Bowling for Columbine

The Joseph Goebbles award for creative propoganda goes to Michael Moore. In this film Moore distorts reality for entertainment purposes, muckraking his political bias into a moronic frenzy. That so many people are fooled by this garbage shows how painfully ignorant they are of the actual issues and current laws. If ever a film deserved an award for histrionics in the service of propoganda, Bowling for Columbine is it. The voters of the academy have deprecated the entire genre of documentary by bestowing an award on this pedantic and inaccurate tripe. It is a propoganda piece, and not even a very good one, not a documentary. Like Michael Bellesiles, whose book Arming America won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, Moore deserves to be fully discredited and the award revoked. That's precisely what happened to Bellesiles, whose Emory University professorship was stripped, Bancroft Prize revoked, and book publication halted when his massive fraud was revealed by a multitude of real historians, actual researchers and competent statisticians. They found that he falsified research and "violated basic norms of scholarship" when he tried to falsely show that guns were not prevalent in antebellum America, presumably to advance an anti-firearm political agenda. Anyone who thinks Moore's similar fraud deserves merit is either severely misinformed or foolish or probably both.

Some plot spoilers ahead. This movie is very overrated, with a great deal of critics and viewers heaping praise on this film, calling it profound and a wake up call to the United States' culture of violence and fear. This movie is much less a documentary than a propaganda piece. Moore is simply an angry firebrand trying to rally the troops to his cause. Nowhere does Moore make a coherent point about why the United States is a particularly violent country in comparison to the rest of the world. Whenever he raises a point that the US has a high murder rate, he counters this with an argument that the media exaggerate violence; for example, he argues that the Los Angeles news media focus on prominent stories of violence in South Central Los Angeles, when in reality that place might not be so violent. He contradicts himself here, unless he is arguing that media descriptions of violence perpetuate fear which in turn begets violence. If so, he never clarifies this theory. Viewers should be very careful about the statistics that Moore posts in his film, and must be view them with a skeptical mind, as movies, unlike books, cannot footnote their references. Examples of Moore's description of facts include his timeline of the US government's patronage of violent regimes in Latin America and the Middle East, as well as his short cartoon about the history of the NRA and the KKK. Clearly, Moore has no pretense to objective criticism, and this is especially obvious when you see crazy gun nuts helping to light a cross with a Klansman. Another problem with Moore's analysis is that he focuses on examples of extraordinary violence, such as the Columbine school massacre and the Oklahoma City bombing. Moore is, in essence, following the same form of analysis that he criticizes the media for doing. He would have been better served by speaking with college sociology and political science professors, policemen, and gun owners, who might have provided intelligent discourse on the nature of American violence, rather than celebrities, such as Marylin Manson and Charlton Heston, or the brother of Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols. This movie is not all bad. Moore does have an intelligent conversation with a USC sociology professor, which is the movie's high point. Viewers of the much superior "Roger and Me" may be left pondering why Moore has decided to return to Flint and focus on an incident where one preschooler killed another. He may or may not see Flint as a microcosm of the United States as a whole. His style of editing is quite entertaining, as is the clip of Chris Rock commenting on gun violence. If you understand that Moore has an extremely blatant political agenda, by all means watch this movie. Those who want an objective analysis of violence in America may find Moore's polemics very difficult to swallow.

It's sad that some see Michael Moore as some kind of crusader when in reality his "working-class smart ass" routine is as tired as his flannel shirts. Moore typically frames any debate as a "smart vs. dumb contest" rather than an exchange of ideas and as a result immensely pleases his target audience: elitist urban liberals. This type of "debate" is not uncommon to liberals. The New York Times and the Washington Post do much the same although they do a much better job of insulating the rhetoric with polished invective. Moore's films are a guilty pleasure for the swine who enjoy them. Even a simpleton sees that Moore specializes in taking cheap shots but rarely creates anything of substance. Unlike the talented Errol Morris, Moore has his mind made up before he shoots a frame of film. "Now", he thinks, "If I can only make up other people's minds for them." "Bowling for Columbine" is no different. It's another worthless mockumentary in which Moore gets to make fun of guns, gun-owners, and the military while exploiting the deaths of so many young children at Columbine High School. Why is it exploitive? Because he is using a terrible tragedy perpetrated by sick, disturbed children to try and portray legal gun ownership as insane. Sorry, little buddy, but the Constitution of this great country is quite clear. Hey, China has gun-control! Why not move there Mike? While you are there try and make an unflattering documentary about their industry or human rights practices? Now THAT would be a short lived project. All the while, Mr. Moore sleep safely under the very veil of freedom you criticize. Because right now there is an armed force of patriotic men and women protecting your fat movie-making rear.

BFC is quite simply the greatest collection of lies ever to be put together by a so-called "journalist". Whilst I initially enjoyed and even believed the propaganda spouted by Moore, I came to do more research into his claims and found almost all of them to be distortions of the truth. Some examples: 1) Charlton Heston did not go conduct a pro-gun rally in Flint - it was a political rally, and it was held 8 months after the killing - not 48 hours later as the movie portrays. 2) Moore claims the Lockheed-Martin plant in Columbine makes bombs, when all it does is make weather satellite rockets. They are transported at night-time because the convoy is so long it would disrupt traffic. 3) when Moore presents the photograph of the killed girl to Heston, it's clear that the scene was staged, since the camera was showing Moore's back - and then showing his face - and from the scene it is obvious that there was no second camera. Moore later says in an interview on TV that there were two cameras which is clearly a lie, judging by the footage on the film. 4) the plaque at the bottom of the B-52 does not applaud the bombing of innocent civilians as the BFC proclaims. It is proclaiming the downing of a MiG fighter plane, which was considered VERY difficult to do for the cumbersome B-52. 5) Moore portrays Marilyn Manson, named after a serial killer Charles Manson as a "good guy", with almost "intelligent" ideas. But in actuality Manson's ideas are equally as simplistic. To think that children are more influenced by geopolitics that they know nothing about, than by a pop icon is delusional. Clinton was fighting to prevent genocide in Kosovo, and Moore mentions that more bombs were dropped on that day than any other day of the war - as if the children somehow knew that at the time and were subconsciously motivated to kill children as a result! Records of the Columbine killer's diaries on the other hand show them admiring Hitler and Darwinism and that they formed their killer instincts from their belief in Evolution and Natural Selection - beliefs which the USA fought against in Kosovo. -- I could go on, but by now it should be clear just how much of a liar and a distorter of truth Moore is. For more information you can go to bowlingfortruth dot com, as I have found that site to be the most factual in debunking Moore's outrageous claims.

What has become of the United States? Is there any difference from the United States that was formed by Puritans and tried to escape from persecution under the British flag? Has there always been a different mentality for the American than that of any other nationality of individual? After September 11th Michael Moore the director and writer set out to make a documentary that addressed these and other embedded questions that are addressed everyday in our news media, school systems, homes, stores and street corners. Attempting to address all sides of the issues as a person of the media Moore used not only his own experiences, his connection to the NRA, but also other persons opinions that ranged from Charlton Hesston, the well known president of the NRA and famous actor, to the average American that was confronted with the violent acts that resulted from the accessibility of fire arms. This documentary took a new approach to the display of information. Not only was animation used to explain history, American's imbedded fear of their own neighbors, but it also used rock music ( gave a beat or a pulse to the film that progress from slow to fast as the intensity of the issues progressed), sarcasm, interviews, and casual conversations. Moore traveled the country to talk to all those that make up the spectrum of the American society, he traveled to the scenes of some of the more recent American tragedies, made impromptu stops in corporations such as Kmart (where the boys from Columbine bought the ammunition used in the shooting), and traveled to Canada to get an outside or foreign opinion. The idea was to move away from the documentary style of `talking heads'; he wanted a film that would not only touch a chord with the American people but one that would also be readily watched. This idea also made the documentary, that there was too much influence placed on the `words of the professional' or the ` findings of the expert'; that these findings and misleadings flooded the news at night to increase the amount of fear that the average American has as it looked for a scape-goat to blame. The information that Moor presented in his documentary did not technically follow a pre-described narrative, but followed more of a form where the audience was left areas to think and to breakdown the information. Elements of the circular narrative were the foundation of the film, where similar elements in opinions and the common American we continually addressed. Yet, the only problem that could be addressed is one of the ways in which Moore collected some of his data. Some might see a use of trickery or manipulation was used on his part to get the responses and such passion-filled opinions stated. While others would see the same information in the light that no instigation was needed, that people have these strong beliefs, opinions and are willing to talk about them but they lack the examples or understanding of the topic to take a well informed stand on one side or the other. Such a problem is not new in the world of documentaries when controversial data is presented to the public. Moore did a great job of presenting a delicate subject to the American people and was deserving of the Academy Award for the project.

Is this supposed to be education from Michael Moore ? Okay people prepare to be educated Moore sets himself up as some working class intellectual but the gist of this documentary is based on stats , half truths and most importantly of all - Points that seem to have been missed out on purpose For example BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE centres around " America's astronomical murder rate " insinuating that the murder rate in that country is head and above any other country when it's not . Moore misses out the fact that per head of population the USA doesn't have the world's highest murder rate . That unwanted record is held by Mexico . Both Colombia and South Africa have higher murder rates per head of population than the US . He also fails to point out that many American states do have gun bans . New York for example has a total hand gun ban and the penalty for having an automatic weapon there is life imprisonment . He doesn't come out and say that anyone , everywhere in America can pop into any shop and buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want , but he heavily suggests it which misleads the uninformed Moore also misses out other points about the American death tolls from murder . If you study American murder rates you'll see a clear connection between the American government banning things . For example the prohibition of alcholic drink in the 1920s led to a massive crime wave of killing as gangsters fought to take over the black market due to the drinks ban . As drugs started to flood into the cities of America in the 1960s the murder rate rose as people tried to muscle in on the hard drugs trade to the point where now many US cities are battle zones . It's not the fault of guns that so many people are murdered - It's the fault of drugs and the massive profits they generate that are leading to violence in America . This information doesn't seem to creep into Moore's hidden agenda . Of course if the American government of the day decided to legalise all drugs the gangs and dealers would become instantly disenfranchised , but this suggestion would seem to be too liberterian for Moore . We're also treated to a wonderful piece of hypocrisy by Moore when he mentions that on the day of the Columbine school massacre the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia reached its peak . You may remember that because the Serbs were engaged in a violent conflict against Islamic insurgents ( America is doing something very similar today in Iraq ) NATO decided to bomb the Serbs until they pulled their troops out of Kosovo . Moore seems to be against the bombing of Yugoslavia in this documentary . What he doesn't tell you is that the NATO airstrikes were under the command of Wesley Clark , the same Wesley Clark who later ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the same Wesley Clark WHO MOORE LATER BACKED FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION ! And being a Michael Moore documentary we are treated once again to Louis Armstrong's What A Wonderful World contrasting to images of human suffering. Moore has made a career out of this technique and it's not even his idea because he's stolen it from Barry Levinson in GOOD MORNING Vietnam My own opinion of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is that it's polemical rubbish , uninformative and just plain misleading . I also found it stomach churning that Moore is awarded every film gong going because he makes documentaries centered around human tragedy . His fans will point out that Moore's advertising the fact that guns are responsible for a terrible death toll in which case I'll point out Moore is benefitting from this terrible death toll via this documentary and the praise and awards it received . I wonder how his fans feel about that as they rush out to watch his latest documentary or buy his latest book ?

Do not believe this is a documentary. The Academy should be ashamed that it gave its Oscar for 'best documentary' to this propaganda piece. Like all Propaganda pieces it twists the truth every which way, most of the film is cleverly edited to make you think things occured that nver occured, Heston's NRA speech for instance, is spliced from three seperate speeches that occured a year apart. Do your own research and find out that Moore is one of the biggest liars and Propagandists out there, and I say that as a Progressive Democrat! I thought his first film Roger and Me was a good documentary, but he has headed steadily downhill since then. I will not see his next film, no matter who releases it

I watched this movie just to see what all of the fuss was about. I'll be honest, I read the critiques on this film's inaccurate presentation of the facts before I saw the film. If you haven't heard, the facts are so poorly respected in this film that Disney's Pocahontas comes off looking like a History Channel presentation of the situation. What I mean by that is Disney's Pocahontas is a closer representation of the facts of the Columbine incident than Bowling for Columbine! A documentary is supposed to be, well, based on the facts and since it is not I cannot praise this movie. I will say it was put together well, especially the staged scenes where he got a gun at a bank and bullets at a store without having his ID checked. Moore edited together Heston's speech very well, you'd have no idea that the dialogue actually comes from several speeches and that Heston's messages didn't come close to the fabricated one that Moore created. Honestly I don't know why he bothered, intelligent viewers can smell the propaganda on this film within the first minute and can easily find the facts on the event on the net. Narrow-minded individuals will buy the message of this film faster than you can say "John Q"! You gotta wonder about people like Moore: just how closed-minded does one have to be to knowingly hide the truth so that their position looks credible? Why not just be honest?

If he could make more money making conservative documentaries I'm sure he would do that. This character likes to represent himself as some great truth teller. What he really amounts to is a manipulator who stumps on the liberal viewpoint because he knows that's where the money is. It's regrettable that he is starting to be looked upon as some kind of truth guru. If you watch his documentaries with a discerning eye, you can see how he crafts them to play on the emotions to manipulate, not inform his audience. People need to wise up and see him for the charlatan that he amounts to. First he did the corporate world, then guns, and now it's the political world. Why doesn't he do a documentary on himself with the same kind of one sided treatment?

Because it would be virtually impossible to watch this film without attempting to smash the TV. Michael Moore takes quotes out of context, misleads people, destroys perfectly innocent peoples reputations and outright lies all in the attempt to mislead the public that will see this movie. This movie should not be called a documentary. There is more truth in "The Matrix" than this film. Michael Moore is in almost nearly every frame and seeing the fat loser for the whole film grows tiresome. It is so obvious some events are staged, like the one with the gun going off on the dogs back, while the dog sits there perfectly calm. If it really went off the dogs eardrums would be destroyed and he would be going crazy from the shock. There are no two ways about this film: Michael Moore sets out to mislead impressionable people, and he does. I only hope that not everyone is mislead by this propaganda that poses as a movie.