Own the rights?
156 out of 223 people found the following review useful: overall, he makes a fair point, 13 February 2004 Author: Richard Cross from Leeds, England
Whatever you may throw at Michael Moore's methods, there are some points made in the film that are valid. FACT: The United States has a gun-related homicide rate that is totally disproportionate to its population when compared to every other country in the world.By the end of the film, however, Mr. Moore has already discounted the ownership of guns as a cause, and the blame lies firmly at the feet of the selective and sensationalist media. By far the most insightful comments in the film are made by Marilyn Manson - namely that there are certain businesses and politicians in the United States that capitalise on on fear.I don't see this as an anti-gun film, but more an observation of a country that is so completely gripped by fear, that it is spiraling downwards into deep and dangerous paranoia. That this fear is driven by certain forces for profit is sickening and it needs to be uncovered.When I see so-called 'gun nuts' or apparent racists being interviewed, I feel nothing but pity for them. Their views have been formed by nothing less than the media saturation they are exposed to on a daily basis.I guess these things are far more apparent to those of us who live outside the USA and witness the continual aggressive acts it perpetrates upon countries that are far too small and weak to defend themselves.Watch this America, then "South Park, the Movie" and after that take a good long look in the mirror.10/10
128 out of 187 people found the following review useful: A guerrilla for non violence, 14 December 2002 Author: Chris Knipp from Berkeley, California
`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.
106 out of 165 people found the following review useful: A movie that should be mandatory for all politicians, 16 March 2004 Author: octomagneto from Portland, OR, USA
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.
88 out of 156 people found the following review useful: A liberal's critique, 2 August 2004 Author: Jenny (illusoryjane) from Salt Lake City, UT
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.
58 out of 101 people found the following review useful: One of the most thought provoking movies., 7 May 2003 Author: emma502 from iowa city, iowa
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.
53 out of 94 people found the following review useful: Fascinating, 21 October 2002 Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States
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.
16 out of 22 people found the following review useful: Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine Film, 15 December 2002 Author: Nikone
Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine Filmby Ari ArmstrongWhat are we to make of a documentary that claims to discuss violence in America, but fails to even mention a policy responsible for raising U.S. homicide rates at least 25%?At the end of his film Bowling for Columbine, director Michael Moore bowls a strike. Unfortunately, his film is less successful. He heaves mightily and knocks down a few pins, but he also rolls some gutter balls.Economist Jeffrey Miron of Boston University found "drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years" by an estimated 25-75%. Why? Prohibition creates violent black markets. It's a simple theory supported by the evidence.So, in his rambling exploration of many other facets of violence in America, why does Moore completely ignore the domestic consequences of prohibition? Such an omission is inexcusable, and it indicates Moore's social agenda trumps any serious effort to come to grips with the problem.That said, at times Moore's work is chillingly poignant. During one segment, he shows frame after frame of botched U.S. foreign policy moves. The U.S. helps kill or otherwise remove one leader of a struggling nation, only to see the rise of an even worse leader. The U.S. has supported both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, though in retrospect that support seems to have been unwise. Moore's critique of American "foreign entanglements" mirrors libertarian concerns.On the morning of the Columbine murders, Moore points out, President Clinton was on television announcing the latest American bombing raid in Kosovo. Just an hour later, Clinton was back on TV discussing the suburban terror. Is senseless violence on the personal level linked to the mass violence of the state? It's possible, but Moore doesn't demonstrate a causal connection.Shock-rocker Marilyn Manson continues this theme by pointing out the president has more influence than Manson does. Manson blames the "campaign of fear and consumption" constantly bombarding Americans. However, Manson's suggestion that his music is a healthy "escape" is as ludicrous as his critics' assertions that Manson's music somehow drives people to mayhem.Moore notes the Columbine killers also attended a morning bowling class, so why not blame bowling? Moore's comparison is silly, but he does raise the excellent point that people shouldn't look for scapegoats following a tragedy.Which brings us to another of Moore's gutter balls. Scapegoating is precisely what Moore does, only his victim is the American gun owner rather than Marilyn Manson.At one point, Moore places a picture of the young victim of the Buell school shooting against a ledge of Charlton Heston's house. Moore seems to think Heston is somehow to blame for the death, and he asks Heston to apologize.Moore also took a couple of Columbine victims to K-Mart and used media pressure to convince the chain to stop selling ammunition. He describes this as an "overwhelming victory." Yet his self-serving media stunt accomplished the same thing keeping Manson out of Denver accomplished: exactly nothing.In his incoherent badmouthing of corporations, Moore neglects to remind us that his film was released by a large corporation, his equipment was manufactured by corporations, and his work was advertised by corporate web pages and media outlets. This doesn't prove Moore's case is wrong, but it does prove he's not self-reflective.Moore offers some needed criticism of American media, especially television news programs. One person Moore interviews notes that, even as the American murder rate plummeted, television coverage of murders dramatically expanded, thus giving viewers a false impression of reality.Moore rightly rails against racism. Many white Americans have an irrational fear of black males, and this encourages a violent mindset. That's a needed criticism. Unfortunately, Moore seeks to replace bigotry against blacks with bigotry against gun owners.Many of my gun-owning friends are doctors, lawyers, professors, and professionals. Does Moore interview anybody representative of the American gun owner? Of course not. Does he interview any scholar who is an expert on crime and firearms, such as David Kopel, John Lott, Gary Kleck, or Don Kates? Of course not. To do so would be to treat the matter seriously rather than fan the flames of prejudice.Moore cites the gun-homicide statistics for a variety of countries with lower numbers than in the U.S., but he conveniently omits countries with more stringent gun laws and higher gun-homicide rates.He also ignores the fact that England's gun bans have been followed by an increase in violent crime there, including gun-related crime. All the evidence that demonstrates lawfully carrying a handgun or keeping a defensive gun in the home deters criminals is totally suppressed.Moore does wonder why Canada has a relatively high gun-ownership rate yet fewer murders. He concludes there is something wrong with American culture.He's right about that: there is something wrong. He rightly points to poverty and America's racist past as part of the problem, even though he looks to failed welfare schemes to solve poverty -- whereas libertarians look to repeal the government interventions (such as prohibition) that have perpetuated it.But Moore overstates his case. He thinks America is a nation of fear and paranoia. But in some ways he feeds into the same media frenzy he criticizes in his film. Yes, some Americans have problems with violence, bigotry, and paranoia. However, the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of American gun owners, lead basically responsible and healthy lifestyles. This basic fact seems not to assist Moore in his quixotic crusades.
101 out of 192 people found the following review useful: Technique = 8... Honesty in Presentation = 0, 12 July 2006 Author: Craig Estrella (Surecure) from Toronto, Canada
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.)
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Yes, Canadians lock their doors as much as anyone else, Mr. Moore, 24 June 2007 Author: Mandemus from The Armory, Ape City
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When film makers or critics of any kind stray too far from home and make generalizations, they need to be very careful. I don't find that Moore is too concerned about making careful observation in general, so I don't think he cares much about stereotyping others.His trip to Toronto in Bowling for Columbine was laughable, given the statements he makes about "Canadians". Moore suggests that Canada is a safer country because he pulls on a few doors in the city of Toronto and finds them to be unlocked. Moore has a penchant for stereotypes. If he were a bigot for the extreme right, I would be frightened of him. Canada is not just Toronto, no more than New York represents the US. And a few unlocked doors in a city does not make your point.I actually believe that a country with fewer guns will have less casual gun crime per capita, and I believe that the US has much to learn in that regard from us in Canada.Unfortunately, I came away from this film more with more distasteful feelings about the film maker than the subject material, which is too bad. To me, this was a film about Michael Moore, Bully. The bullying personality type is pervasive in his work and life story, and distracts me from the serious topics that he wants to side with.Moore, and us viewers, would do well to remember Woody Allen's cautionary, sarcastic line from Annie Hall (1977) when he said "I'm a bigot, but it's OK, because I'm a bigot for the left."
14 out of 20 people found the following review useful: in the midst of all the libel, here's some food for thought..., 5 February 2004 Author: God (Chalaco) from Toronto
Moore would have us believe he is a populist.Moore would have us believe "Bowling For Columbine" is a documentary.Moore would have us believe a lot of things.Well, let me tell you what I believe. I believe this pseudo-documentary was nothing more than satirical hyperbole (I will explain hereinafter). His message is a very important one: no guns; I agree with it wholeheartedly. But did he need to indoctrinate millions of people with this factually selective putative "documentary"?He's not committing treason here. He's overtly trying to change his country for what he perceives to be the better.Before I even get into the film, I want to get into my bete noire when it comes to this film and Moore (bete noire in that this is something I hate it, not fear). And that bete noire would be the flak and indignation this film receives from all the right wing extremists (I'm not on the left neither; I think people who only see two choices when it comes to politics are veritably myopic). Their censorious remarks aside, Moore has clout with the common everyday pauper. The people who are not abreast to politics or foreign policy, who are not very topical, who are apathetic towards history, are, quite possibly, the ones who swallow Moore and his ideologies wholly (perhaps, because they don't know the putative "facts" that Moore points out to be otherwise). They may very well be his target audience. It's won an Oscar, copious amounts have been sold, the whole nine. Funny how Moore has a large fan base and did so with the usage of factually selective, hyperbolical, indoctrinating propaganda. The very same tools politicians use. Moore is a smarter populist than he appears to be. See how hypocritical those politicians screaming with indignation about "Bowling For Columbine" seem now?Right, now back to the movie. Anyone who watches this movie must realize how sententious it is. And Charlton Heston is not the racist Moore made him out to be (he was marching with Martin Luther King in days of yore, before it became de rigueur). Moore chopped up his speeches (you can see him wearing two different suits, hint hint, wake up people).He made all kinds of intimations, some of which were bordering on ridiculous (NRA and KKK in cahoots has been proven as fraudulent). All sorts of fabrications in this movie have you wondering if this is a documentary or some pinko's parody on the United States.However, that's not to say this film wasn't well done. The production was sublime. The messages were conveyed in a manner that was very lucid. But this, obviously, is not a documentary.The question is, though: is this what you're against? Anti-gun laws? Are guns necessary? If the constitution said it was every American's right to own a slave, would that make it ok to own a slave? Just because the constitution (written in days of yore, in times none of us could possibly ever identify with) says it is a right does not mean hurry to go buy that new desert eagle. Switzerland may have a law saying everyone must own a gun and they may have very low gun crime rates. But they don't have the image problem that most Americans have, they don't have the sort of animus among their own people that even guns can't mollify, so on and so forth.I aver that what Moore did was a bit much. Heston is an honest man but now looks like a liar (he couldn't have cancelled the speeches, they were planned years in advance; besides, the festivities were cancelled). he turned a civil rights activist into a racist, a man that lobbied for and enforced strict gun laws into an irresponsible gun nut.He called the bank weeks in advance to do the gun account clip; that's why he received the gun with no ample delays. The studio that produced it is from and in Halifax, so that "if it wasn't real, Americans wouldn't have made it" argument gets defenestrated (tossed out the window).But, perhaps, this was needed; too many people embracing Bush with zealotry nowadays. Don't take your ire out on the message because you didn't like the not-so practical application Moore chose (and the message I mean: outlaw guns). I still, however, aver that these sort of films are necessary for they are iconoclastic and heretic. Not to mention that they help the balance (the propaganda from both the left and right is now a little more balanced).Short and to the point: Moore only used the very same trickery all other putative populists use in the U.S. political scene. The medium Moore chose was apt. The only thing he did that may prove to be imprudent was title it as a documentary. Though many things may have been spurious, many politicians go on television with their own glib, using the same techniques Moore did (trickery). So how come they can get away with it but Moore can't? Neither one should get away with it, if you wish to be an objective judge about it. How can they call someone out for something they do as well? He may do so per pro the film medium, but conversely, there's propaganda politicians spew out everyday, only to pass it off as being objective and factual. I would suggest that those politicians, with whom Moore is now in a war of slander, debunk THEIR OWN trickery as well. It's only fair.I doubt any of you "Bowling For Columbine" zealots have or will do any research to verify the many specious "facts" it depicts. It's an amazing movie, otherwise; very well done (notice I said 'movie', not documentary; this is hyperbole, folks). Watch it anyway.- the G.O.D. (Chalaco)
Add another review
