Bowling for Columbine (2002)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Too much of everything

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Moore's Bowling for Columbine has been repeatedly toted as "one of the greatest documentaries ever made" as well as the most "important", and while I agree with the latter of those two, the film rarely attempts to answer all the questions it raises.The subject that the film covers is undeniably important and I respect Moore for pursuing answers to the immensely broad and complicated issue, even if it seems awfully hard for him to make his point clear. The film as a whole was certainly entertaining and amusingly funny, however I often found myself wondering when Moore was going to get to the point. In addition, Moore's methods are quite questionable. He constantly attempts to make people look bad, and while it's deserving for some, it seems like unfair harping for others. The questions he raised provoked my thought on many occasions, but he only sometimes provided satisfying follow-up. Bowling for Columbine was a regularly thought-provoking and often entertaining piece of satire that rarely managed to achieve the political potency it was so obviously aiming for. It was hard to tell when Moore was serious as his political and social antics usually felt unjustified or poorly thought out. Maybe I just don't get Moore's style of filmmaking, as this was my first time seeing his work, but the content displayed here would've been much more suited for a web-video than a feature-length film. Moore is determined to convince the public of the severity of this issue, yet won't take the time to share his message in a gratifying or cohesive manner.

As most of the world knows, in April 1999, two Columbine High School students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, took guns to school and shot thirteen students and one teacher dead. How did they get the guns? What does bowling have to do with anything? Those looking for an in-depth look at the two shooters will be disappointed. Although Mr Moore does record that Harris and Klebold went bowling on the morning of the shooting and later takes two of the wounded students, now recovered, to buy bullets at Kmart, this is not really about Eric and Dylan. Rather, it is more of an examination of the "gun culture" of the USA. The National Rifle Association, in this film headed by Charlton Heston, has ensured that getting a gun and ammunition is as easy as filling a prescription. Moore notes that we are unique among countries in that our rate of gun shootings and killings far surpasses that of Canada, our nearest neighbor, and other Western civilizations. Some have blamed violent video games, some singers like Marilyn Manson (interviewed in this film as a favorite singer of Harris), still others that "family department" stores like Kmart and Walmart have the weapons and the ammo. Interestingly, Moore also takes a look at Work-to-Welfare programs like the one near his hometown of Flint, Michigan. A young single mother was forced to work at a casino, 90 minutes away, to satisfy the welfare requirements but still couldn't pay the bills. When she was forced to move in with an uncle and had to leave her six year old son in his care, the young lad found his uncle's gun and took it to class, only to shoot a fellow student dead. what a tragedy! In short, anyone wanting to talk about the Second Amendment and gun control would do well to begin with this film. Those seeking in- depth information on the Columbine shooting should look elsewhere.

Left wing filmmaker Michael Moore examines the issue of guns in America. The title refers to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold responsible for the Columbine High School massacre were supposed to be bowling for their class earlier that morning. Moore sarcastically wonders if bowling caused the massacre. He takes a wide-ranging look at guns and the overall culture in America. He talks to various people. The most compelling is James Nichols, brother of Terry Nichols who was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing. The man has crazy eyes. There is a glee in his demeanor about guns. Marilyn Manson has a couple of intriguing responses. Matt Stone comes from Littleton which is next to Columbine High School. There is a cartoon in a South Park style that gives some simplified views of fear in America. Moore concentrates more on this idea that Americans live in fear. He contrasts America with the world by going to Canada and their unlocked doors. This is not a traditional documentary. One can easily pull it apart by pointing out any number inaccuracies and loose facts. Moore is painting a picture and a feeling. The best idea is to pull everything back to fear in America and get out of the actual guns as the issue. Sometimes, he overreaches by going general politics. Also, not everybody in Canada keeps their door unlock. This is a little scattered but Moore eventually puts everything into focus.

Bowling For Columbine is Michael Moore's examination of gun culture in America following the Columbine High School massacre. Probably his most critically acclaimed movie, this has Moore's fingerprints all over it. With him being in front of the camera a lot as well as giving voiceovers, Moore unleashes the full force of his outspoken, controversial, unsubtle and biased documentary filmmaking technique and this won't win points for restraint. Moore distorts information, manipulates the viewer a lot and attacks his subject relentlessly, rather than weighing up both sides of the argument. Not everyone will agree with this method, and there are certainly scenes where you can almost hear him thinking about how to hammer his point home even with false information. But, Moore has done a lot of research and knows his stuff. He also makes a lot of excellent points, but more importantly does so in a hugely entertaining and at times funny manner. It certainly makes you think, even if you're not always convinced.Michael Moore shows himself to be one of the best editors of all time here. His construction of montages and interviews is genuinely extraordinary, and he discusses and presents his argument is a hugely engaging manner, meaning that the film although 2 hours long is rarely, if ever, boring. It's a well written documentary overall and although Moore's approach is flawed, it sets the film apart from other films of its kind. With a lot of personality and a lot of anger, this is a unique documentary, even if at times it feels like a personal reflection instead of a neutral, more widespread view of the subject. A thoroughly entertaining and thought provoking film overall, which also delivers on the emotional punch required for a documentary on this subject. It's certainly flawed and doesn't always fit the definition of a documentary, but it's a pleasure to see such an audacious vision in a documentary, and even if you don't agree with his methods, you can't deny Michael Moore is making a good point.8/10