Bowling for Columbine

Rating:
Summary: Somewhat Frustrating to Watch
Review: I just saw this movie recently, and found it frustrating to watch because so many of Moore's conclusions are transparent. He has a tendency to ask a completely pejorative question in an interview, and then cut to a new scene without letting his subject answer. He focuses most of the first half of the movie on Lockheed Martin, a defense contracting company in Colorado, and I don't see the connection between Lockheed and guns in schools. This movie requires critical analysis on the part of the viewer, because Moore's strategy seems to be to throw every argument (no matter how farfetched) at the viewer and see what sticks.

Rating:
Summary: ABSOLUTELY SPLENDID!
Review: Michael Moore is a genius! In a sweeping blow to what some term conventional wisdom, Moore smashes the suburban American mythos about school violence, gun legislation, and urban crime to petty smitherines.

There are some who will lash out and brazenly give 1-star ratings coupled with inflamed postings, but they only do such because they feel a need to vent their disagreement with Moore's views. It's their pre-adolescent side coming out from under that veneer of ethnocentric arrogance.

I'm not anti-gun, but after seeing this, I know I'm definitely not pro-NRA. My grandfather may be a lifetime member of the NRA, but he'll have to hold on giving me that legacy. Why? Because Charleton Heston is an absolute freak!

What I especially like about Moore's film is that he didn't openly take a liberal or conservative stance. He appealed to the sense of the common American through basic common sense. His coverage of the societal crime of welfare-to-work was much needed, and the international perspective on poverty and crime was a plus.

The only think I didn't like was that the movie was a bit sensational. That element makes it good for a quick laugh and attention-getter, but it turns off many to his message, which is a rather serious one.

Rating:
Summary: Riveting Documentary
Review: Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is a riveting and electrifying documentary. Focusing on gun control (although topics also range from American history to violence in the media), it's powerful and often hilarious. Moore makes an engaging on-screen host, and the little vignettes he strings together are often hilarious, such as the history cartoon and the interview with the guy linked to the Oklahoma city bombing. Other scenes are truly powerhouse filmmaking, like the Columbine surveillance footage and the unforgettable showdown with Charlton Heston. The film is weighed down a bit by Moore's tweaking of the truth (like in the staged opening scene and the tricky editing of Heston's NRA speeches) and his occasionally insane arguments (like linking Dick Clarke to a school shooting), but overall, it's memorable and worth seeing.
On DVD, the film is in an aspect ratio of roughly 1.85:1. Being a documentary with much footage taken from news shows, the image quality varies, and is sometimes quite grainy. It looks and sounds as good as it should. Of the abundant extras, the most worthwhile is Moore's fifteen-minute defense of his famous Oscar acceptance speech ("Shame on you, Mr. Bush!"). There is a lot of interview footage with Moore at various film festivals and on various shows to a point at which there's almost too much Moore. A commentary with some of his interns (I listened to a bit of it; not informative, but funny and spontaneous) and a Marilyn Manson music video are also worth noting.

Rating:
Summary: Can a man be a man in America without a gun?
Review: Did Charlton Heston get blind-sided by Michael Moore? Yes, but he's definitely old enough and savvy enough to know better. Did Moore gain entry to the Heston Hollywood mansion using false pretenses? No, he told the one-time celluloid god of the waters that he was a lifetime, paid-up member of the National Rifle Association, and once inside even showed his membership card. And, although the average guy in the street might be disarmed by Moore's folksy style and declasse dress code, Heston knew that Moore was a big time media guy (previous film: Roger and Me; book: Stupid White Men).

But Heston never misses a chance to spread the Second Amendment gospel. He just thought he could handle the situation. There's no fool like an old fool, they say. To his credit, when he realized that he had fallen into a trap, he moseyed off, putting one gimpy leg carefully in front of the other as he carried a bent back and a 79-year-old frame off camera.

Well, was this fair? Indeed, was the entire film fair? No, of course not. This is Michael Moore simultaneously making a buck, building a rep, and working a cause. The cause is something like 11,000 dead-by-gunshot Americans every year (a pretty good cause), and the target is indeed Charlton Heston, long-time spokesman not only for God, but more significantly, the NRA, and of course gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers. So at least we can say that Michael Moore was after big game.

He mostly bagged them too (and made Dick Clark look heartless), but somehow I didn't gain much satisfaction. I don't care much for Charlton Heston, either as an actor or a proselytizer, but I am finding, after watching this and Fahrenheit 9/11, that I don't care much for Michael Moore either. I think all good, right-thinking liberals should continue to play fair even though the opposition might not. This film preached to the choir and a good time was had by all who agree with Moore's point of view. The cover on this DVD even quotes Time Magazine as saying the film is "hilarious."

Somehow though I don't think those on the right thought it was all that funny. And I wonder if those in the middle were swayed one way or the other. It is indeed heartbreaking that kids in this country pick up guns and shoot each other, and the fact that they do it much more often per capita than any other country in the First World does indeed call for an explanation. Ironically, I think Heston actually had the answer. This is a violent country with a violent history relative to other industrial nations. Moore and Heston agreed that our history isn't more violent than, say, Germany's, but they got their ideas confused. In Germany the violence was by the state and its armies and its police. We have plenty of that as well of course, but in the US we also have a tradition of the handy six-shooter in the holster for a quick draw and a further tradition of celebrating the rugged individual who stands up against the state and anyone wanting to take his arms away.

Personally I think there's a lot to be said and not said for both sides in this all too American debate. The Freudian implication that would-be macho guys need guns symbolically to feel like men is very real. It was no accident that Heston let slip the "multi-ethnic" rationale for explaining all those dead by firearms in the USA, a rationale that is usually interpreted to mean fear of a big black dude breaking into one's home. Or actually that is often a sort of "make my day" fantasy indulged in by some randy militia types as they sip a little Jack Daniels on the front porch swing as they fondle their weapon.

Well, what's the answer? There is no answer. It is a gradual process from the jungle to civilization, and the US, in this gun-toting regard, is just a little behind the rest of the West. If Michael Moore wants to focus on some people who really adore their weapons, he should take a trip to Iraq or Afghanistan, or just watch the nightly news.

Still this is worth seeing as a kind of Americana snapshot portfolio. Marilyn Manson proves a fine foil for Charlton Heston, and the Afro-American elementary school principal can be balanced against the poor little black kid who shot the little white girl, who can be contrasted with the members of the NRA who think the black kid should be tried as an adult, who can be contrasted with the kids at Columbine who were just there when it happened. And the mentality of Moore and his crew in imagining that they won a "victory" against K-Mart when it agreed to take the ammo off it shelves can be contrasted with the young dude who was disappointed that he wasn't named a number one collaborating suspect. (Actually the ammo sales are small potatoes to K-Mart which has big management and bottom-line problems.)

But see this to study the techniques used by Moore. Oh, where, oh, where has the concept of objective journalism gone--or did it ever exist in the first place?

Rating:
Summary: So blatantly manipulatively edited
Review: I saw this movie in order to understand what the buzz was about and was thoroughly disgusted. This film is nothing but clever editing with a whole lot of social scapegoating. It's laughable seeing Michael try to pin the blame possibly on the Lockhill-Selma plant in town. As for the reviewer who said that the spokesman was standing right in front of a nuclear warhead, you should check your facts. It was revealed that the plant in question in town was building rockets to launch T.V. Satellites into space. Don't take my word for it, check up on the facts. Moore's butchering of history is itself hysterical in the short animated segment where he tries to portray the country of England that the Puritans fled from as being benevolent and even worse where he portrays the Ku Klux Klan and NRA being the same organization, simply because both come up after the civil war. Anyone who checks up on history knows that the NRA was founded by former Union officials to improve marksmanship. Just go read the books Negroes With Guns and Radio-Free Dixie. If one doesn't know their facts or history, than that's forgiveable, but the fact that this film won so many awards is not forgiveable when you take into account the manipulative editing. He asks a Michigan Militiaman about why not using non-violent resistance, only to have the guy reply, "I've never heard about that before". Yet you don't actually see Michael Moore on screen at all, so for all you know he could have asked a different question and then insterted himself in the editing room asking the question about non-violent resistance. The opening scene with him at the bank is so obviously screwy as he asks the worker if it's a little dangerous handing a gun out at a bank, yet cuts it before the worker has a chance to answer. The splicing together of different segments of different speeches from Charlton Heston using protest footage to hide the switch is also quite useful to sway the gullible non-critical viewer. Notice how Charlton Heston's tie-color changes at one point even. Also the point near the end where he shows up the photo of the little girl who was killed. Moore insisted that he used two cameras (hence the switch in perspectives) yet when the perspective changes you don't see the other cameraman who should be there. There should be one to the left of Moore and in front of him. Yet you don't ever see them, which is impossible unless Moore lied and basically used just one cameraman to film two different segments (one before and one after Charlton Heston left) along with two different vocal tracks (one of the reasons for shooting behind Michael Moore is so that you don't see Moore's face and mouth from behind). Those points are just the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to statistics, Moore never tells where he got them or mentions the difference in populations between the U.S. and other countries. Add to that just many editing tricks that are so obvious to anyone that thinks for themself and doesn't just buy into Moore like some dittohead.