| |
Shop
| |  |
|
Best Sellers
| | |  | |  | | | Bowling for Columbine | | SKU:
| | Availability:
Usually ships in 1 business days | | | Michael Moore's superb documentary (following in the footsteps of Roger & Me and The Big One) tackles a meaty subject: gun control. Moore skillfully lays out arguments surrounding the issue and short-circuits them all, leaving one impossible question: why do Americans kill each other more often than people in any other democratic nation? Moore focuses his quest around the shootings at Columbine High School and the shooting of one 6-year-old by another near his own hometown of Flint, Michigan. By approaching the headquarters of K-Mart (where the Columbine shooters bought their ammo) and going to Charlton Heston's own home, Moore demands accountability from the forces that support unrestricted gun sales in the U.S. His arguments are conducted with the humor and empathy that have made Moore more than just a gadfly; he's become a genuine voice of reason in a world driven by fear and greed. --Bret Fetzer | | | |
List Price:
| $14.98 | |
Our Price:
| $7.99
& eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
| |
You Save:
| $6.99 (47%)
| |
Shipping:
| |
| | |
|
| | Product Details | | Actors: | Michael Caldwell, Dick Cheney, Dick Clark, Bill, Byron Dorgan | | Format: | Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Special Edition, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC | | Language: | English | | Subtitle: | English, Spanish | | Number of Discs: | 1 | | Studio: | MGM (Video & DVD) | | Run Time: | 119 minutes | | DVD Release Date: | August 19, 2003 | | Average Customer Rating: |  based on 1143 reviews |
| |
| | Customer Reviews | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS Sep 20, 2008
Any film that can garner 299 ONE STAR REVIEWS from gun enthusiats be all bad. Why is it any time someone points out some of the flaws in American society and some of its attitudes they are vilified? Surely we are strong enough to take the criticism.
The public criticism of a frightful America Sep 09, 2008
Michael Moore films an America that is frightful. The topic is "limited" to the lifestyle of Northern American People imbued with a rare violence on the scale of humanity.
Is this normal in a country not at war, that its citizens have at home several lethal firearms? Michael Moore thinks that it is not ; so do I.
Michael Moore hurts. He exhibited this specific cultural violence in the USA which is absolutely not the case in English Canada (Toronto) where weapons are those of game hunters and not those for men hunting.
Columbine was one of many theatres of a "folly" (is this the case when there is repetition ? As Michael Moore, I do not think so) a deadly mass murder perpetrated by a student on pain of living.
The investigation is without appeal. "Bowling for Columbine" did surprise the naive and idolaters of a mythical America that does not exist. Michael Moore is peacefully fighting for a better America, the land of the Freedom.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
 Less Moore Sep 08, 2008
BFC's very success as a piece of art is its undoing as a piece of social commentary. Before I go on let me briefly sum up the film: MM attempts to discover what is wrong with America- specifically violence in America. The Columbine shootings in spring of 1999 are MM's starting point. MM tries to point out the dubious links posited by the media monster- brilliantly portrayed in a montage of `scares' thrown out by the media- things from Halloween candy to weight loss products. This is an avenue worth pursuing, & the `scaring' of Americans into becoming consumers of anything that will substitute as a nipple is a great point. But it's made by shock rocker Marilyn Manson (a Columbine scapegoat), not MM, & then immediately dropped. MM also is at his best when he details corporate America's need to portray black men as `the problem' despite far more crime being perpetuated by white & white-collared sorts. Instead, we get a whole bunch of amusing, but pointless red herrings- the Michigan Militia, the Nirvana of Canadian existence (aptly showing how good the Canadian health care system is, but woefully neglecting the severe curtailing of Canadian civil liberties- most notably free speech- in pursuit of this goal), workfare programs- which I agree are terrible because they perpetuate an underclass, yet do not let a bad single mother whose 6 year old son killed another 6 year old girl off the hook (as MM tries to imply), a nasty Dick Clark- who employed said bad single mother for slave wages in a mall restaurant, a doddering & senile Charlton Heston- whom MM dishonestly snookered in to an attack interview, & then- in the film's most pompous & sickening moment- left the murdered 6 year old's photo on Heston's property, as if to imply that CH was responsible for her death- not the boy, nor the mother. I admire- & LOVE- how MM uses the media's tools against them in such a screeding fashion. But he has become what he hates with this distortion. Nowhere does MM follow up on the public's & media's appetite for sensationalism- instead he uses 2 dimwitted boys who survived being shot at Columbine to shame K-Mart in to removing bullets from their store's inventory. 1 can argue the rightness or wrongness of this act- I think they were within their rights to demand such, but it's ultimately a futile act. BUT the point is this was not done for any other reason than to bring MM's film to a climax. Instead of showing a problem, discussing its causes, & effects, & then proposing a solution- which a true documentary does, MM's film simply drops the ball at the end, settling for its own 2 hours of sensationalized splendor in MM's sun. The film is much more about Michael Moore's need to preen & pat himself on the back, than in provoking any real debate. Behind us, at the theater, was a typical professorial type who Pavlovianly jeered at the right wingers, tsk-tsked at the appropriate moments of their stupidity, all the while, under his breath, mm-mming at the enlightened left wingers who, truthfully, to an objective viewer, came off being just as stupid as the Michigan Militia men- in their own predictably obtuse ways. Think long of Pogo's injunction about enemies while viewing this film.
Still, the film would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. & it would make `true' Liberals proud, as well, were the film not so laced with ½ truths & such. MM has stated that he thinks only 10-20% of people who see his work will get it right away- therefore he has to distort with humor. Well, the same ratio might apply when it comes to the truth in MM's docs....In short, Bowling for Columbine needed alot more true depth, & alot less Moore.
0 of 2 found the following review helpful:
 Just what you would expect from Michael Moore Sep 01, 2008
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.
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
 Very good at times, but also aggravating and annoying.... Aug 30, 2008
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.
| |
| |
| |  | |  |
|
| You may also like ...
|
