This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Sadly Over-hyped

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This film was an obscure one to me. I had not even heard of it until recently when a friend dropped it off for me to see. I was always curious on how Michael Moore could be so hypocritical to dismiss any blame from artist Marilyn Manson and place it on another artist (actor) Charlton Heston. I notice Bowling for Columbine never addrressed black crimes, and I found his editing style very fishy. I mean who else at the time really believed Canada the entire country allows people to walk into their homes.So this brings me to Michael and Me. Larry Elder intelligently and open-mindingly presents his view on his defense of gun ownership. When watching this film I laughed at the idiotic statements made by pedestrians who opposed gun ownerships, I gasped at the rape victim's story and her newly realized empowerment, I had also was amazed at the statistics showing Canada's suicide rate being high.This film may have not had all of the funding that Michael Moore had. In fact I believe Larry Elder put his own money into this project. It is a shame that this did not receive enough air time in theaters because I feel this film is a great rebuttal to Michael Moore's film.Common sense has been replaced with political actions. So what if one entire party stands for guns, that should not influence the other political party to be against it completely. Whats more is that we see a lot of hypocrites who oppose guns, and yet hire bodyguards who own guns (Rosie O'Donnell).Michael and Me is a great film. Lary Elder is brave to make a film against a commercial film like Bowling for Columbine. I believe if anyone is going to watch Bowling for Columbine, they should have this film as a companion piece. Michael and me is much more even handed with the issue of gun ownerships, and Larry Elder presents his material in a much more credible way than Moore has (no chopping of different footage to twist a person's words).

Many of those who object to Elder's position engage in the same sort of logical fallacy that most anti-gunners rely on. The fact there are sensible restrictions on the sort of explosives you can own is NOT relevant to the debate about letting private citizens carry defensive handguns. The fact that you can't own a nuclear bomb doesn't mean everyone who agrees with that logical policy is pro gun-control. An analogy--if you agree that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you're for restrictions on free speech. No one really thinks that! What Elder is getting at is the simple fact that crime is only more likely to happen when law abiding citizens are prevented from carrying defensive weapons. Gun control punishes everyone and prevents wide swaths of people from carrying defensive weapons in a futile effort to keep a small percentage of the population from getting access to guns. Access that they get anyway, despite our best efforts. The bad guys are going to get guns whether we want them to or not; there's no benefit to society from preventing trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens from carrying defensive handguns. Every state that's allowed private citizens to defend themselves has seen crime go down, not up. As Elder proves, criminals certainly prefer you to be unarmed.

This movie uses the Michael Moore name to try and sell a totally slanted propaganda piece that offers little insight to anyone who has not already staked-out a position on the gun control issue. The obvious counter arguments to most of the points made will leave anyone logical and sensible, a very frustrated viewer. A simple example: Should people be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons? If no, then you agree with weapons limitations. Should the average person be allowed to own and use 50 caliber sniper rifles that can shoot through cars? If no, then you believe in gun control. Now, let's discuss sensible gun control rules we can all live with. Spare me that nonsense that few rules are needed. If you think that way, you are simply a moron.Anyone can use extreme examples to make any point. One lady gets raped on day 2 of her 10 day waiting period. Of course they fail to mention the many hot-heads who are deterred from using guns in anger BECAUSE of that same waiting period. As I say, the counter arguments, which this film avoids, are glaringly missing. In this film, everyone who loves guns shoots straight, is always sober, and has keen judgment. Anyone who wants any sort of gun control is portrayed as an idiot. Don't waste your time with this one. There is nothing there.

Firebrand Libertarian television and radio talk show host Larry Elder takes on filmmaker Michael Moore over guns, gun owners, and armed self-defense in his documentary, "Michael & Me," an unflinching, unabashedly pro-Second Amendment, pro-self defense film that proves the folly of gun control laws and the illogic of paranoia about an armed citizenry.In his 2002 "documentary," "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore posited that the reason there's so much violent crime in America is because there are too many guns in America. Elder confronts Moore himself with this and more. But more than anything, Elder conclusively shows that in places where guns are available to average citizens, violent crime is lower. Who believes that? Cops, lawyers, professors, gun dealers... and average Americans of all races and walks. I've read that the conservative estimate on annual defensive gun uses -- incidents where a firearm is used to prevent a crime -- is about 100,000. It's this figure Elder presents.Larry Elder interviews a number of people in his film, including people who have used a firearm in self-defense, Second Amendment supporters, and a woman who was savagely raped and insists that if she had been armed, she would not have been attacked. Elder questions the effectiveness of registration, the sanity of bans on "assault weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials," and breaks down what the word "militia" in the Second Amendment means.Included is an animation of a humorous, fictitious Larry Elder/Michael Moore interview where Elder's tough questions cause Moore to literally sweat off pounds and flip out. Elder does manage to get a few words with the real Michael Moore, who claims that Larry Elder refuses to debate him. Elder invites him on that evening's radio show. No, Michael Moore didn't take Larry Elder up on the offer.People on both sides of the Second Amendment will benefit from a viewing of "Michael & Me." If you're pro-gun, "Michael & Me" will likely reaffirm your beliefs; if you're anti-gun, it will likely lead you to question whether you've been given the facts about an armed citizenry.