|
|
|
|
Holistic Guidance - Bowling for Columbine
|
List Price: $14.98
Our Price: $7.99
Your Save: $ 6.99 ( 47% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: MGM (Video & DVD)
Starring: Michael Caldwell, Dick Cheney, Dick Clark, Bill Clinton, Byron Dorgan
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: DVD
Brand: MOORE,MICHAEL
EAN: 0027616882264
Format: Anamorphic
Label: MGM (Video & DVD)
Manufacturer: MGM (Video & DVD)
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: MGM (Video & DVD)
Region Code: 1
Release Date: 2003-08-19
Running Time: 119
Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
Theatrical Release Date: 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Explores people's facination with the handgun and the possible reasons for the increase in gun violence in the United States.
Genre: Documentary
Rating: R
Release Date: 13-FEB-2007
Media Type: DVD
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Just what you would expect from Michael Moore
Comment: Michael Moore tells a good story, if you don't mind a liberal fairy tale. Anything Moore puts out needs to be taken with the understanding that he aims his stories for the uninformed masses. The thing that scares him the most is someone who thinks for themselves.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Very good at times, but also aggravating and annoying....
Comment: I recently tackled this movie again, and it's still good and worth watching, there were aspects of it that I disliked more this time around.
The film isn't strictly about gun control. While Moore does mention that they are tons of guns in this country, he also mentions that Canada has tons of guns as well (more per capita than the US), yet Canada doesn't have the amount of violence that we do here. Moore also points out rather telling of our culture of fear, where the news media constantly tells us we're about to die tomorrow from everything to blue jeans to bottled water. Everything is going to kill us. He also has a great interview with Marilyn Manson, the rock star who was "responsible" for the Columbine killings, despite the fact he wasn't at the actual shooting and two teenagers actually shot all the students. Moore hilariously points out that the US was bombing the bejeesus out of Yugoslavia during this time (a pre-emptive war on a country that did nothing to us, sound familiar?), and Clinton himself said "we need to teach our young people to solve their problems with words, not weapons. Now y'all excuse me, I have to authorise more missiles and kill more civilians". Clinton didn't actually say the 2nd line, but he might as well have, as that's exactly what he did. In other words, Moore makes some good points, and the film is not really about the gun issue but is about the violence issue.
Moore's tactics, on the other hand, are questionable. He brings some survivors to the Kmart headquarters to ask for their money back for the armor that's embedded in their bodies. It's an example of ambush journalism that Moore has to realise by now it isn't going to work. It's just done for show and nothing else. All he ends up doing is embarrassing people at Kmart headquarters, the victims of the shooting for going along with the stunt, and himself.
The worst tactic is his interview with Charlton Heston. Heston, as we all know, was the head of the NRA for many years until he resigned when he admitted he had Alzheimer's. When Moore interviews Heston, it's pretty damn obvious from Heston's speech and movements that he's having difficulty staying coherent and on point, and Heston seems confused by Moore's aggressive tactics. Moore must have realised that Heston was suffering from early Alzheimer's, and instead of engaging the man in a civilised manner and taking into account that he really wasn't all there, Moore pressed on anyway and bullied the ailing actor. Granted, I'm a Heston fan, but I think it would have made a much better (and more humane) interview had Moore given more background information on Heston and treated him as a man who was suffering from Alzheimer's. Heston was actually a liberal during his hollywood heyday. He marched with MLK (a few years before it became "alright" in the eyes of Hollywood and the country), and he supported both JFK and Adlai Stevenson. Moore has selectively edited before (he did actually interview Roger Smith of GM for his film Roger and Me, but decided not to use it and pushed the lie that he didn't get an interview with him), and I feel that he probably did this to Heston to.
While I feel this film is worth watching, I have more mixed feelings about it than I did before.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Interesting Twist
Comment: This movie explained a lot of the why of Columbine. It was funny and yet sad. It showed how one man (Michael Moore) could insert his own beliefs into what was supposedly a documentary. I would recommend this movie if you have the ability to see past the biased reporting.Across the Universe (Two-Disc Special Edition)
Customer Rating:
Summary: Wants To Eat His Cake & Have It Too
Comment: Bowling for Columbine is, like all of Michael Moore's films, a well-made and entertaining film. I believe that it has value, even if, as its detractors claim (and apparently with some justification), it isn't always scrupulously honest in its presentation of the facts.
Michael Moore may feel that he is serving some higher purpose which justifies a certain amount of misrepresentation. Maybe he believes that his *message* is true, which allows for some shading on the particulars. I don't agree with that point of view, and I don't respect any intentional deception on Moore's part, but I think that this doesn't devalue Moore's work altogether, so long as the viewer is discriminating and willing to ask questions. After all, there is propaganda on both sides of every issue, so it isn't as though Moore's films require some special skill unique unto them. No, Moore's films just require that we be critical thinkers, which hopefully we are in the first place.
In Bowling for Columbine, I was fully willing to be lead down whatever path Moore chose. I expected the man to drive some solid point home, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary or further investigation. What I found, however, was that Moore was slightly unclear in his expose on the nature of gun violence in the US. "Slightly unclear" is weak; actually, he's pretty muddled.
Moore doesn't want to blame cinema, video games, etc. (and allows no forum for those who would blame them), but seems willing to blame the violence in the news, and American engagements overseas... Do we really think that children are more inspired to violence by, say, reports from Afghanistan, than they are by the Matrix? How many kids regularly even watch the 6 o'clock news? I've heard stories of children doing violent things based off of what they've seen in professional wrestling, or Beavis & Butthead, or Grand Theft Auto, but I've never heard of any instance where a kid said he was inspired by the bombings in Kosovo.
Now... I, myself, don't blame movies or video games either, but that's not my point. My point is that Moore wants to uphold these ideas of "influence" when convenient to him, and drop them when not. Later, he debunks the idea that a country's history has direct ties to its gun violence (i.e. all of the blood that Germany has on "its hands," yet its people are peaceful)... but offers up missile construction in Littleton as suggestive evidence of what might have caused the Columbine massacre.
Moore thinks that the problem is the easy availability of guns and ammunition (K-Mart), but notes that this isn't really true in Canada (where they find similar product in a Wal-Mart). So... if Canada can have a lot of guns & ammo, but not the same rates of violence... then... why blame the problem on such availability in the US?
It would be one thing if Moore finally tossed up his hands and said -- "Well, gosh, I just don't know what the root of the violence is!" but that's not what he does. He feels free to blame the availability of guns when he wants to strike against K-Mart, and to debunk the guns argument when praising Canada; he is equally as convinced of either side of the argument, depending on which segment you're watching.
Moore, at times, feels that "fear," foisted on the American public by our ratings-hungry media, is the root of our violence, and seems to suggest that there's nothing really to be afraid of (hell -- we should be like Canada, and leave our doors unlocked at night)... but then presents statistics that seem to infer that America *really is* more violent (and an epidemic of school shootings, right?)... so which is it? Is there really nothing to be afraid of but fear itself? Or do we have a violence crisis, and are justified in locking up at night? Both. Neither. Again, it depends on the segment because Moore has no cohesive, consistent point of view in this film.
Moore shows off his "life-long" NRA membership, but never troubles us with an explanation as to what could prompt such a thing. He (seemingly) agrees with Charlton Heston that the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing, but lampoons the 2nd Amendment as a hick defense against people of color in his cartoon history of the United States.
In short, this film never aspires to the heights of propaganda because the best propaganda has a clear message. Moore is always clear, but pulls in different directions at different times in his movie, depending on what best serves his immediate purpose. If a person keeps it *all* in mind, from beginning to end, they realize that Moore ultimately doesn't know what the cause of American youth violence is.
And... that's fine. Neither do I. And I would respect this film more if Moore were more upfront about it. Instead, he strongly blames the NRA, and overseas military engagements, and the media, and gun availability, and exhonorates all of the same, in turn, when it suits him.
Still and all, fun to watch. Four stars.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Bernie Goetz is my hero
Comment: Although I enjoyed parts of this film, I do not believe that the NRA or the honest establishments who provide firearms or the honest Americans who choose to defend themselves (against these animals who have no regard for life and no regard for humanity) are the problem or the issue. Michael Moore through his documentary "Bowling for Columbine" apparently has a different opinion. Basically the point of this movie is to articulate that: people don't kill people, guns kill people. It's not a new way of thinking. But perhaps it's more marketable or more typical since over the last 10 years we have seen an honest to goodness war on decent Americans. What is the cause of this? And, what is the solution? What are some options for Americans? This documentary does not provide any answers, unfortunately. Instead, MM unilaterally attacks those who choose to bear arms, those who have not broken any laws and those who have only been good, decent people. The interview with Marilyn Manson was foolish and pathetic at best. How is any pop singer an expert on anything; especially gun control? I also found the interview with Mr. Charleton Heston (may he rest in peace) interesting, although sad. Because this video takes the opinion that any member of the NRA is doing something surreptitious. I could never allow a gun in my home, but I believe that all responsible Americans who follow the law and who choose to protect themselves and their family have every single right to own one. This is our county just as much as the criminals (maybe more so.) I say, fight the real enemy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
