Video > DVD > Genres > Documentary > General

	buying more than one thing? add to bookbag(uses Multi-Item Price Optimization™) ...or intereact!

Bowling for Columbine
Actors: Michael Caldwell, Dick Cheney, Dick Clark, Bill Clinton, and Byron Dorgan
Rated: R (Restricted)
Retail Price (not our price): $14.98
Release Date: 2003-08-19
Theatrical Release Date: 2002
Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
Run Time: 119 minutes
Format: Array
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Special Edition, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Discs: 1


Editorial Reviews (supplied by Amazon.com):

1) Amazon.com
Michael Moore's superb documentary (following in the footsteps of Roger & Me and The Big One) tackles a meaty subject: gun control. Moore skillfully lays out arguments surrounding the issue and short-circuits them all, leaving one impossible question: why do Americans kill each other more often than people in any other democratic nation? Moore focuses his quest around the shootings at Columbine High School and the shooting of one 6-year-old by another near his own hometown of Flint, Michigan. By approaching the headquarters of K-Mart (where the Columbine shooters bought their ammo) and going to Charlton Heston's own home, Moore demands accountability from the forces that support unrestricted gun sales in the U.S. His arguments are conducted with the humor and empathy that have made Moore more than just a gadfly; he's become a genuine voice of reason in a world driven by fear and greed. --Bret Fetzer

2) Description
Acclaimed filmmaker Michael Moore (Roger & Me) takes aim at America's love affair with guns and violence in this Oscar(r)-winning* film that "demands attention" (People)! Mixing riveting footage, hilarious animation and candid interviews with everyone from the NRA's Charlton Heston to shock-rocker Marilyn Manson, Bowling for Columbine is a "brilliant" (The Hollywood Reporter) tour de force of filmmaking. *2002: Documentary Feature

Customer Reviews (supplied by Amazon.com):
Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5

1) A MUST Watch for Everyone!   [Rating: 5 out of 5]
The title definitely does not give the movie justice..Michael Moore teaches as well as entertains. So many Americans including myself are sometimes oblivious to so much and this movie gives the audience real stories, real America..let's support our filmmakers that make a difference and give the audience real substance..Michael Moore keep educating America!

2) You can't blame all of that on Charlton Heston.   [Rating: 2 out of 5]
Before I saw this movie, I heard so many good things about it from two of my politically liberal friends. As I consider myself to be a liberal as well, I sincerely approached "Bowling for Columbine" (BFC), as a movie that I wanted to like. I didn't know anything about the producer Micheal Moore at the time. Of course the movie was completely biased in the most sensationalists of ways. I thought the interview with Charlton Heston was completely unfair to a man who was nice enought to allow Micheal Moore into his home. In short, Heston was blind-sided. I didn't get the point of the Marilyn Manson segment except that he was trying to say that his music has no effect on children's behavior (Actually modeling has a HUGE effect on children's behavior; see the works of psychologist Albert Bandura).I think that a documentary on violence in America could have been much better done. There is wealth of psychological and philosophical resources to draw from. To make it all simply a "gun" issue misses these points. It all comes down to good parenting, good role models, good nutrition, understanding alienation in American society. You can't blame all of that on Charlton Heston. I would rent the movie, not buy it. BFC is most mostly for shock value. By the way, my own view on guns is that that there should be greater controls on who gets a gun and why (waiting periods ect.), but ultimately, people have a right to defend themselves against those who may be out to hurt them. My grandmother is a 75 year-old widow who lives in a rural area with another an 80 year old widow. Those two old ladies pack a rifle. In that my grandmother and her room-mate are American citizens with impeccable records and no history of instability, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves?While I do not and probably would not choose to own or use a gun, some people feel as though they need them. I think that Micheal Moore is something of a soul-mate to people like Ann Colture and the "conservative" radio loud mouths like Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh and company. These people aren't really interested in issues or exchanging intelligent ideas. Their gig is to entertain, to shock, to get people riled up. Whether it comes from the Left or the Right it all seems to me to be very insincere.

3) Almost no sense whatsoever   [Rating: 2 out of 5]
"Bowling for Columbine" attempts to find an answer to a complex question: why do Americans kill each other more than any other industrialized nation (with guns)? As complex as this question already is, Michael Moore seems to make the answer absolutely impossible. In his attempt to find out why, Michael Moore constantly contradicts himself and leaves out several key points of information, and sometimes tells the wrong story. HIs points also have false conjecture in them.Michael Moore explores the many reasons given as to why Americans kill: poverty, high divorce rates, minorities, violence in the media (including movies and video games), America's violent history, and simply, lack of gun control. #1: Poverty: Michael Moore points out a liberal argument that poverty in America makes one commit crimes, he counters that by saying that Canada has a higher unemployment rate (at twice the rate of the U.S. at the time this documentary was made). However, Michael Moore seems to have a lack of understanding as to what poverty really is. "Poverty" is defined as having an income below the "threshold" (the least amount of money that can get you by depending on where you live and how many people/children/elderly live in your household). "Unemployment" means you do not have a job AND are looking for a job. Unemployment, to an extent, can tell you about the state of a country's economy. However, many of the world's industrialized nations have much more generous unemployment and welfare benefits. In some cases, it might be better to remain unemployed than to settle for a low-wage job, unlike here in the U.S. where welfare and unemployment benefits have been cut to the bone. Many people in poverty here in the U.S. actually do work, but can't make enough money to make ends meet. Another point is that every other industrialized nation provides health care and many provide universal college as well. Also, the boys from Columbine were not poor, so why did they shoot all those kids and teachers?Point of contradiction: Michael Moore describes a school shooting incident involving a toddler African-American kid who shot a toddler girl in his grade. His mother could not look after him very well because she was forced, as part of a welfare-to-work program, to take a bus miles away from her house, and work a low-wage job. Had she been able to look after her child, could this have been prevented? Most likely, but does this not contradict Moore's earlier point that poverty does not cause more crime?#2. Divorce rates: Moore counters a point made by conservatives that the divorce rate and the "break up of the family" in this country is causing us to commit crimes. He looks at England, and says that they have a higher divorce rate. But then again, if Moore is so convinced that "unemployment" means "poverty," England does have a lower unemployment (at least they did when this documentary was made). Point of contradiction: if that toddler boy (mentioned above) had a father around, wouldn't the shooting have been prevented?#3. Violence in the media: Michael Moore points that every other country watches our movies and many violent video games come from Japan, but they don't experience these problems. However, this is where we get to what appears to be Michael Moore's silly theory as to what causes violence in the U.S.: "the media pumping us full of fear". In other words, because our media reports on violent crimes (and other scary things that could happen to us), we commit violent crimes. Is the media supposed to stay silent every time a murder occurs.Point of contradiction: Michael ridicules those who say violence in the media causes violence in reality, but he contradicts himself when he claims that "pumping us with fear" causes us to commit crimes. Again, it's all about violence in the media.#4. America's violent history: Michael Moore attempts to counter those who say our violent history is a reason for us being violent. Moore points out the violent histories of Britain and France in their colonies, as well as Nazi Germany, but then says that all these countries have low violence rates. However, Michael Moore GREATLY contradicts himself soon afterwards with his "History of America" cartoon, which portrays the history of America as a bunch of scared white people shooting everybody. Also, during his "What a Wonderful World" sequence, Michael Moore lists many of the violent "acts" committed by the U.S., whether through funding, weapons supplying, or direct invasion, in attempt to show that the U.S. does not make weapons only for "defensive" purposes. I will make a few points on this:1. During the 'What a wonderful World" sequence, some of Michael Moore's points have incomplete information and are somewhat erroneous. For example, the "4 million kill(ed) in Southeast Asia" has to do with the Vietnam War. Also, Michael Moore fails to note the percentages of the casualties from all of the U.S. interventions were rebels, soldiers, or civilians.2. The United States did not give money to or train "terrorist groups" or "Osama bin Laden" to "kill Soviets". The Soviets, first of all, invaded Afghanistan in 1979. We decided to help fund, supply, and train the Mujahadeen (a.k.a. the Afghan Rebels) to fend them off. After all, we were in a Cold War with the Soviets. Osama bin Laden could very well have been one of the freedom fighters, but he was not on our radar as a "terrorist" back then. Second, were we to just sit there and watch Afghanistan fall to the Soviets? Watch them as they massacre Muslim children?3. Michael Moore vastly contradicts himself by listing these "violent acts of the United States", and then go on to say that a country's violent history does not make it's citizens more prone to violence. Also, Michael Moore seems to correlate that on the day of Columbine was the biggest one-day bombing campaign in Kosovo, and he lets Marylin Manson say, "Well, the president is dropping bombs...don't you think that causes violence?"So what does cause violence in America? Perhaps we will never know, and Michael Moore clearly didn't. Since Amazon requires one star, I at least will give it one of my own because this documentary is funny at times and makes interesting points. But as for Michael Moore's overall points, he does not make them at all. A very weak documentary from him, indeed.

4) Michael Moore's take on U.S's preoccupation with guns and violence.   [Rating: 5 out of 5]
(1) Michael Moore starts with the quest to understanding the inherent tendencies for violence in USA by showing us the statistics with respect to other countries where America fares as the place with the maxium murders with respect to European countries.(2) He first considers America's support for production and ownership for firearms to be possible reason.(3) Charlton Heston comes up for heavy stick in this documentary as president of National Rifle association. He seems to turn up for rallies at locations where tragedies using firearms have just occured.(4) The columbine tragedy is talked about and what led the assailants to do it.(5) He points the finger also at the system which needs mothers to be working 10 hr shifs to make a living, mothers who are unable to give attention to their kids. (6) Michael Moore and 2 victims of columbine go back and return bullets to Kmart from where the columbine perpetrators bought the bullets. Kmart announces to de-shelve the sale of bullets at their stores.(7) Then arrives to the bush legacy and does his usual enjoyable bush bashing.(8) Concludes that America's addiction to guns which leads to the violence is due to an atmosphere of mistrust and fear that he supposes is brought about by the politicians (read BUSH) and media. He cites examples of citizens in canada who dont lock their doors.(9) He concludes that people in US are predisposed to guns and thus violence because of the lack of trust among one another. He concludes (10)that Americans think as 'I' instead of 'We'. He leaves us with the message that when we change that attitude to 'We' only then our nation will reverse itself from it's current violent trend.regards, Vikram

5) VERY important topic. Mediocre documentary.   [Rating: 3 out of 5]
I originally became aware of Michael Moore after viewing his well known documentary "Roger and Me". I enjoyed the film, but unfortunately never found the time to view his later efforts, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. Both films were always on my "films to watch" list, but I guess I needed a good kick in the rear to get around to it.I finally got that "kick" after watching his Amazing documentary "Sicko", which I feel is one of the most important films of the past five years. After being completely awestruck with "Sicko", I decided it was time to view both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for columbine. Here are my thoughts....[SPOILER ALERT] I will be revealing certain aspects of the film within the following portion of my review.While Columbine may be the Oscar winner among his four most known films, I personally found it to be the most amateurish and disappointing. The film slowly constructs a message that I found to be schizophrenic and quite ambiguous. The journalism here could be described as being "Jeraldo-like", a simple hodgepodge that fails to deliver a cohesive or fully coherent message of any kind. In fact, part the film speaks of the constant fear generated via the news media, and yet this very film itself, could in some ways, also be considered more of the same. At one point the film suddenly displays a couple of "death by gun" scenes in rapid succession, for what appears to be shock value alone. I did not appreciate his careless use of such images. On the other hand, The film later uses graphic imagery to great effect, while making a very important point about U.S. Military actions around the world, throughout history, and the ultimate outcome. It's that kind of schizophrenic approach that detracts from the overall impact of the film.The structure of the film is meandering, and at times I was left wondering, "what's his point"? The segments with Dick Clark and Charleton Heston seemed contrived. Did you really expect Dick Clark NOT to drive away? Did you really expect Charlton Heston NOT to walk out? The intent of Mr. Moore as interviewer in these scenes seems insincere and scripted to generate the desired (and expected) "end result". When interviewing Marilyn Manson, why didn't Mr. Moore ask leading questions regarding the potential harmful effects that his music "MIGHT" have on impressionable young minds?I also found the brief excursions into racism, violence in media (video games and entertainment), and extreme Rock Music (Marilyn Manson) to be ineffective. These are all points that definitely need to be discussed when dealing with the main topic at hand, but in the end, once again, we are left with a very ambiguous stance that detracts greatly from any possible impact. One almost gets the feeling that Moore is actually downplaying the impact of violence in media within a society. A very big mistake! Mr. Moore speaks loudly of corporate responsibility (with good reason) and yet seems to gloss over the responsibility of artists, who also have a huge impact on our society. It may be true that citizens in other, less "gun violent" countries play the same violent video games and watch the same violent movies, but that surely isn't a stamp of approval (or blame-buster) for such violent creations. You simply cannot gloss over such matters by being one sided and asking an inane question like, "if you're going to blame Marilyn Manson, why not blame bowling too". I wonder how long it will be before the rest of the world decides to tune-out all of the ultra-violent media we so kindly spread around the world?I could have also done without the stupid cartoon representing the "history of America", and I highly doubt we're going to find the answers to our country's problems by interviewing the creator of South Park.The heart of the film is basically good. It's the message that's a little too blurry for my tastes. Bowling for Columbine tackles an extremely important topic, but fails to deliver a strike. Recommended viewing, but just don't expect anything on the level of a "Sicko" or "Fahrenheit".JM