Go see bowling for columbine!

[TallBill]

What a great documentary. Michael Moore is amazing. Great presentation, great facts. This movie basicly probes gun voilence in america. Check out your local artsy theatre.

edit - Ok, my first sentance on this movie was rushed. Perhaps its not the perfect documentary, perhaps its not the best set of facts, but its a good movie.

And for you movie bashers, just go watch it. Its NOT anti gun. Its anti gun-violence.

 

[LeStEr]

I saw it a month or so ago. I also thought it was great.

 

[TallBill]

meep... anyone else out there?

 

[Entity]

Search for Columbine. You'll see a few topics on it. Personally, Michael Moore disturbs me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, so I have a difficult time with it. I respect his ability to have convictions and present them, but he's blind when it comes to terms of compromise.

Rob

 

[TallBill]

oh come on.. im not saying i like the guy and want to be his friend. But he did some funny ass interviews that made certain people look like fools. Like those 2 teenage kids he interviews. The bombmaker and the gun/drug kid. The part in canada. The Heston interview, dick clark, etc, etc, etc.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Entity
Search for Columbine. You'll see a few topics on it. Personally, Michael Moore disturbs me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, so I have a difficult time with it. I respect his ability to have convictions and present them, but he's blind when it comes to terms of compromise.

Rob

I'm just curious who it is that he has to compromise with? He's just stating his opinion on things. Why does he have to compromise that?

 

[TallBill]

Also, when you "know" that you are right, or stating opinion, how can you compromise? Condradicting yourself isn't very smart.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Entity
Search for Columbine. You'll see a few topics on it. Personally, Michael Moore disturbs me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, so I have a difficult time with it. I respect his ability to have convictions and present them, but he's blind when it comes to terms of compromise.

Rob

I'm just curious who it is that he has to compromise with? He's just stating his opinion on things. Why does he have to compromise that?

He doesn't; however, I generally respect people based on their ability to logically sort out facts on "both sides" of an argument. It doesn't seem to me that, at any time, Moore has done this.

I'm not saying he isn't entertaining. He is - though he is at his best in The Awful Truth, I think. I'm just saying that I have a hard time paying $9 to hear a completely one-sided story, entertaining though it may be.

Better?

Rob

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Entity
Search for Columbine. You'll see a few topics on it. Personally, Michael Moore disturbs me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, so I have a difficult time with it. I respect his ability to have convictions and present them, but he's blind when it comes to terms of compromise.

Rob

I'm just curious who it is that he has to compromise with? He's just stating his opinion on things. Why does he have to compromise that?

He doesn't; however, I generally respect people based on their ability to logically sort out facts on "both sides" of an argument. It doesn't seem to me that, at any time, Moore has done this.

I'm not saying he isn't entertaining. He is - though he is at his best in The Awful Truth, I think. I'm just saying that I have a hard time paying $9 to hear a completely one-sided story, entertaining though it may be.

Better?

Rob

So, then you just wish he'd be less biased in his filmmaking? Well, that's understandable.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Also, when you "know" that you are right, or stating opinion, how can you compromise? Condradicting yourself isn't very smart.

The same could be said for Heston, then, right? I wouldn't pay $9 to see a pro-NRA production by him; the same goes for the works of Michael Moore. Dogmatism just isn't my thing.

Rob

 

[TallBill]

Well, theres a lot of situations where its blatently obvious (IMHO if you have a brain) that a certain person is a complete idiot in this movie. Some parts are biased, while other just let you take in.

 

[TallBill]

Yeah, but Heston wouldn't be able to put anything decent together to sway people. His reasons in Bowling for Columbine are pretty weak. "I own a gun, just because the govt says I can" (which can be debated anyways) "i dont need the protection, but i just like having one" Im not saying those are wrong reasons, but not very movie-worthy.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Entity
Search for Columbine. You'll see a few topics on it. Personally, Michael Moore disturbs me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, so I have a difficult time with it. I respect his ability to have convictions and present them, but he's blind when it comes to terms of compromise.

Rob

I'm just curious who it is that he has to compromise with? He's just stating his opinion on things. Why does he have to compromise that?

He doesn't; however, I generally respect people based on their ability to logically sort out facts on "both sides" of an argument. It doesn't seem to me that, at any time, Moore has done this.

I'm not saying he isn't entertaining. He is - though he is at his best in The Awful Truth, I think. I'm just saying that I have a hard time paying $9 to hear a completely one-sided story, entertaining though it may be.

Better?

Rob

So, then you just wish he'd be less biased in his filmmaking? Well, that's understandable.

The first time I read that, I thought it said:

So, then you just wish he'd be more biased in his filmmaking? Well, that's understandable.

I was about to question how he could be.

And yes, to answer your question, I wish the bias were presented less. In order for someone to present a good argument (this is most applicable in print form), they have to do so very subtly; Moore is almost as subtle as a brick.

Rob

 

[pulse8]

Yeah, I didn't care for a big part of the Heston interview in the movie. The picture he had was just trying WAAAAAAAAY too hard to pull at the heart strings.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Yeah, but Heston wouldn't be able to put anything decent together to sway people. His reasons in Bowling for Columbine are pretty weak. "I own a gun, just because the govt says I can" (which can be debated anyways) "i dont need the protection, but i just like having one" Im not saying those are wrong reasons, but not very movie-worthy.

Ahem. Who edited that film?

Heston, I would imagine, could be very convincing; moreso were he to edit a conversation with Moore and intentionally trap Moore into making certain arguments. Moore's style, while it is fun, doesn't make for a good presentation of information to me; unfortunately, most of my friends think it does. I have a tendency to question everything, to the point that I'm generally unsure about what is truth and what is mere perspective. Though I do consider violence in America to be a problem, I don't think Moore presents it in anything other than his typical fashion, and I've seen enough of that.

Rob

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

Originally posted by: TallBill
What a great documentary. Michael Moore is amazing. Great presentation, great facts. This movie basicly probes gun voilence in america. Check out your local artsy theatre.

Becareful how you use the word "facts" because alot of the facts are sensationalized, and simply not true. I'm not saying I don't agree with him, because I do agree with his point of view. Just don't around using Michael Moore's "facts" as evidence in your essays, and party conversations, because alot of them are not accurate. Sure its a documentary, but documentarys are not scientific videos on photosynthesis, it is debatable commentary, and the movie is entertainment. Its great suff, just please don't cite it as the foundation for your opinions, because the base of your arguements would be shaky at best.
Great film, everybody go see it 2X

 

[TallBill]

At one point, Moore interviews one of the nichols brothers. (from oklahoma bombings) Moore is trying to find his opinion on what "the right to bear arms" specificly implies. He asks nichols if weapons grade plutoniom weapons should be legal to own. Nichols response is "well no, there are some wackos out there"

This is from the brother of a man convicted of blowing up a federal building. Editing or not, you have to chuckle at Nichols' comment.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld

Originally posted by: TallBill
What a great documentary. Michael Moore is amazing. Great presentation, great facts. This movie basicly probes gun voilence in america. Check out your local artsy theatre.

Becareful how you use the word "facts" because alot of the facts are sensationalized, and simply not true. I'm not saying I don't agree with him, because I do agree with his point of view. Just don't around using Michael Moore's "facts" as evidence in your essays, and party conversations, because alot of them are not accurate. Sure its a documentary, but documentarys are not scientific videos on photosynthesis, it is debatable commentary, and the movie is entertainment. Its great suff, just please don't cite it as the foundation for your opinions, because the base of your arguements would be shaky at best.
Great film, everybody go see it 2X

well, i understand that all facts are not always facts.. but some are. watching video tape of the kids at columbine walking around and hearing one of the children's fathers calling 911 and saying "i think my child might have been involved" are pretty factual. i dont think video tape or voice recordings were edited. possibly

 

[tcsenter]

oh come on.. im not saying i like the guy and want to be his friend. But he did some funny ass interviews that made certain people look like fools. Like those 2 teenage kids he interviews. The bombmaker and the gun/drug kid. The part in canada. The Heston interview, dick clark, etc, etc, etc.

Ah, so you liked it not really because of all those "great facts", whatever that means, but because it was very entertaining. Ah yes, the basic requirements of every documentary is satire, humor, and entertainment.

What Moore produces are mockumentaries, perhaps entertain-U-mentaries, but for the love of God man please refrain from calling them documentaries.

At one point, Moore interviews one of the nichols brothers. (from oklahoma bombings) Moore is trying to find his opinion on what "the right to bear arms" specificly implies. He asks nichols if weapons grade plutoniom weapons should be legal to own. Nichols response is "well no, there are some wackos out there"

This is from the brother of a man convicted of blowing up a federal building. Editing or not, you have to chuckle at Nichols' comment.

And does it concern you in the least, do ANY little 'bells' go off in your head at all, when Moore deliberately chooses as the 'face' to put forward representating the position of the progun community the brother of a man convicted of conspiracy to commit the worst mass-murder in the history of the US next to the 9/11 attacks? You can't be that stupid. Why didn't he think of going to the grave of one of the Columbine victims and asked his or her opinion about gun control? "Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, you can't answer...because you're dead."

That would have made an even better impact. Dishonest, distasteful, incendiary, tactless, below the belt, right up Moore's alley.

There are about a five or six dozen experts that are more than capable of articulating the progun position. Moore's gotta go beat up on some feeble old man with Alzheimer's who is more of a celebrity figurehead than anything else. If Moore truly wanted a dialogue, his questions answered, why didn't Moore go ringing the buzzers of law professor David Kopel, or civil rights attorney Don Kates, Paul Blackman, or constitutional law attorney Stephen Halbrook, who has a 3-0 record arguing before the US Supreme Court?

Because Moore would get his fat socialist ass handed to him on a platter, that's why, and that wouldn't make the 'impact' Moore wanted, now would it?

BTW, if anyone wanted to see "Bowling for Columbine", do you think probably they would have been tipped off by any one of these?

Bowling for Columbine: What was the answer?

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine film

Anyone see Bowling for Columbine?

"B for C" - in Canada yet?

Go See Bowling for Columbine

 

[brtspears2]

Its always nice to see things in a difference perspective.

 

[TallBill]

tcsenter, your an idiot. a reminder from the film just clicked

Michael Moore is not anti-gun at all. He NEVER bashes gun use, and in fact is a member of the NRA. Not once does he bash owning guns.

 

[AZGamer]

Originally posted by: TallBill
tcsenter, your an idiot. a reminder from the film just clicked Michael Moore is not anti-gun at all. He NEVER bashes gun use, and in fact is a member of the NRA. Not once does he bash owning guns.

He may claim to support the NRA, but clearly he is pro-Gun Control, which is strictly against the NRA ideals.

That's like John Ashcroft joining the ACLU. It may happen, but in the end it's just publicity BS.

 

[TallBill]

ok, well i would like to see any convincing argument that a tec-9 should stay legal.

1. Its obviously not used for hunting. Its a small 9mm automatic.
2. Even if you think that the govt is evil and we need guns to save ourselves when the real enemy attacks, this gun is a piece of crap. Get an mp5 if you want to kill someone. It will shoot straighter, and not fall apart.


That is the only gun bashed in the movie.

 

[Spagina]

Originally posted by: TallBill
tcsenter, your an idiot. a reminder from the film just clicked

Michael Moore is not anti-gun at all. He NEVER bashes gun use, and in fact is a member of the NRA. Not once does he bash owning guns.

He didn't join the NRA because he enjoyed firearms though. They did an interview with him in a magazine and he said he became a lifetime member of the NRA because he wanted to become president of the NRA and disband it, or something close to it. I don't have the interview with me, I just remember reading the interview where he talked about it and I found it odd that he was in the NRA until I read his reasons why.

 

[TallBill]

still, that view never comes accross in the movie. im only referring to this movie. Most people dont even know who michael moore is let alone his political views or background.