eFilmCritic Forum Index eFilmCritic
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bowling for Columbine: This movie should be required viewing

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> General Movie Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 12:05 am    Post subject: This movie should be required viewing Reply with quote

Once a year, every year, high school kids should be forced to watch this movie.

It's just fuckin' brilliant and if you disagree, I'd be VERY curious to hear your reasons.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DocTechnical
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 12:38 pm    Post subject: "Required Viewing" Reply with quote

Now there's a giveaway. Your worldview is so important that it must be forced on people, whether they agree or not, whether you're right or not. Because you just know that you're right.

That's called fascism.

And that's why it's a good idea for free people to have guns. So they have an argument for people who think their ideas should be "required".

Welcome to Freedom. Have a nice day.
Back to top
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheFascistJew!

I like it!

Oh, and I refuse to get baited into this argument. Politics aside, this movie represents a side of the political machine you don't often get to see.

Don't agree with Moore's politics? Fine. It's still a great fucking movie.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
scottkimbal



Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 2
Location: los angeles

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:05 pm    Post subject: Bowling for Columbine Reply with quote

Michael Moore plays fast and loose with the facts per usual.

Why didnt he include Russia in his tally of national murders?

(Because that would invalidate his arguement)

Does he expect us to believe that all Canadians leave their doors unlocked?

(I bet I could find places in America where the citizens leave their doors unlocked.)

I didnt like the movie, in fact it made me more pro-gun.

I did like the cartoon and the fact that he points out that the American media over reports crime and plays upon our racial fears in the news.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 1426
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 1:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Bowling for Columbine Reply with quote

scottkimbal wrote:
Does he expect us to believe that all Canadians leave their doors unlocked?

(I bet I could find places in America where the citizens leave their doors unlocked.)


no, he doesn't expect you to believe that, and he never said that.

Quote:

I didnt like the movie, in fact it made me more pro-gun.


he's not anti-gun. did you miss the part where he's an NRA member?
_________________
--b
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5920
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2002 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trying to talk logic to gun-nuts is like trying to talk logic to Christians - yoiu're dealing with people who will make ANY excuse or take any tiny shred of potential evidence to try to assert reasonable doubt that guns are bad.

I'm living in Canada and I can indeed confirm that no, unlike across the parallel in Washington state, people are not shooting each other full of holes. In fact, if someone does die of a gun death here it's big news. In the US it rates somewhere around what Dubbya had for breakfast.

And though I don't leave my door unlocked, every window in the house is normally ajar. What are they gonna do, perform a drive-by and slap me with a hockey puck?

You wanna try real freedom? Move to Canada, Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden... blah blah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
raoul duke



Joined: 26 Oct 2002
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:45 am    Post subject: Bowling for Columbine Reply with quote

So I saw this last weekend and while I can appreciate and enjoy it, Moore is so biased that even my social democrat self got riled up in a few scenes. The scenes in Canada are pretty poorly done. I'm sorry but talking to two people in Sarnia and five in Toronto about locking doors hardly constitutes solid information about Canadian locking habits (and that coffee house-dwelling Torontonian struck me as being rather like Marky KcKinney's Daryl from Kids in the Hall). Also, going to four houses in a nice neighborhood in Toronto in the middle of an afternoon and finding them all unlocked doesn't really prove anything. I'd be curious to know how many Americans leave their doors unlocked during the afternoon when they're home. Also the comparisons of Canadian and American gun ownership are misleading. 7 million guns in Canada for 31 million people and somewhere near 230 million guns for 290 million people isn't a very close match. That being said, the film does make some important observations about Canadians and Americans. I can't (and I doubt anybody can) answer why there are over 11 200 murders with handguns in the U.S. and only 165 here. Also, I think it's worth noting that the bottom three-fifths of Canadians make more than the bottom three-fifths of Americans, but the top 40% of Americans make significantly more than Canadians in a comparable income bracket.

His visit with Heston also annoyed me. Not the interview segment, but bringing the picture of the little girl was obviously trying to squeeze a few tears out from audience. That being said, the rest of that scene was well done (doesn't Heston's house look like something out of Boogie Nights?).

Overall, I would certainly recommend this movie to people, but would voice my concerns about it to them. It seems as if it exists more to stir up debate rather than anything else (I suppose that's pretty well true seeing as there aren't really many answers presented in the film).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scottkimbal



Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 2
Location: los angeles

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:02 pm    Post subject: Bowling Reply with quote

Ben,

Yes, I know he is an NRA member and he dosnt say that he is against guns, but where in the moive does he portray gun owners in a positive light?

I realize that he doesnt expect us to believe that All Canadians leave their doors unlock, but the masses of Michael Moore brainwashed, will believe that. (There were many people applauding during and after the movie.)
It scares me to think about the people who believe that everything that MM does is the gospel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oz
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5920
Location: Vancouver, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think people are following Michael Moore any more blindly than people follow Charlton Heston... don't ya really think?

On an aside, Moore is no less or more Hypocritical than anyone else. Check out the numerous intern credits on Roger and Me - a film about how nobody will give Americans well paid jobs anymore.

But hey, if the flick convinced just a hundred people to get rid of their guns, chances are (statistically) that he saved someone's life. That's more than Heston's done in a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
curiousgeorge
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 5:41 pm    Post subject: Bowling for Columbine Reply with quote

I wonder what the statistics are on how many lives guns have saved?

I know Moore wouldnt put that in the movie!
Back to top
Ben
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 1426
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think some of you people watched a different movie than i did.

he wasn't arguing against guns, just gun violence. he wasn't saying there was something wrong with guns. he pointed out how canada has 7 million guns, yet very few gun deaths each year. the point of the movie was asking why america has so much gun violence when these other countries don't. the conclusion was "fear." the american media scares the country's citizens with all the news reports... "TERROR IN YOUR HOME!" "WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW CAN KILL YOU!" etc.

i was watching the donahue special on MSNBC w/ michael moore to promote the movie. during one of the commercial breaks, they had a news update... "MSNBC Right Now"... the two stories they mentioned were the sniper attacks in DC and the school shooting in arizona. it was kinda ironic and funny.
_________________
--b
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
curious george
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:09 am    Post subject: Bowling Reply with quote

Very good point!

I totally agree in that the AMerican media creates a culture of fear.

and now....a haiku!

Are we scardy cats?
No! Down with the media!
Please dont be afraid.
Back to top
Scrybe
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:48 pm    Post subject: Here's why I only kinda liked it Reply with quote

It was a very interesting film. If Michael Moore weren't such a self-righteous, statistic stacking guy I would have enjoyed it more though. But the central theme, a question of why America has so much gun violence, is a good one to explore.

A very odd thing about the movie is that Moore's activist approaches contradicted his own thesis. First he points out that other countries have more guns per person but far less gun violence. Then he makes a big media scene to scare K-Mart (or was it Wall Mart? One of those marts.) into dropping it's sale of handgun ammunition. HE JUST SAID GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM. Then he goes and tries to sabotage Dick Clark with a bad publicity interview because the mother of the 6-year-old who shot a little girl worked at a restaurant with his name on it. ??? This is not just misdirection, it's no direction. Next he does the same to Charlton Heston. Attempting to give him a picture of the little girl who was killed. As though it was his fault. BUT MOORE JUST POINTED OUT; GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM.

Moore's main contention was that rather than the amount of guns Americans have, the problem lies with the way the media scares people. Especially the way they paint black males as terrifying brutes who want to kill white people. This makes all Americans scared of everything, hence the gun violence. Although he also infers (through a highly entertaining fever dream of animated American history) that Americans have an intrinsic disposition to fear everything.

He throws around a lot of statistics to defeat other arguments such as our nations violent past, and the blame shifting onto music and movies and such. But he never gave any statistics supporting his own argument. For instance, he showed a bunch of snippets of evening news scare-the-viewer-into-watching bits. And then juxtaposed that with a Canadian televised political debate, saying "This is what they watch in Canada." Yeah right. I am curious if they do use scare tactics on the news in other countries though. I can't just take Moore's word for it.

While he criticizes the media for pointlessly scaring Americans, (rightly so) I would say some of his tactics are just as tasteless and manipulative. For instance, he has a couple music montages where they are playing bee-bop music while showing footage of war atrocities that he blames America for. I understand his technique, subliminally tying traditional American values and politics to terror, but for God's sake; this is footage of a real man getting shot in the back of the head. A guy died. His life is no more. I'm not saying it was shocking. This technique, perfected in the nineties, is now tried and true. I just think it is a cheap way to unfair advantage of peoples emotions, and is in bad taste. I wish Moore would make his political points without exploiting the death of these people. (Something he blames Dick Clark and Charlton Heston for.)

Anyway, besides his usual 'America is very evil' stuff, and pseudo journalistic assault shenanigans, he does put forth a good question. And the film is certainly entertaining. I just think people may give his stuff more credence than it deserves.
Back to top
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5612
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but well said nonetheless.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> General Movie Talk All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group