often than they attack the film. Yes, Moore is fat but so is Rush Limbaugh for God's sake.

Now, as for the allegations that Moore has fabricated some of the events in this film, I'm not sure exactly how to address all of them. Did he take Charlton Heston's "From my cold dead hands" speech totally out of context? Yes, he might have. But the thing is, this happens ALL THE TIME. Doesn't make it right, but it does happen. The Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed Bush was from Texas, you hardly ever read about the apology they issued shortly afterward. Critics of Bowling for Columbine only cite parts of it to try and dismiss the whole movie as meritless, and that's the same thing. And also, do these people really think that Rush Limbaugh and people over at Fox News always present clear and fair arguments about their politics? I don't think so.
Bowling for Columbine may not be entirely true, and it's advisable for a viewer to keep an open mind and swallow everything so easily. But it is a brilliantly constructed polemic, engrossing to watch and certainly relevant. No matter what your politics, you'll think on the issues raised here after seeing the movie, and that's admirable in itself.

Bowling for Columbine is a movie, and like all art it is certainly subjective. Those out there who are afraid of the left wing having a chance to speak out? Don't be. The war in Iraq still happened despite vocal objections from many Americans, so what do you have to worry about? People (and don't call us anti-Americans) who are disillusioned with the state of the country, disillusioned by the constant violence going on here, disillusioned by lies and the manipulation of media, may find some brief solace in a movie like this. Is that so wrong? I think this is Michael Moore's best work, because it concerns all of us. I can give this film nothing less than my highest recommendation.

Rating:
Summary: Bowling For Columbine
Review: This is one of my favorite movies to date. I love michael moore's work. He's very informative and this is a very informative film. It's very funny and entertaining, also.

Rating:
Summary: Yawn, another weak swipe
Review: Michael Moore is as predictable as what happens to old milk. You keep trying to drink it, but the longer you have it, the worse it smells, the worse it tastes, until you're on the verge of becoming vegan.

Moore's a propagandaist, not a fact finder. He creates situations that are unreal and false, manipulating his camera and questions to support his world view. Its a rationalization of political beliefs, not a politicization of logic. Put it another way: Moore, like Rush Limbaugh, wants to believe what he believes, so he justifies it any way he can.

A rather rude British man left a review here concerning how Moore is not unbiased, and he was right for all the wrong reasons. Real documentary makers strive for accuracy--Moore strives for opinion and sway. OR, fi facts are not forthcoming, leaves it up to the audience.

Two of Moore's funniest moments is when he baits Dick Clark and Charlton Heston, separately. He throws inflammatory comments out and watches them squirm (to be fair, they should have known better than to go at this man fairly and unprepared). I thought it was funny for another reason: Moore looked like an jerk. He looked like a manipulative toad arguing for his way, with a smug grin on his face, thinking he had won. It was a battle of who could out maneuver who in these one-on-one battles of utterly worthless people: Moses v. Fat Man, Rockin New Years v. Fat Man.

I dislike politicians, but Moore's worse--he's a fame-hungry, as well as power-hungry, megalomaniac (heck, he even feuded with Ralph Nader because MOORE wanted the slot on the ticket for VICE-PRESIDENT for the Green Party, and Nader was too smart to say yes). Luckily, he'll go away unitl he finds he's not invited to Hollywood parties anymore--then he'll make another "look at me, these are my exteremist beliefs" picture.

Rating:
Summary: Suprisingly Objective....
Review: I've always been a great fan of documentaries, especially those which are presented in an objective way. Unfortunately objective documentaries are difficult to come across since there's always an interest group financing the project. For example, be it Big Tobacco or the Anti-Cancer Society.

Bowling for Columbine is among the list of those "rare" objective documentaries. There wasn't any direct or hidden message. It just presented the the relavent facts from both sides (equal attention was also focused on both sides) and left the job of formulating an opinion up to the viewer.

I got the DVD 3 days ago and so far have viewed it 3 times with a total of 10 people. It's not that I have nothing better to do. Instead I enjoy stimilating discussions about topics which effect our society...something this documentary helps initiate. Sure beats turning your mind off and absorbing all the "controlled" information the media (and those who have an interest in it) feeds you with.

I can't help shake my head when reading the negative reviews of this documentary. I can't help thinking "these people would rather formulate an opinion on an important subject matter based on 5 minutes of biased network TV instead of 1.5 hours of information presented from both sides". To me that's simply "metal laziness".

If you're a person who gives a damn about the subject in question (leftist, rightist, pacifist, warmonger, etc..) and one who dedicates more than 2 brain cells to a discussion, I strongly recommend this DVD.

On the other hand, if you just say you care but are to lazy (or ignorant) to formulate a judgement based on more than 5 minutes of facts, then save your money for the cable TV bill at the end of the month!

I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity of living in both the U.S. as well as numerous other countries (mainly in Europe and Asia). I little advise to Mr. Moore......please start a fund which gives this same opportunity to those "metally lazy" folks who have given your documentary a negative review. I'm sure that after this experience they will change their opinions somewhat and start using more than the average 2 brain cells per discussion!. Now that would be a ground breaking achievement in itself.

Mr. Moore, you should run for president. If you need financing you can always rely on the outside world which has not yet reached the point of "metal enslavement". Ofcourse, some fellow citizens will label you a traitor but then again history dictates who's the saint and who's the demon!

Rating:
Summary: BAMBOOZLED
Review: When I first saw Bowling for Columbine, I was impressed. I am a conservative republican, a military officer, and I own guns. Nonetheless, I thought Moore's film was well produced and thought provoking and thanked the friend who had dragged me out to see it.

A short time later, when Moore won his Oscar, I began researching the film and was appalled at what I discovered. Moore's film intentionally distorted the truth and outright lied in order to make his points. Some examples:

In the wake of the Columbine shootings, Charles Heston and the NRA canceled almost all of their scheduled events (their "pro-gun rally" was actually their annual corporate meeting that had been scheduled in Colorado for over five years), and instead held a somber business oriented meeting that had nothing to do with promoting gun ownership.

The "Cold Dead Hands" speech, made to look like it was given in the immediate aftermath and in direct response to the Columbine tradgedy was actually from a separate event, a year removed from the tradgedy.

The Lockheed Martin factory in Columbine, CO does not produce nuclear missiles. What he implies is a weapon of mass destruction is actually a rocket used to launch television satellites.

The NRA rally held in Flint, MI was held eight months after the murder of Kayla Rolland by her six year old classmate, yet Moore asserts that this rally also took place in reaction to the tradgedy.

Moore states that Harris and Kiebold, the Columbine shooters, obtained their handguns legally. In reality, they broke at least TWENTY gun control laws.

The list of distortions and inaccuracies goes on and on.

Moore's points have some validity, and he could have made them without these distortions, but he decided the unwashed masses of America were too ignorant to understand his argument. Moore and his accolytes believe that the end justifies the means; thus, if they have to lie to support their argument, this is better than telling the truth and making a less compelling argument.

Dont be fooled. This movie is not what Moore and others would have you believe. If you have seen it, do yourself the favor of researching some of his "facts" and see for yourself. If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to see it, but do your homework first!

Rating:
Summary: I'm astonished!
Review: I think this was the first time I watched a doccumentary in the movies. NOrmally I watch them in DVD or VHS.

Man, and what a pleasant surprise! The movie is breathtaking. Its pace, rhythm, subject, interviews, everything is placed at the right point, at the right proportion.

The part with the SOuth Park animation was simply fantastic and right to the point.

The part where he show some of the countries where America helped to draw innocent blood is also touching, highly emotive.

Mr. Moore, I salute you.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best films I've seen in a long time!
Review: Michael Moore's movie "Bowling For Columbine" is not a documentary in the truest sense. It's an opinion piece which asks some very difficult and important questions. Such as why do we suffer far more gun casualties each year than our neighbors in Canada when they actually own more guns per capita than we do?

Some people may be disappointed that Michael doesn't provide us with a definite answer to the questions he raises in this film. However the fact that he was brave enough to raise them at all makes this film well worth watching!

This film will make you laugh it will make you cry and it will make you THINK!

Rating:
Summary: If you only see one documentary....
Review: If you only see one documentary this year then don't waste your time with Bowling for Columbine. This is a movie meant to encourage the thinking viewer to further investigate the subject matter themselves. Those who complained this is a one side, bias view need to watch more documentaries; there is always a bias viewpoint. It is the nature of story telling. The difference is Michael Moore makes no secret of his point of view.

The facts presented in this movie are not the main motivating factor for its production. It is meant to inspire discussing and interest in the subject matter. Those who complain about Michael drawing wrong or misinformed conclusions must have been watching a different movie. I see no answers to the problems discussed in this documentary. The only conclusion to be drawn here is there are no simple answers. Marilyn Manson, guns, TV, racial diversity, or even Republicans are not the scapegoat here. If you can't understand that from viewing this movie go back to your comfortable "fair and balanced" world of Fox News. You can feel safe in your beliefs and superior from the anti-American liberal from that unbiased presentation of the "facts".

Finally, to those who state that this is not a "factual" documentary, where do you get the information from? I see few who have the courage to actually state what theses lies are. They can't because they don't exist.

A couple of quick points to those concerns people have with this documentary. The bank scene was not staged, Forbes was mislead on this concern and the right wing media were all too happy to propagate it. The idea that this bank does not provide guns to its customers (if they choose) or that there is a week waiting period for the gun is a flat out lie.

The propaganda that Lockheed Martin does not make weapons at the Littleton factory again is a lie based on the fact that now they MOSTLY make rockets to launch satellites (some of which are used to wage war). Some of these Titan and Atlas rockets are still used for nuclear warheads. Also, some of the satellites are used by the Pentagon for top secret projects (draw your own conclusions).

Finally, the editing of Charleton Heston's NRA speech is hardly misleading. You cannot watch a news or documentary program that has not been edited. Go read Heston's original full speech and then compare it to Moore's cut. What relevant point was left out? It is incumbent upon documentary filmmakers to not remix someone's words to misconstrue their meaning while editing interviews, speeches, etc. The fact that the speech was edited is not relevant. Again the question is did he change Heston's meaning? Read the original speech and decide for yourself.

This is a fine movie meant to inspire discussion and further questions not provide you simple answers. It is a complicated world and no politician is going to fix it with gun banning or school prayer. So many on both extremes seem to think the answers/fault lies in the other sides lap. Michael Moore wears his Leftiest slant on his sleeve. This movie is about a liberal's search for answers and finding only more questions.

If you want a "fair and balanced" perspective, well good luck, Walter Cronkite retired over 20 years ago.

Rating:
Summary: Brad who?
Review: Forget Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves and George Clooney. Michael Moore is the sexiest man alive. His pursuit of truth, liberty and the American way make him and this perfect movie irresistible.

Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: The question of why there is so much gun violence in the US has a very complex answer and a documentary isn't going to answer it. I hesitated going to this moving because I thought it was going to be depressing. It was in a few spots, but it was also very entertaining. And some things have changed as a result of this film. Americans need to question government. At least one reviewer had problems with the truthfulness of this movie - I wonder if he has the same problem with newspapers, TV & cable news programs, non-fiction books and magazines? I'd say Michael Moore is closer to the truth than what's on the news in spite of his biases.