Bowling for Columbine

The two high school students made infamous for their rampage at Columbine were rumored to have been at a bowling class at the school the morning of the shooting. It turned out to be urban legend, but Moore kept the catchy title, anyway. There seems to be no in between in regards to the filmmaker. I flat out love his work, all the way back to Roger and Me, and his TV shows, TV Nation and The Awful Truth. Here he takes on the NRA and Charleton Heston, or Moses, as he is best remembered, as he was the chief spokesman for the gun rights organization. As a gun owner, living in a secluded area, even I recognize the need for proper screenings and some restrictions on firearms.

As usual, Moore uses sardonic humor to make his point. At a bank in Colorado, he is given a hunting rifle for purchasing a CD. As he leaves the bank with the weapon, he asks, don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank? The high point is when Moore interviews Heston, asking him about the high level of gun violence, and Chuck answers that the reason is "race mixing" in America. This was seen by some as an ambush; I see it as Moore capturing the actors true feelings, and they are frightening. RIP Charlie boy.

Bowling for Columbine is both informative and entertaining, and Moore is our best documentary filmmaker. Look out, Dittoheads, the truth hurts.

Yes Mr. Moore may lean left, and yes he may not be the most objective documentarian.

However the facts stand: America has many, many more deaths attributed to guns than any other nation. It's a sad truth.

Unfortunately Mr. Moore has been vilified for asking why. And typical of the "head-stuck-in- the-sand" mentality of the far right, they are angry for his work, not at the facts.

This movie is well done and if you're left, right, in-between, gun nut, or responsible gun owner it is definitely worth viewing.

I suspect most of the negative comments posted about this movie at IMDB and similar sites are by people who haven't seen the movie. They're just angry at what they perceive the movie to be.

It isn't a movie about gun control. It's a movie that merely ask why so many deaths.

Enjoy.

Documentary by Michael Moore about the NRA and America's fascination with guns. Much of the footage deals with Columbine and the case in which a 6 year old boy shot to death a 6 year old girl. It all culminates in an interview with the head of the NRA Charlton Heston.

Riveting, chilling, hilarious and absolutely incredible movie despite what your views are on the gun issue. Moore's views are definetely anti-gun but he does try to show the opposite side also. Moore questions why there are so many killings in America by guns and almost none in other countries. He gives no real answers to this question but he raises a lot of interesting points and theories. I walked out of the theatre very shaken but, in a way, exhilirated. This is truly a great documentary.

I'm not going to review this fully--it's a movie you should see for yourself. A definite must-see.

I like Michael Moore's documentaries. Bowling for Columbine seems a little successful than Fahrenheit 9/11 for me. The background is the shooting violence affair in Columbia High School. Michael figured it out through different attitude of US citizens about this violence affair. He made issues of guns as the original problem in US violence.

In my personal opinion, this movie revealed that people transit a mood of insecurity. And all these bad things came from guns. Due to the idea throughout seemed to be the inherent evil with guns it was obvious from the questions asked that this isn't really true. Maybe there is a possibility, which shows American gun culture that people have their right and freedom to protect themselves, even they have power to fight against government in order to press somebody powerful. As a Chinese, I think if this gun-allowed policy was used in China, it will be a worse trouble, since Chinese government was controlled by only one party, their policy serviced for themselves, there are a lot of unstable things in society. If people have right to use guns, killing will happen everywhere.

The scenes shot in Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto, Canada have provoked much conversation in Canada. These scenes epitomize both the problem and the strength of BFC, that is, the sense is correct but the details often exaggerated. While the received notion that Canada is less violent than the US is accurate, we are catching up in a hurry. And people do lock their doors, at night anyway. In Toronto's current (Nov. 2003) mayoralty election, increasing street violence and crime is a major issue. When Moore asks Heston, "Why do other countries have so much less gun violence than the US?" Did you catch his brief answer? He says, "They will". Whatever is causing the problem, the U.S. is on the leading edge of the curve, but other countries are catching up.

That said, I give Moore credit for provoking conversation, for his humour (in spots). His lack of balance doesn't concern me. I can find my own balance, thank goodness for dissent and free speech. I also think that Moore is restrained in drawing conclusions in the film, which is a great strength of the film, in provoking discussion, and allowing people to express their own opinions.

Finally, Moore is way off on Marilyn Manson. Moore is careful to say that there is no direct causal relationship between Lockheed and the Columbine assassins - it's a mentality thing. Isn't the connection between Manson and teenage suicide/ violence much more palpable than Moore's connection of Lockheed & Columbine.

** UPDATE in Nov. 2005 - regarding Toronto, the score is Heston 1 Moore 0.