Just watched it on DVD. I was extremly disappointed. I've liked some of Moore other's work like Roger and Me and his tv show from the 90's. BfC though, I thought was done poorly.

He tries to paint America as gun crazy, and seems to blame the NRA for school shootings. He blames one school shooting on a Michigan law that required the shooters mom to work to receive her welfare... I can't believe that Michigan requires people to work for their money. That's just insane!!!

He says a lot of stuff without any supporting facts. When he does through out numbers, he seems to contradict them later in the film.

Usually, I don't agree with Moore's politics, but I like his film style and find his work humorous. I didn't find any humor in this movie though. I thought he tried to take advantage of people by just showing up at their door and asking them questions. He stops Dick Clark in his car, and seems to be upset that Clark doesn't have time to talk to him. He just shows up at K-Mart Headquarters and wants a meeting with the CEO, who happens to be out of town. I can't believe this won an Academy award.

Well it won because the people awarding it are liberals blinded by their politics and hatred of guns and those that own them. Of course these are the same people who have armed guards.

The guy's a certifiable jacka$$. If any right wingers tried to pull this off, they'd be strung up by the press.

quote:

---

I can't believe this won an Academy award.

---

You know when people Thank the Academy after they win an Oscar... The Academy is actors, actresses, directors, producers, etc. in Hollywood.... i.e. people like Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Michael Moore.

And Charleton Heston.

6000 liberals to 2-3 good guys.

Good guys? Wackos?

Toe-may-toes? Toe-mah-toes?

Dude, that's blasphemy to call Moses a wacko!

Actually, I think he's a pretty cool dude for the most part. But I'm here to sow some discord.

Remember: the people who awarded the Oscar to this pack of blatant lies are the same people who (later that night) gave an Oscar to a director who raped an underage girl and then fled the country to avoid prosecution.

If that doesn't tell you something about the state of morality the Hollywood liberals have today, I don't know what does.

Decide for yourself.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

What movie did Polanski get an Oscar for?

The Pianist

It'll be a sad day when awards for directors first take into account everything they've done in their personal life.

^
|
|
|
Minor misdemeanors, adultery, shoplifting as a kid, etc. can probably be forgiven.

Raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, then fleeing the country would qualify in most industries as a kiss of death.

quote:

---

Actually, I think he's a pretty cool dude for the most part. But I'm here to sow some discord.

---

No facts or anything? Just "wacko". Did you put a lot of thought into that one?

Well said, 91. However, this is a prime example of where the "Moral-Meter" is in Hollywood when a fugitive from justice (he was convicted in abstentia) can rape a little girl, then be given an award for his outstanding directing.

The mere fact that actors (especially those with children of their own) would want to work for this pedophile sickens me.

But, I'm sure Susan Sarandon or Michael Moore would be glad to fly to Paris to personally hand him his award since, if he ever sets foot in this country, he would be arrested on the tarmac.

quote:

---

Did you put a lot of thought into that one?

---

Yes. Yes, I did.

Did you stomp your foot too?

No.

quote:

---

It'll be a sad day when awards for directors first take into account everything they've done in their personal life

---

If I remember correctly, he got a standing ovation, too when he won. And some of the people at the awards were upset that he couldn't be there at the awards, because the FBI would have arrested him.

Without hijacking the thread into a Roman Polanski thing. My roommate (who makes time to follow who's getting what award for what movie) told me that it was a statutory thing and not the traditional forced rape...is that true or false?

If you look at the court papers (smokinggun.com) ,the way she described it, he pretty much forced his way on to her... she was left alone with him by her mom, and he pretty much intimidated her into it. What 13-year old girl has anal sex consensually with an old man?



[This message has been edited by 91_Aggie (edited 8/22/2003 8:16a).]

Back to the original topic, I just watched Bowling for Columbine for the first time last night. I thought it was very good.

Go figure.

It's a great movie that I believe everyone should watch, regardless of your views on Moore, if you actually watch it I have no problem if you say you hate it but if you don't watch it just makes you sound stupid.

SirWelker, read the article linked above....

That article disects the movie and shows where and how Moore deliberatly edits together unrelated footage to get you to think the way he does.

It mis-states facts, omits the truth and tells outright lies.

Why would I want to waste my time watching something that claims to be a "documentary" that is, in fact, nothing but pure hatred and propoganda hiding behind an undeserved Oscar?

I'd say it sounds pretty stupid to watch the movie, IMO. There's more "reality" in "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?" than in Michael Moore's movies.

I read the article and after watching the movie, found the article to be guilty of what it charges Moore.

Columbine never attempted to place the Heston "from my cold dead fingers" speech at the Denver rally. The "cold dead fingers" comment was used as an establishing shot for Heston - narration said something to the effect that "in the midst of the tragedy, Denver was about to have a visit from this guy" and cut to the clip in question. It didn't try to infer that Heston was in Denver for that shot at all.

The rest of the authors beef about the clips shown from the Denver NRA rally are nitpicking, and have nothing to do with what makes a documentary. Documentaries edit speeches, there is nothing wrong with this. Critics would say that it showed Heston in an unfavorable light, supporters would say that Moore used those quotes that conveyed the feel of the presentation in the minimum time. Having read both the article and seen the film, I wouldn't say that it was particularly unfair to Heston or the NRA.

I just finished watching it for the first time with my girlfriend.

Pretty good movie with some parts that were very funny. In terms of politics I am pretty moderate to leftwing and will say that the movie is to the far far left.

Some of the points made in the original post also kind of bothered me. I think some of his points are sort of contradictory and sometimes I thought he was attacking the wrong people. I also see no reason why he was attacking Dick Clark. I live in Southern California and pollution unfortunately is a way of life. The fact there is a lot of pollution isn't something cops should be worried about.

If you haven't seen the movie you really have no place in a discussion about the movie. Anyvbody that does see it, I think you have to go in with a open mind and try to seperate Moore's personal politics from your own. No matter Moore's beliefs the questions asked in the movie are ones that need to be adressed. The stats about gun violence in our country compared to others is pretty fascinating.

[This message has been edited by Kellso (edited 8/25/2003 2:37a).]

[This message has been edited by Kellso (edited 8/25/2003 2:40a).]

He twist some of the things to try and put the NRA in a bad light. He brings up the timing of the NRA rallies as being insensitive to the towns where they've had shootings. The one in Denver was required by law, and therefor could not be changed. The one in Flint was 9 months after the shooting, but he makes it seem like it was only a few days later.

I also didn't think he did a good job of presenting the problem. Everytime he tried to make a point, he contradicts it later. For a while he seems to be saying it's cuz we have so many guns, but then he goes up to Canada where they have more guns per capita than the US, but the crime rate is lower... Which would tend to mean that the NRA is right when they say Guns don't kill people, people kill people (Which Moore never points out).

He also keeps bringing up the idea that the media's focus on certain stories has turned the US into a society where everyone is scared... But isn't that what Moore is doing himself with this movie? The odds of being involved in a school shooting are extemely low, but he makes it seem like there's one every week.

Overall, I thought his previous work ("Roger and Me" was a lot better. At least in that movie you think the guy might be niave enough to think he can show up at a major corporations door and get an interview with the CEO that day... After he's been in the business for as long he has been, you'd think he's gotten the idea that he needs to make an appointment, rather than just show up at someone's car door and try to ask questions.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with people saying it was a good movie, but it shouldn't be in the documentary category. Calling it a documentary is like calling "The Blair Witch Project" a documentary.

kellso,

I know you feel informed b/c you went into Bowling for Columbine open minded and came out smart, but check out G Martin's link above. Go into it open minded as well.

My comments kellso were specifically in response to

quote:

---

The stats about gun violence in our country compared to others is pretty fascinating.

---

Should have been listed as fiction. Very little fact involved here.

AustinAg95,

when a 30 or 40-something dude is with a 13 year old, ANY 13 year old, how much does it being a "statutory thing" mitigate the guilt or the horror of the event?

That's WELL below the age of consent, and it sickens me nearly as much as the news stories about molested toddlers. It's CLEARLY predatory whether brute force is used or not. Hell, he didn't have to because he got her drunk and drugged her!

Dude needs to be worked over with a baseball bat. Several ways...

I have this movie coming on Netflix, even though I hate Moore with a passion, just so I can see what the hell it's about.

In response to G Martin's link to David Hardy's www.hardylaw.com, Truth About Bowling article criticising Moore and his methods, here's an article criticising David Hardy's article and methods.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

It's a pretty interesting read.