Rating: 
Summary: Not a documentary
Review: I just wish they wouldn't call this movie documentary, Moore simply bases his own leftist opinion throughout the movie. Instead of showing things how they are, Moore decided to edit, and fabricate things to make it look as though every gun owner in America is a serial killer and a threat to those around them. I can see if we wants to oppose war thats fine, however saying out nation was found on pure violence it obvious that he hasn't learned much. Some people must have not learned about The Decleration of Indpendence. Moore also tells us that anyone who fought in a war, and has kids means they will be killers. Very few men who serve enjoy killing people, but try to defend Micheal Moore. I hate coming off as some crazy conservative, however I just wish some people who see this movie and don't see the whole story. The movie can be convincing when Moore doctors things to make America's gun culture look like an army of killers. If you are a strong liberal, thats your right, just realize Moore is not showing the whole picture, just his leftist opinion.
Rating:
Summary: I wish it was more 'real'.
Review: *** Yeah, yeah yah, I've heard about many of the accusations against this film. I don't want to hear it anymore. I don't want to hear about... -- the missles referred to in the film were for commercial use not military. -- the Heston speech was spliced together from two different speeches, making him look like he's saying something different. -- the bank sequence is staged. -- the statistics about China's gun record are true, but that's because China is a police state. -- Canada isn't really that good of a place to live. -- France is socialist. I've heard it all before. I don't care. This was an entertaining movie. I don't go to the movies to learn 'facts' I go to be entertained, and that's what this movie does. Don't confuse me with 'truth' vs. 'error'. Life's too short for all that. Thank you Mr. Moore for giving us a fun movie that is highly entertaining, and much better than the Matrix!
Rating: 
Summary: Not sure whether to be awed or confused.
Review: Michael Moore takes on one of the biggest topics in American culture with Bowling for Columbine(the title is taken from the activity the two Columbine killers were participating in just hours before the killing spree). Unfortunately maybe it requires more time to delve more completely into this topic. This isn't to say he doesn't do a marvelous job in the time he uses. He brings up many points for debate, but he also leaves some hanging. He spends a good amount of time delving into the perception of the "dangerous black male" only to sort of drop it part way through. The Cartoon of American History was about the funniest and most accurate portrayal of American History I have ever seen. His conversation with Charleston Heston seems the only possible way to end the movie. You get a sense of Heston earlier in the movie and the conversation at the end only seems to confirm your suspicions about him. In short it's like watching a serious debate at MTV speed.
Rating: 
Summary: AN UNDESERVED BAD REPUTATION
Review: One of the reviewers on this site forgives Willie Horton of crimes against women in an effort to discredit Michael Moore. Of course there are going to be a handful of negative reviews when some people are so willing to bend over backwards to find a problem with Michael Moore. There are, however, also some very, very good reviews, and I would encourage visitors of amazon.com to consider the agenda of those people who have attempted to drive down sales of this item through negative feedback. Rather than encouraging people to become informed from a variety of ideological sources, conservatives have made it their mission to stiffle liberal ideas. I would personally suggest that you watch this movie and also read something like Ann Coulter's "Slander," and then make up your own mind, rather than having it made up for you by a lack of information. Also, to say that this film is "liberal" in the common sense of the term is a misrepresentation. In most ways it is liberal, except that it is a film about the dangers of gun violence and it quite specifically DOES NOT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL. I think that Michael Moore likely started filming with every intention of making a movie about the wonders of gun control, but what he found in his investigation steered him away from this ideology. This is a sign of the open-mindedness with which Mr. Moore approaches a liberal agenda. I was impressed to see one of the staples of liberal-dom, gun control, thrown out upon further investigation. Mr. Moore recognized that other concerns had more impact on the issues that he was discussing. As to the meat of the film, it would be inappropriate to ruin anything specifically. Michael Moore's presentation of the issues is so ingenious that to hint at his method of approach would do the film a disservice. What I can say is that there is an animated history lesson that should be shown in every school, an interview with Charlton Heston that should be shown to every closet racist, and a segment about Canada that should encourage Americans to travel even in the face of SARS. This is a fine film. It is easily one of the most thought provoking and entertaining films of recent years.
Rating:
Summary: Deserved Academy Award
Review: Michael Moore got a lot of flak because of his attack on Pres. Bush. While Moore loves to overkill his subject, he actually offers insight to the rising problem of gun violence in the USA compared to neighboring Canada and possible causes for this. No review I have seen even mentioned this topic which I believe to be its most important point of this documentary. Well worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: A Defence of "Moore"esy
Review: Bowling for Columbine is one of the greatest films of all time.
Thoughtful and provacative, it traces the tragedy that struck our entire nation. It combines humor, wit, and boldness to ask the question of why such a tragic event as the Columbine shootings occurred.
I wish to respond to some of the reviews I read regarding this film, particularly the scathing and unartful ones, in defence of Moore's work.
First, the claim made by one reviewer stating that he/she "couldn't put [his] finger on what Michael Moore's argument was after [he] was done watching" brings to question whether it is a problem with Moore's argument or, more likely, if it has something to do with this reviewer's ability to follow the ideas that the film presents. In no way does Moore claim authority over the issues at hand; rather, he presents a situation with facts that are otherwise unknown or glossed over by mainstream media. His main intent is not to solve the ongoing problem of violence in America, but instead is to provide insight to the possible CAUSES that led up to the unnecessary violence involving these young Americans on such a large scale.
The beauty of this film is its activism through Moore's uncanny humor and trademark sarcasm. The scene showing the 9-11 movie footage with Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" playing in the background is precisely Moore's style of ironic and thought-provoking presentation. By combining these two drastically contrasting elements, Moore's intelligent audience is able to see the similarly contrasting aspects of the gilted "American Dream" versus what is real and wrong about the United States.
The fact that K-Mart sold bullets to the Columbine shooters is clearly an aspect that something is terribly wrong with society. The same reviewer who couldn't follow Moore's "argument" wrote that "the two Columbine victims confronting K-Mart headquarters felt as if it was all Moore's planning. They just didn't seem like the type who would've gone on this thing on their own." Aside from the fact that this very offensive comment is an attack on the victims, it is obvious that these high school students would probably not have, in fact, confronted K-Mart. Not only have they been drastically impaired physically (wheelchair, bullets in body), but these boys are clearly in no mental nor emotional state to dive into a conflict between a huge corporation like K-Mart alone. This is where Moore comes in. He is the facilitator of these young victims who would otherwise have voice in the issue. Through his gift of film, he gives these boys a chance to challenge a monstrous corporation's business ethics, to aid in preventing another tragedy (the first of which should not have occurred in the first place), and to know that they are capable of making a difference.
Although there are many more comments reviewers have made that I feel are rash and unjustified, the one last statement that i will tackle is the one that states, "I've read that in the last few years violent crime in the U.S. is down 20%, while media reporting of crime is up 600%. This 'documentary' goes a long way to increase that kind of imbalance..." Bowling for Columbine? I question whether this particular comment is about the same film that I am defending. Moore is clearly arguing the first half of this person's statement, which is obviously why he concludes that fear is one (perhaps the most prominent) of the underlying causes of violence in America, as the South Park clip comically illustrates. As for the film increasing the imbalance, I think it does quite the opposite by comparing U.S. news, with its constant emphasis on street crimes and violence (not to mention the lack of awareness regarding white-collar crime) to Canadian news, with the example of its special report on new speedbumps. Moore brings up issues of violence not to increase fear and anxiety as mass media such as the U.S. news often does, but to simply take these issues and seek ways in which we as Americans can work to solve them in creative, non-violent methods.
All in all, Bowling for Columbine is an honest film by a man who recognizes the injustices that individuals suffer from because of the many rotten holes in society where the rich (and the big bad corporations) can get away with virtually anything. Through this and all of his other films, he criticizes capitalism and avidly fights for the rights of the individual. He proves that one man can truly make a difference and that it can happen through means other than violence.
Rating:
Summary: Misunderstood
Review: I just finished watching this movie and I have to say that I'm a little confused. It is true that the movie is a bit Left biased and that at some parts it is deceitful. Given that, however, there still is a lot of truth in there. The U.S. support of foreign dictators and U.S. installed governments is certainly something that nobody seems to want to address. It's also true that Moore's argument is discontinuous and never arrives at a true solution. But I give him a lot of credit for attempting to bring an enigma to the attention of Americans. Once again, the "statistics" of the number of gun deaths for various countries are misleading, but it does show that there are many many many more gun deaths in the States than there are in most industrialized countries. And although it doesn't provide a definite answer, it does ask the question of why things are like they way they are in America. In the end, I don't think this movie is about gun control anymore than it's actually about Columbine. It's about asking a tough question, and at least trying to find an answer. I find it odd that Moore's opponents spend more time talking down at the Left than they do trying to answer a legitimate question.
Rating:
Summary: Shooting My Mouth Off.
Review: Intentive viewers and fans may not be able to wait much longer for Michael Moore's next opus, "Farenheit 9/11" but they can get a headstart by obtaining 2002's "Bowling For Columbine", probably Moore's finest work to date. You cant ask for much more from a documentary, I mean come on, how many documentaries have such fine examples of investigative journalism, personal insights, provocative and just down right humorous interviews thrown together with the likes of Marilyn Manson, Matt Stone and Charleton Heston and still hold together like a fine baked cake?
Not many, and for that reason you can't deny Moore's approach to 'non-fictional' film making by balancing the serious with the humorous. Be it the candid interview with the president of the NRA or the insightful look into Americas culture of fear, it is not to be mistaken soley as an anti-gun movie but also a film that instigates and promotes the catalyst of discussion and change within our society. If you were wondering what the commotion over the Oscars was all about, then check out "Bowling For Columbine" and see why the "suits" in the upper balcony were making all of that noise for.
Rating:
Summary: Should be retitled "HOLES"
Review: Moore manipulates events, quotes, and down right lies. He is the
Rush Limbaugh of the left. I'm an anti-gun lobby fanatic and I cant understand why he didnt make a convincing documentary by just sticking to the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent film, but...
Review: I am a long time fan of Michael Moore. Many of those that question the factual representations of the film are blind followers of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh....talk about unreliable sources! The only point that, in my opinion, Moore did not address relating to the root cause of violence in America is this country's "what's in it for me" attitude. It is sad to say, but this is the most self-absorbed country in the world. If you doubt this, hop in your car and take a quick ride across town...see how many times you are cut off, blown at, flipped off, etc.
|
