Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Bowling for Columbine is worth seeing
Review: It's probably Moore's best work, and an interesting film on the reasons for disproportionate gun violence in the United States.

For those who don't know, Moore is probably best known for "ambushing" the subjects of his interviews by asking them extremely uncomfortable questions that they probably weren't expecting him to ask. I'm not overly fond of the technique, but it has produced some interesting results.

Though a gun owner, I'm not by any stretch a gun-nut. However, I really don't think the film is as anti-gun as it is often made out to be. Moore himself has a lifetime membership in the NRA and was a skilled shooter in his youth. On the other hand, there's no denying that he purposely picks some kooks to make the gun people look bad. On the other hand, they are undeniably part of the "from my cold, dead hand" crowd.

On the whole, the movie's underlying goal is not to lambast gun ownership itself. Rather, Moore does a decent job of framing the real question: why does the US, which actually doesn't have disproportionate per capita gun ownerhsip compare to many other industrialized countries (such as Canada), have such disproportionate gun violence? He doesn't come down firmly on the side of any particular answer, but he does identify and explore a number of potential reasons. Which, I guess, means that if you aren't interested in the question or don't think there is a problem, it's not a film for you.

There are moments when Moore goes a bit too far with the technique described above, but there are others when he uses it quite effectively. Also, the big ending is an interview with Charleton Heston, which I found interesting, but which I'm not sure actually fits with the seeming overall purpose of the film to ask questions and explore answers. I'm still undecided about that part of it.

Finally, the overall thesis (in my opinion at least) of Bowling For Columbine is that the United States lives in (and perpetuates its own) fear. Having travelled to many other countries, I find it hard to argue with that thesis, since I too have observed that unfortunate phenomenon about my country.

Rating:
Summary: We Are Not Amused
Review: There are times when Moore is kind of funny, in that cringe-at-the-embarassing-moment kind of way, and there are many, many more times when his holier-than-thou, we-are-the-world pontificated just wears thin.

I was sucked in by the hype of ROGER & ME and then found it dull and less than informative, and I have to admit that I was sucked in for a second time on BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. Once again I was misled. Moore does mocumentary humor a lot better than the self-agrandizing proselylizing he too often stumblers into.

On the other hand, any film that can expose Charlton Heston and the NRA for what they are deserves at least 3 stars. Heston is exposed as a fraud and a carny. The lighter moments of the film warrant another star; Moore's own showboating--the final moment of the Heston interview, where he props a photo of a shooting victim in Heston's courtyard, for instance--will make you want to throw up.

Rating:
Summary: A gifted filmmaker of fiction
Review: While Moore may be a complete and utter idiot, he has a talent for filmmaking. Moore's own assessment of Bowling is to the point: "It's funny, poignant and interesting, your perfect Saturday night out." That might of course be said of good
comedic fiction.

For a documentary, though, one expects more. For example, truth.

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. One might hope that a documentary would be fair and objective, but nothing rules out a rousing
polemic now and then.

The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception.
It even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases into arrogant ones. You can'teven trust the narrator to read you a plaque, for God's sake.

He shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it "proudly
proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972." Strangely, Moore does not show the plaque.

Actually, the plaque reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, granted. But it illustrates that the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read the inscription on a plaque.

In a downright diabolical act, Moore equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in
1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.

Fact: The Klan wasn't founded in 1871, but in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that it technically became an "illegal"
terrorist organization with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and
empowered the President to suspend habeas corpus and to use troops to suppress the Klan.

Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously,
suspending habeas corpus in South Carolina, sending troops into that and other states; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan
was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate
of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to oppose Klan
terror.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded in New York by two former Union officers, its first
president was an Army of the Potomac commander, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when the viewer cannot trust an iota of it, not only the narration, but the video? I suppose film critics could
debate that one for a long time, and some might prefer entertainment and effect to fact and truth. But the Academy Award rules here are specific. Rule 11 lays out
"Special Rules for the Documentary Award." And it begins with the definition: "A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture . . . ." It goes on to
say that a documentary doesn't always have to show the "actual occurrence": it can employ re-enactment, etc., "as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not
on fiction."

So when awards night rolls around, we will see whether the Academy follows its own core rule, or decides to ignore it so long as the film is one attacking one Charlton Heston, and the NRA.
That may win an award at Cannes. It may make some serious money. But it is a disgrace to the documentary creator's art.

Rating:
Summary: Liberal Generalized Film
Review: This film is a documentary by Michael Moore about why we have so many gun related homicides in the U.S. It is very liberal and appears to be against big business, rich people, capitalism, and the white man. The film is not very scholarly and is extremely biased. It is an "Escape Documentary" meant to stir emotion in the uneducated and to give fame to the director. It is about as real as reality TV. It's in bad taste that the director uses this type of vehicle to profit from the Columbine tragedy. I feel sorry for the young impressionable people who watch this without exposure to counter points of view. The following are a few notables:

"Crime is going down in the U.S., but media coverage of crime is rising." Actually, crime IS on the rise in the U.S. REPORTED crime is on the decline. Unless you're one of the dimishing number of people who still carry insurance, there's not much reason to report. If you're a business, it's in your best interest NOT to report crime because that shows your area as being a high crime district. Police departments are also motivated to "work with" crime statistics to make them appear to be doing their job.

The film constantly shows that the white man is needlessly scared of the black man. The film says that is why the white people buy guns. I personally don't like films that stir up racial hatred like this. In the past, it might have been about race. Today, it is about social class. People want to associate with other people of the same values. The day we quit being racists is the day we quit discussing race. Lets discuss the REAL issue: values. I moved to the burbs not to get away from a certain race of people, but to get away from things like all the houses on the block getting burglarized, prostitutes walking the streets, nearby crack houses, disrespectful neighbors, etc.

Michael Moore interviews Heston (NRA), KMart (sells bullets), and Walmart (sells bullets). Each of these are "surprise" interviews. This means that Michael Moore has fully prepared his offense, and then attacks each of the unprepared interviewees. He gets irritated at KMart stalling on the interviews, but is happy with the results. Hey Michael, could it be that people need time to prepare for your assaults?

Yes, homicides in the U.S. are surprisingly high compared to other countries. One aspect the film didn't touch on is how the people in other countries are much closer. They walk & talk instead of driving and watching TV. They eat together. The film forgot to discuss how America has become alienated from each other. And yes, what about fitness? America is one of the most overweight nations (including the filmmaker) Healthy body, healthy mind?

The best thing about the film is in showing how Americans are fearful, probably caused by the media. Personally, I watch PBS & BBC news. We have the choice not to watch the stuff in question.

As far as big buisiness, remember that without them, we wouldn't have our social programs. The richest man (Billy Gates) has also made the largest charity contributions. If we had socialized medicine, then our drug companies wouldn't have as much research money to spend developing the cholesterol medicine the director may need later in life. Our big business has financed the enormous social programs in our country and the world aid we have provided.

The film doesn't discuss the state of education very much. Education level and IQ in the U.S. are on the decline. Morals are all but gone. As a teacher, I can no longer discipline a student. If I do, they go to the Dean and scream racial discrimination, then go find a lawyer. Therefore, I have to let students walk into class 15 minutes late talking on their cell phone drinking a coke. They sit down, interrupt me, and ask me to start over with my lecture. THIS IS NO EXAGGERATION!

A good case study as far as low crime is China. They leave their keys in the car with the doors unlocked. Homicide & crime are extremely low for the most populous nation. Why? Maybe because of the strong work ethic, strict schools, and severe punitive system?

Rating:
Summary: Don't take Moore's work at face value.
Review: Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is NOT a documentary. A documentary treats a given subject objectively, without editorializing, editing speeches and timelines, or inserting fictional material. The movie is carefully crafted to appeal to your emotions, and at that task it succeeds handily - at the expense of the truth. "Bowling for Columbine" is deliberately deceptive. I would have no problem with this film, were it not portrayed as a documentary. It is anything but.

Rating:
Summary: An Absolute Farce and Waste of Time!
Review: This movie is a rabid attack on our Constitutional Rights, especially the Second Amendment, and an affront to any Real American who bothers to keep up with any part of this subject matter.
1. The charge that the N.R.A. is in anyway allied with the KKK is an absolute lie and such a ... fabrication that the F.B.I. laughed at the idea when Sarah Brady and her gun thieves suggested an investigation was needed.
2. The reference to the idea that one of the perpetrators was influenced by his father's working for a military contractor is an absolute lie. In fact, the company in question is a commercial endeavor one of whose main projects is converting Titan II military boosters into civilian satellite launch vehicles(the ultimate in Swords into Plowshares technology)!!!
3.Charlton Heston is shown making a speech supposedly somewhere near Columbine(...); when, in truth, said speech was made A FULL YEAR LATER AND OVER 900 MILES from Columbine!
...
If this farce actuall WINS an Academy Award, it could well mean the beginning of the end of intellectual civilization as we know it!!!

Rating:
Summary: not about gun control
Review: what i have had problems with is many people look at this movie as liberal propaganda on the issue of gun control. hell i know that is why i went to see it. yet that is only the surface. the movie begins at that point and then finds multiple facets for the real reasons behind the 11,000 homicides from guns in the good ol' US of A. the issue that was strongest was from one person i least expected it: marilyn manson. he spoke of how the media keeps us in this state of constant fear and as long as we are afraid we will think little and consume as much as possible. it is a very well organized interview and honestly one of the highlights in this film. moore supports this and shows segements about how much we fear and why we fear. he gives counter arguements to statements such as america has a violent past, or we watch violent movies, or listen to hateful music. he argues that it is deeper than that. all in all a very great film. i would like everyone to see it, yet i know many cannot get past moore's liberal stance even if that is not what this movie is about. with the impending war with iraq this movie should be watched. if you are too right winged you might be irritated a little at the beginnning but come the end, you might be forced to think a little.

Rating:
Summary: Great Documentary
Review: I think that the "Bowling For Columbine" movie is a great documentary about we violence is perceived in our country and other countries.

Despite the title, this movie has very little to do with what happened at Columbine, although you do have the security video from the cafeteria, the 911 calls and the walk through into the K-Mart officees and I also think that the person who made the most sense in this movie is Marilyn Manson with his interview.

I think that this is a must see movie for everyone.

Rating:
Summary: Veiled Propaganda
Review: The main reason I did not enjoy this movie is that I resented Mr. Moore's attempt at passing obvious propaganda off as obvious truth. Movies such as his seem to always have a predetermined agenda, to the extent that if this were fiction, the plot would be paper-thin. His editing and attempts at appearing objective I found insulting to my intelligence.

I don't necessarily disagree with his politics. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest things about our country, and I enjoy hearing a wide variety of opinions. However, this movie only presents one opinion, Mr. Moore's. Even the humorous moments of the film were offensive, as if they were a cunning attempt to get you to suspend belief as you would with a fictional film.

The other things I dislike about this movie and other works of his as of late are his anti-American tone. I'm not saying everyone has to love America. But the last I checked, there is no utopia. I don't find his lop-sided propaganda as anything remotely constructive.

Finally, I am cautious all forms of propaganda. Much of the evil of the past century was born of propaganda and listening to just one side of the story. So here is my recommendation: If you are for gun control, don't watch this movie. It's a waste of your time. If you are undecided about gun control, don't watch this movie. It's only one side of the story. If you are against gun control, watch this movie. The countering opinion is your own. And for those of you that can recognize propaganda when you see it, you won't enjoy it anymore than I did.

Rating:
Summary: What a wakeup call...
Review: I wish there were a way to force every American to watch this film. It really made me think about this country and made me question our society. I urge every citizen of the WORLD to watch this and really let it sink in. I think it's pretty odd when I have more respect for the views of a rock star than our own president. Michael Moore may not change your opinions or ideas about gun control and our sickening media, but he will force you to question yourself.