I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Michael Moore may be the most controversial filmmaker around. Every time he releases a new film, there is bound to be tons of controversy. Many will agree with him, and many will disagree with him. Many may agree with his points but disagree with the way he expresses them. However,there is one thing about Michael Moore's films that everybody must agree on: they are extremely one sided and manipulative-and "Bowling for Columbine" is certainly no exception.Don't get me wrong, this is one of my favorite documentaries! It's hilarious, satirical, entertaining, and powerful-but it's also a propaganda piece. Those who Moore dislikes are harshly villainized throughout, and Moore manipulates his audience with many different methods. Various pieces of footage and music are chosen to make his film just a tiny bit more powerful, a few montages are inserted just to persuade you a little bit more.However, the points that he makes are very powerful and important. His sense of humor and justice collide to show that the United States is a country full of problems that must be solved. He offers reasons and solutions that are normally backed up by solid evidence, and the final product is equally funny and impactful.And, I must also point out, that after re watching it I have discovered that "Bowling for Columbine" is much more than just a "gunz r bad" movie! You can be a hardcore gun lover and still agree with many of Moore's points and be a fan of the final product, because, as the movie goes on, Moore stops targeting so called "gun nuts" as much as he does the media and large corporations. America's obsession with guns and violence is satirized throughout, but the movie is about far more than that.

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

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

This movie is probably, filmmaker Michael Moore's most famous film. The documentary explores the reasons of gun violence, by looking into the gun culture of the U.S. In doing so, he learns that the conventional answers of easy availability of guns, violent entertainment, violent national history, & even poverty are inadequate to explain this violence when other cultures share those same factors without the equivalent carnage. In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Moore takes on a deeper examination of America's culture of fear, bigotry and violence. Furthermore, he seeks his own investigation and confront the powerful elite political and corporate interests in fanning this gun culture for their own greedy gain. With his signature sense of awkward humor, the activist filmmaker pretty much change, how documentaries are shown. Love him or hate him, he has been the most influential documentary filmmaker of the past 30 years. Gone are the days of monotone narrating lectures. In are the more playful, and colorful documentaries full of funny cartoons, cool graphics to transfer information and perspective, catchy music tunes, pop culture references, and celebrity talking heads interviews. Very entertaining. The documentary also has a lot of heart & sad moments, includes a number of disturbing scenes to illustrate its points, such as footage of real-life people being shot, gun suicides, assassinations, battle footage, and so on. Perhaps most terrifying, the movie includes security camera footage from the Columbine High School massacre. These scenes are brief, but effectively horrifying. It can be hard to watch, at times. Moore's techniques and message are so powerful and persuasive and his scruffy, paunchy everyman image so likable that it won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2003. Still, the movie is without its faults. I'm not a ring-wing propagandist, but I found a lot of doubt in Moore's credibility information. Moore was often called out for his somewhat deceiving practices. He does like to edit some of the interviewee's responses to make it seem like they agree with his statements. A good example of this is the sequence with South Park co-creator Matt Stone. Stone was just there to talk about high school life at Columbine, but the movie made it seem like he was for 'Gun Control' by twisting his words, and making it seem like Stone help created the animation sequence in the film about the history of guns. Clearly, South Park Studios have no hand whatsoever in making the segment and Stone thought the cartoon that Moore presented was complete BS. This disagreement, cause Matt Stone and Trey Parker to put a negative caricature of Moore in 2004's Team America: World Police as retaliation. Moore's investigation was supposed to carry out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities, but actually felt more like harassment and undermined those that of different views than Moore. Most of them, don't really have much of a connection to the problems of gun violence. A good example of this is when Moore tries to link television producer Dick Clark with really irrelevant evidence to the murder of a six-year-old by a six-year-old, because the boy's mother worked at one of Clark's restaurants in a welfare-to-work program. Yes, Clark did kinda dodges Moore's questionings, but I really doubt Dick Clark is to blame for this tragedy. He didn't really hand the gun to the kid and force him to kill the other child. After all, it's more like the gun owner's fault. Sad, to see the movie makes Clark look like the devil. Another bad judgment call by Moore, was his relentless questioning during an interview with a clearly memory-impaired Charlton Heston whom by this time, was suffering from both cancer & Alzheimer. Moore clearly took great advantage of Heston's weakness to make Heston look like a fool. When Moore asks Heston why he continues to taunt communities that just underwent gun-related tragedies by holding his ridiculous rallies, Heston couldn't provide any answers. The reasons for this is that Moore implied that the National Rifle Association deliberately scheduled its annual conferences to exploit the Columbine shootings, when the truth of the matter is the conference had been scheduled months or years in advance. Moore also accused Heston of holding an NRA rally right after a shooting in Flint; however, the footage he used was of Heston visiting the city almost a year later for a campaign event. Throughout the movie, Moore strung together snippets from several of Charlton Heston's speeches to make them sound like one arrogant speech. Moore has really gone to great lengths to misleading the audience. Another good example is where Moore goes to a bank which was giving away a free rifle to anyone who opened an account with them. What Moore didn't show, was the bank actually handed out, was an certificate for a free rifle at a gun store down the street, where the store performed the same background checks and waiting-period requirements as if a customer had walked in to buy a rifle with cash. There are way too much countless amounts of distorted information, throughout the documentary to noted, here. It's really up to the audience to decide what is truth and what's false, but I do advice people to do their research when going to see this movie, because this film clearly need further investigating. While, his research is up to debate and there are some good points that Moore brings up. My favorite is Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" playing over footage of the atrocities by various US-backed regimes. To his credit, he's not exactly anti-gun – or doesn't seem to be; rather, just like me, just curious about gun-culture and believe a little gun-control is needed. Overall: I give Moore credit for this film as gun control not an easy topic to talk about. I just wish, his facts were a little more solid. Sadly, it was not.