Bowling for Columbine (2002) User Reviews

Hard to Disagree with the Point Even If You Don't Like the Artist

[evanston_dad · 9/10 · 26 August 2010]

Michael Moore's incendiary film about America and its gun culture.

Moore uses the Columbine school massacre as an opportunity to discourse upon the subject of why tragedies like that one are so much more prevalent in America than anywhere else. His thesis, that America promotes a culture of fear and violence, is hard to refute, even if you disagree with his methods. Like all of Moore's films, "Bowling for Columbine" is fantastically entertaining, and also enraging. His version of America is one that I'm ashamed to live in.

Moore won the 2002 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, and then eliminated the chance that he'll ever win again by ranting against then President Bush in his acceptance speech in one of the Academy's most infamous moments.

Grade: A

The key to understanding the american dream (or nightmare?)

[cbudtz · 9/10 · 30 May 2003]

This movie makes me feel that it is the first time i just remotely understand the American society. Michael Moore explores the darkest side of America - the society built on fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of the coloureds fear of your neighbor. It appears that americans have lost perspective, not noticing the real dangers of life: pollution, traffic, e.t.c. With TV-channels telling stories only about violence and terrorism and populistic politicians scaring people to vote for them Americans trust only in themselves.

Michael Moore tries with this movie to make the Americans consider and think for themselves being rationals, and to tell the rest of the world how the American society works. Really something to think about... See it, its necessary

A liberal's critique

[illusoryjane · 7/10 · 2 August 2004]

This movie was entertaining and interesting, but in certain ways it left me wanting. Michael Moore himself is somewhat irritating, and I found myself wishing he kept more to the background than he does. At the same time, the conclusions that he draws are compelling and pragmatic. This movie was not designed to be an argument. It was not designed to sway the viewer. It was designed to fuel the fire of the already convinced. Though I think that this is Moore's intent (concluded from interviews I've read), I feel that goal could be reached at the same time as convincing a few fence-sitters, and that would have made the film more powerful.

I have two main complaints regarding this movie:

First, I felt that Michael Moore sometimes crossed lines in his interviews that in no way seemed to further his cause or drive his point home. He interviews people as though looking for his answer, not their answer, and particularly seemed to be trying to strike a blow at the conservative masses. I thought this distracted the genuinity and plausibility of the conclusions that he drew. It must be said that the conclusions that Moore drew are of a nature that strikes at conservative politics. However, I felt that the facts he represented spoke for themselves, and that the blows should not have been dealt to conservative interviewees by asking questions designed to get emotional responses out of them.

Second, I found some of the statistics needed to be qualified with per capitas or percentages. When comparing the United States to England, for instance, it is important to take population differences and density into consideration. Straight statistics do not apply. I think the statistics were somewhat skewed by this oversight, however according to some rough guesstimates I made, it wouldn't have diminished Moore's point, only made it less dramatic (which would, indeed, have strengthened his case).

These two complaints hint at an even larger problem, however, and that is this: Because Moore presents his case in this way, he can never hope to have his message truly heard by anyone who isn't already on his side.

A guerrilla for non violence

[Chris Knipp · 14 December 2002]

'Bowling for Columbine,' is a very thought provoking film.

Perhaps the first thought it provokes in any US resident is that the most sensible thing he or she could possibly do is move forthwith to Canada. It's nearby, they speak English almost indistinguishable from standard American, it feels 'lighter over there,' you get government health care, there are plenty of guns but very little killing, and you don't even have to lock your doors.

The fundamental question 'Bowling for Columbine' asks is: What's responsible for the exceptionally high level of killing in America? Not a lot of guns, Moore points out, because other countries have that. Not a violent history, because other countries have that. Not a love of violent movies, video games, and so forth, because other countries love all that too. Not poverty, unemployment, and ethnic diversity, because lots of countries have more poverty and Canada has as much ethnic diversity and more unemployment. Two things, according to Moore, are primary causes: the US media, which, as he shows, fans up fear constantly among the American populace; and the government in Washington, which solves everything by bombing people somewhere. There's a third thing that emerges more subtly: a gun culture, which leads to the absurd notion of self-defense, perpetuating the violence and the fear and the racism. In this the leading force is that powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. The result of this lethal combination delineated by Moore, particularly since 9/11, is that Americans aren't very happy people: they live in a constant state of rage, perturbation, and fear, when they're not disolved in tears for the dead who're falling in the houses and streets and schools of the country on a daily basis.

'Bowling for Columbine' isn't ultimately very cheery or uplifting stuff. True, it has lots of laughs, but most of them are ironic - a little sick-making, when you think about it -- and at American expense. Those of us who live in the USA and don't actually regard moving to Canada (or somewhere else) as a real option, aren't walking out of this polemical documentary feeling any too cheerful. One may quarrel with Moore's style, though it seems questionable that so many reviewers have expressed disapproval of his personal appearance (what's sloppy dressing got to do with it?). One can hardly quarrel with most of Moore's basic facts or the urgency of his subject or his commitment to it. Because of its significance to Americans on both personal and national levels, "Bowling for Columbine" has to be considered the most important (and it's becoming the most watched) US documentary film in many a year. This is being recognized in all sorts of ways, first of all with the special jury prize at Cannes. We shall see what the Academy has to say.

It's impressive that Moore and two young men seriously injured at Columbine were able by their confrontations to shame Wal-Mart into taking handguns and ammunition out of their stores - and Moore appears to have been surprised and impressed by this result himself.

Moore has seemed crude and simplistic and confrontational in the past. His methods have not radically changed, but they've modulated into something subtler and less self-serving, such that he has an ability to talk more easily with potential adversaries -- bank employees giving out rifles with new accounts; Michigan militiamen; even Charlton Heston, the haughty President of the National Rifle Association, who invites Moore into his house to film a conversation. True, Heston ends up walking out of the room after a while, but he doesn't have Moore thrown out. Nor does Wal-Mart. This is significant. One is tempted to call Moore's methods (as he wields them today) not crude and simplistic and confrontational, but direct, simple, and honest. There's something unimposing and Middle American about his overweight slouch and scruffy baseball cap crowned head. If he lives in a house worth close to $2 million in New York now, you can't tell it from looking at him, and that consciously maintained persona, if we choose to see it thus, aids him in moving through Littleton, Colorado and Windsor, Ontario, and the other places where he got the footage for this devastating, yet simple film. For credibility among US gun-toters like Heston, Moore has an ace in the hole: he's an expert marksman and a lifetime member of the NRA.

Heston walks out because he hasn't good answers; in fact he really hasn't any answers at all. His explanations for why the USA is so violent are ones Moore has already discounted, and he can't justify his brazenly fronting for the National Rifle Association in Colorado and Michigan right after the child murders by children in those two states. Marilyn Manson (the artist accused of complicity at Columbine because the young killers liked his music) in contrast has not only good answers, but also the greatest zinger in the film. When asked what he would have said to the youth at Columbine after the murders, he says: 'Not a word. I'd have listened to them. That's what nobody has been doing.' In between telling interviews, Moore has various ways of documenting contexts: an animation, recited statistics with images, and astonishing film clips like the Fifties one of cops admiring how realistic some kids' toy guns are, and the one from a metal-detector company pushing for dress codes in schools, showing a boy with baggy pants unloading a whole arsenal. What's laughable are all such solutions that don't even begin to get at the problem - that are just profiteering from chaos and insecurity.

It's encouraging that so many people are seeing and commenting on this movie. When it was over, I wished the lights would go up and there'd be a discussion group held right there in the auditorium. There was a lot to talk about. Not everything was by any means clear, nor were all the facts to be bought without question. But in one way or another, 'Bowling for Columbine' brings up all the most central issues in America today. Michael Moore makes you laugh and cry; but most important, he makes you think.

What's wrong with America?

[saxman429 · 10/10 · 8 January 2003]

Bowling for Columbine is perhaps the most honest and truthful documentary I have seen in a longe time. Michael Moore manages to debunk the myth that Americans are a righteous people. He does this by pointing to numerous references in American history where the government has overthrown regimes in favor of dictators and other militant groups. At the heart of his argument, however, is gun control. Moore poses the question: Why does Canada have a much lower death rate due to gun violence than the United States when Canadians seem to have the same obsession with guns? Moore points out that roughly 12000 deaths occur in America as opposed to the few hundred in Canada.

To answer this question, Moore goes to Canada, where he talks to ordinary citizens. As one student remarks, Americans seem to want to fight over everything instead of talk things out. Perhaps, as Moore suggests, there is something wrong with the very framework our country is built upon.

An interview with Charleton Heston, the President of the NRA, is shocking. What he answers to Moore's proposed question will astonish many.

Overall, it is satisfying that rational and clear-headed individuals such as Moore still exist.

A movie that should be mandatory for all politicians

[octomagneto · 10/10 · 16 March 2004]

Yes Mr. Moore may lean left, and yes he may not be the most objective documentarian.

However the facts stand: America has many, many more deaths attributed to guns than any other nation. It's a sad truth.

Unfortunately Mr. Moore has been vilified for asking why. And typical of the "head-stuck-in- the-sand" mentality of the far right, they are angry for his work, not at the facts.

This movie is well done and if you're left, right, in-between, gun nut, or responsible gun owner it is definitely worth viewing.

I suspect most of the negative comments posted about this movie at IMDB and similar sites are by people who haven't seen the movie. They're just angry at what they perceive the movie to be.

It isn't a movie about gun control. It's a movie that merely ask why so many deaths.

Enjoy.

Fascinating

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 21 October 2002]

Documentary by Michael Moore about the NRA and America's fascination with guns. Much of the footage deals with Columbine and the case in which a 6 year old boy shot to death a 6 year old girl. It all culminates in an interview with the head of the NRA Charlton Heston.

Riveting, chilling, hilarious and absolutely incredible movie despite what your views are on the gun issue. Moore's views are definetely anti-gun but he does try to show the opposite side also. Moore questions why there are so many killings in America by guns and almost none in other countries. He gives no real answers to this question but he raises a lot of interesting points and theories. I walked out of the theatre very shaken but, in a way, exhilirated. This is truly a great documentary.

I'm not going to review this fully--it's a movie you should see for yourself. A definite must-see.

Best of the Michael Moore documentaries

[atnorton-88245 · 10/10 · 10 January 2016]

First, Michael Moore is an extraordinary documentarian, making an adventure out of every topic he tackles, rather than a series of talking heads. Bowling for Columbine tackles gun violence in the U.S. with simple, open-ended question: Why the U.S.? What is it about the culture and history as well as access to guns of the United States that makes this country such a dangerous place to live with so many gun deaths compared to all other industrialized countries? His answer is not a simplistic one - it is not simply that we have a 2nd amendment and people misinterpret it as so many anti-gun folks might say. Canadians own about as many firearms and yet they don't have nearly the rate of gun-related deaths. Although many will view this film as anti-gun, I think the film is much more sophisticated than those who feel threatened even by the question "why" understand the film? Moore, in fact, does not come to any hard and fast conclusions, perhaps other than that we in the U.S. live in a culture of fear and there are historical conditions, including racial segregation and economic conditions that we as Americans have not come close to fully addressing. This documentary is a must-see for anyone concerned about the number of gun related deaths and injuries and even for those who believe the 2nd amendment protects a person's right to bear arms, but feels that no "right" is without some reasonable restrictions.

Rings obviously false to a Canadian

[slofstra · 7/10 · 8 November 2003]

The scenes shot in Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto, Canada have provoked much conversation in Canada. These scenes epitomize both the problem and the strength of BFC, that is, the sense is correct but the details often exaggerated. While the received notion that Canada is less violent than the US is accurate, we are catching up in a hurry. And people do lock their doors, at night anyway. In Toronto's current (Nov. 2003) mayoralty election, increasing street violence and crime is a major issue. When Moore asks Heston, "Why do other countries have so much less gun violence than the US?" Did you catch his brief answer? He says, "They will". Whatever is causing the problem, the U.S. is on the leading edge of the curve, but other countries are catching up.

That said, I give Moore credit for provoking conversation, for his humour (in spots). His lack of balance doesn't concern me. I can find my own balance, thank goodness for dissent and free speech. I also think that Moore is restrained in drawing conclusions in the film, which is a great strength of the film, in provoking discussion, and allowing people to express their own opinions.

Finally, Moore is way off on Marilyn Manson. Moore is careful to say that there is no direct causal relationship between Lockheed and the Columbine assassins - it's a mentality thing. Isn't the connection between Manson and teenage suicide/ violence much more palpable than Moore's connection of Lockheed & Columbine.

** UPDATE in Nov. 2005 - regarding Toronto, the score is Heston 1 Moore 0.

"Media, Corporations, Politicians Have All Done Such a Good Job of Scaring the American Public, It's Come to Where They Don't Need to Give Any Reason At All."

[jzappa · 10/10 · 13 June 2010]

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a documentary that is both extremely funny and depressing. We live in a nation of millions of handguns, but that isn't actually what disturbs Moore. What does is that we so constantly fire them at each other. Canada has a comparable percentage of guns to citizens, but a 10th of the shooting deaths. What causes us to kill so many more of one another than they do other developed nations? Moore, the spirited everyman reactionary, makes clear that he's an ex-sharpshooting counselor and a long-standing affiliate of the NRA. However, Moore has grown out of his youthful penchant for guns. In Bowling for Columbine, moreover, he is not so certain of the bottom line as in the popular Roger & Me, a film in which he saw who the bad guys were, and why. Here he asks questions he can't answer, such as why we as a nation feel so scared, such an urge for the consolation of guns. Observing that we relish urban legends meant to make us scared of strangers, Moore observes how TV news concentrates on local violence and says that while the murder rate is down 20 percent in America, TV coverage of violent crime is up 600 percent.

This vital and stimulating documentary is rated R, so that the Columbine killers would have been guarded from the violent images, mainly of themselves. The MPAA maintains its custom of forbidding teenagers from seeing those films they're most justified in seeing. What imaginary realm do the clockwork uniforms of the ratings board believe they are preserving? I do sometimes wonder how we should expect the ratings system should be run, but it's publicly declared to just be an optional industry system that nobody's obligated to abide. Alas, the rating ranked to a film on the whole shapes who sees it in a theater, and what kind of marketing and publicity for the movie will be agreed to by TV and newspapers.

Moore's consideration isn't limited to the dramatic ceremonies he captures to describe his misgivings. He goes various times to Columbine High School, at one point showcasing harrowing security-camera footage of the bloodbath. And Columbine motivates Moore to acquaint us with two surviving students shot at Columbine, both still with bullets lodged in them. He clarifies that all of the Columbine bullets were readily retailed to the teenage killers by Kmart, at 17 cents apiece. And then he takes the two targets to Kmart headquarters to return the bullets for a refund. This is ingenious showmanship and would appear to be convincing for the uncomfortable Kmart public relations spokespeople, who squirm and dodge in front of Moore's callous camera. But then, on Moore's third visit to headquarters, he is told that Kmart will consent to totally diminish the sale of ammunition. Incredibly for him, he's speechless.

The movie is a collage of Moore encounters and accessory clips and shots. One bit that sears to the bone is from a classic stand-up routine by Chris Rock, who professes that our issue could be resolved by just raising the price of bullets, taxing them like cigarettes. Rather than 17 cents apiece, why not $5,000? "There would be no innocent bystanders!" Moore purchases a Star Map to locate Charlton Heston, rings the bell on his gate, and is welcomed back for an interview. But Heston is evidently unaware of Moore's M.O., and his responses to Moore's questions are pretty hopeless. Heston not long after disclosed that he had signs of Alzheimer's disease, but there is no evidence in this footage that he was enfeebled. It's just that he cannot give reason why he, as a man living behind a gate in a safeguarded community, with security patrols, who has never felt himself in danger, requires a loaded gun in the house. Heston is just as ineffective when asked if he believes it was admirable or decent for him to speak at an NRA rally in Denver 10 days after Columbine.

Bowling for Columbine thinks we have way too many guns, don't require them, and are shooting each other at senseless proportions. Moore cannot select a culprit to answer for this reality, since it appears to arise from a country's urge to be armed. Early on, he tours a bank that's handing out guns to people who open new accounts. He questions a banker whether it isn't sort of risky to have all these guns in a bank. Not one bit. The bank, Moore finds, is a licensed gun dealership. I still can't figure that one out.

The Evolution of Documentary

[Kaneda_red · 6/10 · 3 February 2005]

There once was a time when an issue would arise, a film-crew would seek the answer and thus a documentary be born. Things have changed.

Micheal Moore's highly animated, informative and quirky film on the effects of guns and media is less of a documentary and more like Socio-Propaganda. Moore portrays himself as the suffering yet witty philosopher and Moore uses viewer empathy to be the vehicle on his completely, one-sided journey. This is evident from the start when he decides to begin with a montage of daily life to show that he too is the Everyman.

The real problem is the issue (guns/media), is too big to summarise without taking a viewpoint. Bowling for Columbine has made it mind up where its going before it gets there.

matt

Strange folk

[mjcooke51 · 10/10 · 28 January 2003]

God! Its frightening. You American gun lovers are really weird aren't you? Its sad that it takes someone like Michael Moore to show the lunacy of guns in public rather than your press, who seem oblivious to the problem.

THIS got the Oscar?

[down2cabo2000 · 6/10 · 14 April 2004]

Okay, I get it - Michael Moore is outspoken, tells it like HE wants us to see it and he's a master of that craft. I have seen a lot of documentaries in my twenty-two years on this planet, so I can put my hands on my hips and cluck like chicken about how obvious it was that there was a popularity contest at Oscar's in 2003 when this film was selected, but then again, it was well executed. Maybe I'm just upset about how Michael Moore used THAT platform to express his political views that night, (I know, I know - enough already) but he is truly a unique and gutsy filmmaker. I do look forward to seeing more of his films in the past and it will be interesting to see if they 'nominate' his next film weather or not Oprah endorses it, with fear of what he might say or do on stage. At any rate, keep up the good work.

Major funding from Canada?

[ster2001 · 5/10 · 27 July 2004]

I watched this for the first time and pretty much like it. But something kept nagging at me. I am a pretty liberal person and believe in Gun control but I really have always liked Charlton Heston and couldn't believe he was as bad as he's portrayed here. So I did a little research and found out that his speech was so horribly butchered by Moore that he totally changed the meaning Heston was going for. Also Moore inserted a shot of Heston waving a gun over his head that was taped at a NRA function a year later in some other location and then cut in so it looked like it was part of his speech in Denver after the Columbine shooting. Moore never mentions that the meeting was planned way before the Columbine shooting and couldn't be canceled realistically in that short period of time.

Other things found out. The Footage of the Dog with the gun is faked. The bank at the beginning mailed the guns to customers from a warehouse 400 miles away. They didn't hand them out in the bank the way its portrayed and the guns in the bank were models. The Foreign death statistics don't take into account police shootings(the US figures do) and they are not adjusted for the differences in population and a few of them he took the lowest death toll in a given period instead of an average???

The scene with Dick Clark was another one that I just couldn't believe. Is he really that rotten? Turns out the the six year old's mother had lost custody of all her kids and was a convicted drug dealer. She had three children all from different father's and her son was not in her custody and living with a drug dealing uncle in a crack house with guns and Knives all over the place. Moore conveniently leaves all this out and tries to make Dick Clark the bad guy for employing the kids mother at minimum wage. When Moore approaches Clark he does it at the worst possible time. Why? because Moore WANTS Clark to get angry and close the door in his face. I'd shut the door in his face too. What's going on here? The list goes on and on and I'll leave it up to the inquisitive viewer to do a little research into how this films was made as almost all of the major points Moore is trying to make have been altered or major points left out to get his personal view across. And what's with Canada being portrayed as something almost bordering on Utopia? Did Moore ever mention that the film got major funding from Canadian government money through a Canadian production company!! And I have friends in Canada and they LOCK the doors!

I agree with what Moore is setting out to do but the film really never draws any conclusions and his tactics are not in line with what's considered Non-fiction. I almost felt Moore's tactics were as disturbing as the subject matter. When you have to distort the truth to such an extent and not even realize or admit to it, based on the way Moore defends everything in the film as the truth, is a very disturbing trend. This film has a tremendous power to influence people and they should really know the whole truth not Michael Moore's truth. Anything else truly is "fiction"

One of the most thought provoking movies.

[emma502 · 7 May 2003]

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.

Moore Strikes Again

[billcr12 · 9/10 · 21 August 2012]

The two high school students made infamous for their rampage at Columbine were rumored to have been at a bowling class at the school the morning of the shooting. It turned out to be urban legend, but Moore kept the catchy title, anyway. There seems to be no in between in regards to the filmmaker. I flat out love his work, all the way back to Roger and Me, and his TV shows, TV Nation and The Awful Truth. Here he takes on the NRA and Charleton Heston, or Moses, as he is best remembered, as he was the chief spokesman for the gun rights organization. As a gun owner, living in a secluded area, even I recognize the need for proper screenings and some restrictions on firearms.

As usual, Moore uses sardonic humor to make his point. At a bank in Colorado, he is given a hunting rifle for purchasing a CD. As he leaves the bank with the weapon, he asks, don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank? The high point is when Moore interviews Heston, asking him about the high level of gun violence, and Chuck answers that the reason is "race mixing" in America. This was seen by some as an ambush; I see it as Moore capturing the actors true feelings, and they are frightening. RIP Charlie boy.

Bowling for Columbine is both informative and entertaining, and Moore is our best documentary filmmaker. Look out, Dittoheads, the truth hurts.

canada seems a bit welcoming...

[illharmonics00 · 10/10 · 1 February 2003]

Michael Moore does this country a great justice with this film. He exposes the crazy, ultra-militant underbelly of American culture without spreading a bunch of liberal-slanted accusations that would taint the message. In fact, he has several conservative moments, including one where he doffs his lifetime NRA membership card before Charlton Heston.

Moore is quick to point out the paranoid American blame cycle that is the stain on our collective carpet. When bad things happen (or might happen) Americans are quick to single out the immediately convenient scapegoat, but are hardpressed to focus the microscope on the bigger picture of our progressively crumbling society. Especially as compares to other European nations and the relatively placid Canada, who are made out to be a paragon of virtue by comparison.

Between this even-handed film and the fact that I was forced to sign my life over to Selective Service to obtain college funding, I have the funny feeling I'll be seeing the better side of the Great Lakes soon. And to add to this joy, Bowling for Columbine gives any rational thinker the fuel to stand up to the most bigoted, indoctrinated, flag-waving apple pie die for your government pigeon.

Political but important

[KnightsofNi11 · 8/10 · 26 July 2012]

On April 20, 1999 two students opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. It left 13 people dead and many more injured, gravely affecting the lives of those involved and stirring up a very loud gun control debate. In 2001, Michael Moore released Bowling for Columbine, a documentary that takes a look at gun violence in America and the things that make us the nation with, by far, the most gun related deaths per year. Moore examines the culture of America and just how we got this way through fear, paranoia, and vast over compensation to protect ourselves from something that isn't even there.

Michael Moore is obviously very liberal, and this comes through in almost everything he says or does. There is a lot of politics that go into his filmmaking, especially in this film that was released amidst the Bush administration. A lot of personal opinion goes into his filmmaking and he presents a very left wing point of view. Moore also employs plenty of theatrics and some overly dramatic moments in his film to get a point across. However, said point is incredibly important and it is laid out very clearly and very concisely throughout Bowling for Columbine.

Politics play a part in Moore's arguments, but they don't overshadow the basis of what he is trying to prove. In this film, he clearly outlines America's gun crazy culture fueled by paranoia, and if you just take a look around you will know that he has a point. Sure he finds the most ridiculous stories and the greatest examples to push his point, but in the broad generalization of what he is examining you can't say that he's wrong.

Interestingly enough, things haven't changed much in our culture in the eleven years this film has been out. America still thrives on fear, and we still fear the same things we did when this movie was made. It was incredibly interesting watching this film after the recent events in Aurora, Colorado because anything Moore says about Columbine can easily be related to our most recent tragedy. It proves that Moore has, rather unfortunately, made a timeless film that looks at an issue that seems to never go away, instead only getting worse. Moore tackles some disturbingly true topics about gun violence and fear, and he puts it all into his perspective very well in a very high quality documentary. Bowling for Columbine is an excellent film that people in America truly have to watch. Moore points out some sad but very prevalent truths in this film, and there is a lot to be learned from it.

Not really about Harris and Klebold, the Columbine shooters; more about the gun problem in America

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 2 May 2017]

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.

Expectations unmet

[psychprofessor · 6/10 · 25 February 2004]

I was fully prepared to like this film, having heard good things about it from various sources. However, I found it somewhat tedious. I certainly agree with much of what Michael Moore was trying to get across. For example, I'm definitely opposed to the easy way guns are obtained in this country. Also, I think some of the NRA people, particularly ones like Charlton Heston, are dangerous. That said, I thought it was unfair of Moore to take advantage of Heston who, I seem to recall, has Alzheimer's disease. Also, I wasn't impressed by his actions at K-Mart headquarters. I did think the comparison of the US with Canada was interesting, and I was amazed at all the guns and hunters in the country. If it weren't so cold, I might consider moving there. Bottom line: lots of good points but lots of tedium for me. Wish I could be more sanguine about the movie, because Moore's heart is definitely in the right place.

Great great film

[Jackidy44 · 10/10 · 5 February 2019]

Michael Moore as its best. This has to be seen by every single person. That's a real shock, how come these kids went that far in horror. The worst of it being the hypocrisy of the government towards gun control. Nothing can ever be controlled anymore, it's so sad to think that the only thing you can do is pray, and educate well.

10 for effort, 8 for excellent parts, 0 for carefulness

[earthinspace · 6/10 · 3 February 2007]

It is certainly worth seeing, yet I feel it should have been re-edited to leave out some parts that were quite misleading. There is dramatic tension between the good parts and the major falsehoods in this film. The good parts reveal a surprising amount to a thinking viewer, such as when the spokespersons for "the other side" are allowed to speak freely. The major falsehoods occur when the filmmaker jumps to conclusions or mixes exaggeration and satire with very sober (and sobering) facts. These 'falsehood scenes' (which I am talking' about) are sometimes humorous sketches and sometimes editorial comments by Moore. Unfortunately, Moore is truly, truly not an expert and that is probably why, several times, he offers botched conclusions and hack history. An example of the falsehoods: a short cartoon film about American history where paranoid early Pilgrims in America proceed to shoot all the nice Indians and then the Pilgrims go on to burn each other as witches. My understanding is that burning witches ended in Europe and did not cross the ocean. Also, that cartoon film fairly strongly implied that paranoia is something the "white" people have and the other colors did not. Sorry, but I am not going to name all the errors. I simply claim that historical rigor would oppose several of Moore's main points.

The film is worth watching but with a disclaimer:"This film is not a reliable source of detailed background information or analysis but conveys almost an hour of good, worthwhile data about its chosen subject."

Bowling for Moore.

[anaconda-40658 · 10/10 · 15 June 2015]

Bowling for Columbine (2002): Dir: Michael Moore / Featuring: Michael Moore, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Manson, Matt Stone, George W. Bush: Brilliant documentary about gun possession in America. Title represents the fact that two teenagers who open fired in a Columbine school were earlier bowling. Michael Moore takes viewers on a dark and sometimes comical journey to discover compelling and disturbing facts. We learn that America is driven by fear sparked by media. Moore interviews rocker Marilyn Manson whose music was blamed for the Columbine incident. He also embarks upon the influence of entertainment and violence and interviews Matt Stone, one of the creators of the popular Canadian cartoon South Park. George W. Bush is also featured for mockery and regardless of one's view, Moore still makes his vision funny. Charlton Heston also appears in his pro gun rallies and Moore addresses the fact that his rally took place a week after the shooting of a six year old girl. Moore also makes discoveries in Canada and other countries about guns. He even joins two Columbine survivors in their approach to K-Mart, which sold the bullets embedded in their bodies. The film contains Moore cynical approach that is branded with his humorous insight and opinions. The film requires us to reflect upon life and how it can end with the senseless pulling of a trigger. Score: 10 / 10

Great Leftist Propaganda

[movieman-41 · 6/10 · 26 November 2002]

If Michael Moore were any more to the left he would live in Havana or Communist China. He is most amusing and very entertaining. He is so biased and so off the wall that one rally needs to see his work to understand how the `far left' thinks and operates in America. Everyone will agree that Children killing children is wrong, but what Comrade Moore never asks and will not admit is that the founding fathers were concerned that a strong Federal Government should not have absolute power over its people. The second amendment is there to project the citizens from the Federal Government. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. He shows this with his trip to Canada. They have nearly as many guns per capita as the US but they have a different mindset and therefore have virtually no killings with guns. Instead of banning guns and (His preference) ammunition he could look for ways to change the mindset of the population here in the States.

Technique = 8... Honesty in Presentation = 0

[Surecure · 3/10 · 12 July 2006]

First let me say that, as a person (a Canadian for anybody who might question if all the negative reviews are from the USA) who doesn't care for guns and has no interest in them -- I've never even held one -- upon first viewing of "Bowling for Columbine" I was a fan. I loved this film. I even bought the DVD. I thought it was a brilliant documentary and that its presentation of the facts was spot on.

However, the scene where Moore talks about a bomber on display in the desert and the army plaque beneath it always made me wonder exactly how honest he was being, since what he claimed the plaque said sounded too outrageous to me. It kept on grating me until about a year later I began to actually research his film and found that nearly every single thing Moore presents in BFC is either heavily manipulated facts or bald-faced deceptions.

Take the scene of him getting a gun for opening an account at a bank. What he does not show is that there was a criminal background check including photo ID check and an FBI background check. Then, to get the gun, he had to open a 10 year Certificate of Deposit... basically he had to deposit nearly $1000 before he could get the gun, not the smartest idea compared to just buying a gun if that's the only intent. Even then, when Moore gets his gun and asks about the safety of handing out guns in the bank, the audience is duped into forgetting a large portion of Moore's handing-out-a-gun-at-a-bank safety joke: the bank doesn't supply the ammunition!

You even have his little cartoon where he tries to link the NRA to the KKK... never mind that him saying the NRA was formed the same year that the KKK was declared an illegal organization is 100% wrong... never mind that the NRA was actually formed by Northern Yankee's who fought AGAINST slavery... never mind that the NRA was primarily created in reaction to Southern laws that would ban blacks from owning firearms (the exact opposite of the cartoon's suggestion the NRA wanted to suppress blacks and leave them defenseless)... never mind that the cartoon is a South Park rip-off, presented after an interview with South Park creator Matt Stone in order to make it seem like the cartoon was made by the creators of South Park. I mean, no wonder Matt Stone hates Moore and made him a target of insults in his "Team America: World Police" movie. Talk about complete deception from every angle.

What's worse is that he is even hypocritical in how he talks about America's culture of fear and how the media tries to instill fear in the population, and yet that is EXACTLY what BFC is: a film that presents manipulated facts in order to create fear. Probably the best refutation of BFC one can find is the in-depth article by Dave Kopel called "Bowling Truths" that literally shreds BFC from beginning to end, showing it to be -- as he puts it -- more of a 'mockumentary' in the vein of "This is Spinal Tap" than a serious documentary outlining anything close to reality.

In terms of gun control issues, if you really want an intelligent look at the problems of gun control, check out the episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t on gun control. Now THAT is an intelligent and more importantly an HONEST delving into gun control. But if you are looking for facts and honesty in subject matter, you couldn't find a worse choice than BFC.

BFC is insulting to anybody who would be willing to take the time and educate themselves on exactly how honest Moore is. If you think BFC is truthful and honest, go read Kopel's article (readily available on the net) and you'll see how much Moore stretches the truth. I mean, even the film's title is deceptive since -- as even the preliminary police report states -- the two shooters at Columbine never showed up for bowling that morning! I still own the DVD, if only to show people a perfect example of how sheep can be led around if they don't stop and ask whether what they are hearing is real. BFC offers little reality and a lot of political brouhaha that does little for intelligent discussion on gun control. In that, he has hurt the gun control movement more than he has helped it.

(And by the way, people in Canada do lock their doors. I have to wonder how many doors he had to try in order to get his shots of every door being open.)