Customer Reviews

Bowling for Columbine

5 star:		(553)
4 star:		(136)
3 star:		(83)
2 star:		(58)
1 star:		(298)

 

 

I have taken 4 friends to see this movie. I have even seen this movie while I was in Montreal to see what the Canadian reaction would be. I must say, I was embarrassed to be an American after watching this movie. I then thought of all the things I should be doing to make this place a better place to live. In other words, this is a thought provoking movie that is truly provocative.

You will see Charles Heston wring his hands in nervousness after he says, "We don't want any more of that civil rights business going on again", or "the reason America is violent is because of all the mixed ethnicities." What an idiot.

And that is just what Michael Moore does, he shows people and the government in their natural element speaking freely, and shows us how insane they are and sound. From George Bush proclaiming that our number one priority should be defense spending when people all over the country are out of work and children are living in poverty without parent supervision, to the crackpot rednecks who are buying more "guns and ammo" because they want to protect themselves from the "evil doers." It's this candid honesty of Moore's subjects that makes us look inward to how this country gone astray. Then Moore tries to explain this with his amazing short animation movie "A Brief History of the United States of America." Although he simplifies everything, and it is truly brief, it hits home and is certainly eye opening.

Moore tries to explain the question of why America is so violent. Why we are the unique country in the world that kills people with guns on the astronomical level that the United States does. He offers a lot of options to this answer, but ultimately, he leaves the question open for the viewer to search out within him/herself for the answer and make change.

A truly great achievement and I can't wait till his next film that is due out 2 months before the election that will no doubt, open up people's eyes to the corrupt and blood thirsty administration that occupies the White House.

Bravo Mr. Moore! Bravo!

I was very, very disappointed with this documentary. It largely consists of editing tricks (lies) to make its point. Example:

In one of the Heston speeches, it appears Heston is telling the Columbine mayor "too bad" in response to the tragedy. In reality, if you look carefully, HESTON'S TIE CHANGES COLOR SEVERAL TIMES during the speech. Hmmm. Why? Because Moore is editing together multiple speeches/ random phrases, from many different cities, to give the ILLUSION of a single speech. Moore is not showing us a real speech. He's showing us a >fake speech< that he wrote himself & using Heston like a puppet.

Why does Moore have to create fake speeches to make his point? Why lie? It makes no sense.

OK, I had heard so many negative things about this movie that I didn't want to bother with it. Then, my beloved brought it home. We watched it together and I completely flipped! Michael Moore is a film-making genius! His guerilla style is perfectly suited for the subject matter. Who else has even attempted to ask the question "Why so much fear and violence in america?" without finding simplistic, kneejerk answers? Moore takes us to Columbine to not only relive the tragedy, but to talk with the surviving victims. He even takes them to K Mart's HQ to confront the company's policy of selling handgun ammo (the columbine shooters purchased their bullets at the local k mart) with successful results. This is not just some propoganda film about the evils of gun ownership. Moore himself was raised with guns and still carries his NRA membership card. This movie is about Moore's quest to find out why we love to kill each other so much here in the states. Is it poverty? Nope, other countries have worse economic problems without the bloodletting. Is it violent music or video games? Uh-uh, these are endemic throughout the civilized world. Could it be the proliferation of handguns? No, Canada has millions of guns and it's big cities have the murder rates of our small towns! Is it our violent, gun-toting history? Negative, the entire planet has a bloody, violent past. Moore has the audacity to try to get to the bottom of this mess. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is not for the squeamish or the political zealot from either right or left. It's for folks who wonder at what we've become. It's for people like me who hate the idea of barracading themselves in their homes for fear of being slaughtered. This fear is also challenged here. Many sacred cow arguments are terminated. Prepare to be angered, saddened, provoked, offended, and oddly entertained as only Michael Moore can do. A must own classic...

Every year a film is released which gives more proof that filmmaking is not only important but vital, Bowling For Columine is that film of 2002. "Bowling" is not a film about gun control, it is a film about fear. Moore brings out the the useful tool of fear induced media and politics. He lays this tool on the table free of the mask.

I just got back from seeing this film at the Toronto International Film Festival and I am stunned at how good and powerful this film is. Michael Moore attended the screening that I saw and he did a little talk before and after the film which gave it some nice perspective. It does paint an inacurate (in a good way) picture of Canada as a crime free utopia but during his talks Mr. Moore mentioned that it was done by an American, for Americans and it is meant to be a bitter pill for THEM to swallow, being a Canadian I could appreciate what he was doing despite the inacurate depiction of my home. This film gives you an odd feeling, at one time you are laughing at how funny it is, then you are on the brink of tears at the sorrow and shock you receive while watching actual Columbine High School security footage, when you see the children run and the two murderers walk in it sends shivers down your spine. This is perhaps one of Moores best works and very poiniant at a time like this.
The title itself is quite clever but a little misleading, the focus of the film is Columbine but it also covers school shootings in general as well as the state of America when it comes to gun control and even foriegn policy in regards to 09/11/01.
It opens in theatres in the states on the 11th of Oct. and Mr. Moore commented that he is pleased it opened at the TIFF first as it got a very warm reception with the mostly Canadian audience and he is concerned/interested in seeing how Americans tolerate this work.
A modern masterpiece that is highly recommended.

I gave "Roger and Me" 5 stars, but I think this is a much lesser effort from Michael Moore.

First, here is what makes Roger and Me great: irony and tragedy in parallel. Moore is a genius at putting people into ridiculously ironic situations - for example, filming four rich women golfers, none of whom have ever worked a day in their lives, calling the auto workers "lazy" as they take tee shots. Ronald Reagan brings the workers out for pizza and advises them to move to Texas, and then leaves without picking up the tab. As Roger Smith, CEO of GM, makes a Christmas speech, fired auto workers are evicted from their homes. The movie makes its point in a roundabout way that works with people across the ideological spectrum - and still leaves plenty of room for debate.

Bowling for Columbine is a different story. There's still some of Moore's irony left, as when James Nichols (Terry's brother) says "there's some wackos out there!" after pointing a gun at his head and convincingly sounding wacko himself. And the Lockheed Martin exec standing in front of a gigantic missile as he discusses how anger management would have helped with Columbine. But here Michael Moore tries to find a solution to the problem of violent crime in the US. It seems for a while that the solution is going to be, "restrict guns," and the evidence is rather convincing. Until Moore reveals that Canada has relatively unrestricted access to guns, but a tiny fraction of the US's murder rate.

After this, the movie seems to go off in too many directions. If this is true about Canada, why is Moore intent on stopping the sales of handgun ammo at K-Mart? He never explains (although I think there could be a plausible case). He ties American violence to a "culture of fear" spread by the American media. But this seems no more convincing than the idea that Marilyn Manson is spreading violence through similar media, and the theory that American media is so much more fear-driven than Canadian media seems doubtful. The movie ends with Moore speeding through many more unconvincing and irrelevant theories: about "Cops" being racist, about workfare causing an accidental shooting, etc. Bowling for Columbine simply doesn't have the irony and dark humor of Roger and Me, and spends too long on unconvincing solutions. Moore makes a weak attempt to substitute Charlton Heston for Roger Smith, but winds up making the old man look sympathetic with his relentless badgering. Moore comes off looking as simple-minded as those who would criticize him: his solutions are no better thought through than his opposition's.

Some of the reviews I've been reading of "Bowling for Columbine" remind me of a statement that a Canadian makes about Americans in the film - that we don't think before we react. Obviously, certain people were angered by this film (hopefully everyone was at least once) and for some reason don't like Michael Moore and have written their reviews before letting it all soak in. "Bowling for Columbine" has just that - a lot to soak in. I will not give away parts of this film because it truly has to be witnessed to be believed. I can't believe this even came out to the theatres. I would like to respond to a few things others are saying who obviously don't fully get what is presented in this film. First off, "Bowling for Columbine" IS NOT a comedy. Yes, it has laughs and funny ironies, but it is not a movie you go to for a good happy laughing experience. This is a documentary film with a focus on gun control and gun violence, which also includes segments on racism, the media, and other politics. This is not a movie you just shrug off and giggle at - this movie should not be called "hilarious" because it never comes near it. It is also not for the faint of heart because there is footage of actual shootings, Security camera video from the Columbine High School, and also footage of the second tower of the World Trade Center being attacked. How anyone could call or expect a film with this footage to be a comedy is beyond me. I don't consider myself to be a liberal or conservative, but the facts are the facts and yes some things in this film are a little biased and maybe even over exaggerated, but the people who Moore interviews speak for themselves. Moore isn't "making them look bad", they make theirselves look bad. All I see Moore doing is asking questions...he's not accusing them of anything. The way they respond is up to them. I don't have a problem believing these enormously rich famous people like Heston and Clark are represented realistically in this film. Why should they care? These guys are so far removed from reality its not even funny. I love Heston fumbling with words trying to justify why he, a rich movie star who lives in a gated fortress probably with his own security team, has to have loaded guns in his house. Even better is the part with Dick Clark (I won't ruin it). Another scene involves a TV reporter who "acts" emotional when covering a story about a murdered child on the air and as soon as the camera is off he starts laughing and worrying about his hair...as soon as its time to go back on - he puts his "sad" face on - priceless. In scenes like these and many others Moore doesn't have to say a word because these people bury themselves. I wish this kind of footage would be shown more often - footage showing what people are really like when the camera goes off. Marilyn Manson has one of the best and most intelligent comments in the film about what he would say to the victims of Columbine - Everyone who dislikes Manson should hear what he has to say in this segment. I'm not really even a fan of his, but he made more sense in 5 sentences than most any other famous people interviewed in the film. Also of notable mention is Matt Stone of South Park fame who actually attended Columbine High. His statements are also important - especially the one about High School seeming so important when you're going through it, but when it's over...its really over. The real stars of "Bowling for Columbine" are the non-famous people who either have had first hand experience or just voice their opinions. These people actually live in the real world...not in some mansion surrounded by guards & yes-men. I think people are going to be mad at this film because its too much to handle and accept. I'm not saying that everything in this film is all true, but most of it obviously is and I think the people who hate Moore and call him "Anti-American" or "Communist" actually just hate the idea of admitting there is truth here about our Country. It's alright to be an American, a "good" American, and still be aware and critical, even angry at the injustices and stupidity that goes on around you. People who think Moore is "Anti-American" should watch his film "Roger & Me". That film is for Americans and about Americans. The film centers around the closing of a General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan and the devastating effect it had on that town and the thousands of people who lost their jobs. "Bowling for Columbine", like "Roger & Me", presents some hard undeniable truths and if people are not ready to deal with them, maybe they should go see something else...better yet, maybe the perfect time to see this is when you're not ready. This is a very important film, if for anything because it makes you think and form opinions. Moore doesn't tell you what to think at anytime in his films. You see what you see and interpret it. If you're angry when you leave the theatre or emotionally overwhelmed...you should be.

I know I'm gonna get dinged for berating this, but please hear me out. I saw this movie with an open mind and afterwards, I did my research and found too many inconsistancies and falicies in Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine.

First off, he doesn't cite any sources what so ever during the movie, in the credits, or anywhere else for that matter. And in documentaries, you cite sources otherwise your "facts" and "anecdotes" are just another story.

Seccond, I was not impressed with how pushy he was. He came off as a jerk by pressing a mic right in front of Dick Clark's face without an appointment and expected an interview where and when he wanted knowing Clark would have to decline and would be in a hurry.

He also placed [a store] in a PR nightmare and exploiting the survivors of the shooting at Columbine to further his own agenda. I think that is cold hearted and he does it on film! Such [manipulation] and exploitation only made me more sick to my stomache, knowing Moore can go up to anyone, point a mic in front of their face and either make them do what he wants, or face the PR consequences.

Third is his questionable "facts." ... This makes me take off a star because a documentary should have irrefutable facts, or claim them as theory, and since Moore did not state them as theory and his facts have inconsistancies so I'm very skeptical about his work.

However there were some entertaining parts, like his humor. I laughed a few times but it wasn't enough to make me like it. All in all this movie is too questionable to be considered a work of art.

Only in a few places does Michael Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary veer too sharply into diatribe. The incomprehensible student shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado formed the impetus for the making of this film, which is filled with unforgettable vignettes, including the following: the bank that offers a big gun to everyone who opens a new account, Charlton Heston turning his back on the photograph of the 6yo girl killed by her 1st grade classmate, the manager of K-Mart agreeing to halt the sale of guns and ammunition, and most disturbing to me, the disclosure that Canadians have more guns per household that we do in the USA, yet they have an infinitesimal rate of murder.

Go figure.

Definitely worth watching and then thinking about for a long time.

There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary; indeed the less biased a documentary appears, then the more suspicious I am of it. Michael Moore can be insensitive, even cruel, as he most certainly is to Charlton Heston in this film, but I never doubt where he stands. I didn't get the impression that Heston "caused" Columbine, rather that Michael Moore, an NRA member, was chastising Heston for HIS insensitivity in holding NRA rallies in towns still affected by school massacres.

You make a very important point in your review: "The question should not be how did they get the guns, but why did they use them?" and indeed the story of "Bowling for Columnbine" essentially concerns Michael Moore's attempt to answer that question. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is NOT the easy availability of guns that drove these kids to mass murder, but the harsh, competitive, alienating nature of American life. Columbine High School is described by one of its graduates (Trey Parker) as a living nightmare of degredation, threats malaise. A little boy would not have killed a little girl, he reveals, if his mother had been there to monitor him, instead of having to work two jobs and take an hours-ling bus ride to and from work. Moore also makes great play of the fact that Columbine manufactures the missiles with which America bombs civilians in other countries without warning.

The film's principle flaw, and what has opened it to its detractors, is that Moore's centrepiece "stunts" (the Kmart protest, the Heston interview) appear to advocate gun control, when "Bowling for Columbine" isn't really about gun control at all, but an examination of the collective psychology of America.