Bowling for Columbine (DVD, 2003)

Everybody loved it! `Cause:

Michael Moore shows exactly what we think about Americans!
This film shows the stupidity of NRA members (represented by Heston) and how far from reality they are!
Not to mention the part where Heston says that the American history was more violent than the German!

And those who say that the facts given in the movie are [bad]!
Think about it again...Most of the facts Moore mentions are right and informative!...

In my personal experience as a Canadian living in the U.S. I find that there is a big difference between the two countries, and that is the difference between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism can be summed up as "every man for himself", while socialism is based on spreading wealth to those who need it. One engenders competition, the other cooperation. In America you take what you can get because no one is going to hand anything to you, so naturally you're going to protect what you already have a little more vigorously. That difference goes a long way to explaining why Americans are more afraid, and why they feel the need to own guns. In any event, I grew up without locking my door, although I sure lock it now.

Whatever your politics you can't deny that Moore documents a great deal of absurd and dysfunctional behavior in this movie. He makes the viewer think and more importantly, take a stand. It is riveting, heartbreaking, disgusting and funny, all at the same time. this could be the most powerful movie I've seen in years.

Oh, and I'm no fan but Marilyn Manson was one of the most intelligent people interviewed by Moore. He gained my respect, if not my admiration of his music.

Mr Moore was making an intelligent and insightful essay into the roots of ALL violence in America, but I suspect he got a bit lost when events caught up with him.

The irony is, gentle reader, that Mr Moore supplies plenty of ammunition for pro-gun people. For example, he shows clearly that Canadian gun ownership is very high, yet has nowhere the level of gun crime as the United States. Pro- rata New Zealand has as high a gun ownership rate as the US, but has less than 100 gun fatalities a year- and that includes suicides and accidents. So if guns cause crime, surely Canada would have as high a rate as the USA? One fellow interviewed points out that gun ownership as increased, yet the rate of crime has gone down. Again, if the guns were the problem wouldnt you see the increase? One women points out that when your house is attacked why do you call the police? Well, she says it is because they are the ones with the guns.

The point is, the film was heading towards making the point that violence is not a single faceted problem, and many factors contribute- maybe music, maybe violent video games, who knows? However, about two thirds through the film, he started to investigate the tragic shooting of a young girl at a school by a six year old boy. Without a doubt, this was a tragic accident, but is it not- and again Mr Moore misses the point- anything more than an accident. Indeed the NRA's own gun safety programmes deal with exactly that situation and isnt it a shame that the boy concerned hadn't seen it.

Previous reviewers have focused on the guns, and not looked at the other points the film have made, such as the dig at US foreign policy. Indeed Mr Moore makes that point, showing that on the day of the columbine shooting there were heavy US airstrikes. Dealing with that suddenley seemed too hard, and he pulled the film back to a superficail argument- ban the guns and suddenley everything is hunky dorey.

Be warned that much of this film is not for the squimish. You will see numerous shootings, and some terrible footage from columbine itself. It is not to be taken lightly.

All in all an interesting view of the USA. It is such a shame that Mr Moore didn't control his emotions, and present a more balanced view.