Poll: Bowling for Columbine

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Ok, we've had 50 threads about it, but not a single poll. Let's see what people think about it.


 
A

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Heh, I was about to choose your third option, until I realized it didn't read, "It was good, but a bit more to the left than desired."
 
I

Infos

Diamond Member
Jul 20, 2001
4,001
1
0
I thought it was mighty effin :D
To me it says something distasteful about someone
who would hate this movie
.....not sure what it is, but it ain't good.

Now if you want to talk about a BAD movie I thought
'signs' sucked bowling bowls
 
M

MikeO

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2001
3,026
0
0

I don't see it as a movie, but as a documentary. And as such, it rocked.
 
B

brtspears2

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
8,659
1
81
Its a great film, a documenty that I would want to watch. The Big One was just as good, just picking on corporate america.

His latest book, stupid white men is just as entertaining.
 
S

slydecix

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2001
1,898
0
0
I live 2 miles from that K-Mart they bought all the bullets from at the end :)

It was pretty good, although I thought he made a few really big generalizations... definitely entertaining tho
 
T

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
Indeed. Have you seen "The Big One"?
Click to expand...
haha, yeah. I fell asleep half way through, however, which doesn't say as much about Moore's film as it does about me. I have narcolepsy, so I'll usually doze off if I sit for any length of time. The number of 'half-movies' I've seen in this way is ridiculous. I've even snored in the theatre a few times. heh

Moore is a funny guy, his upstaging and antics can be really funny. Like in the movie "Roger and Me", when Moore is 'on the move' tracking down the elusive Roger Stencil, and finds that he is at a corporate business luncheon at a Detroit area hotel. The security guard tells him he can't come in because he doesn't have an invitation, then asks if Moore has a business card that he can leave. So Moore is clumbsily pecking through his wallet, pulls out a card and says (paraphrase) "This is all I have, its a coupon card for Chuck E. Cheeses, but it has my name on it. Will that work?" And he gives it to the security guard!

Now THAT is funny, and its that kind of thing Moore does very well. I don't mind when Moore pokes fun at the rich, especially corporate executives, because quite frankly, they some times deserve to be poked fun of.

But when its done, not for good-natured and innocent humor, rather as part of a greater agenda of Moore's to demonize the rich and use them as a target to suit his ideological extremes, placing blame for some very serious societal problems squarely at their feet, and in the process resorting to a fair amount of dishonesty and distortion to do it, that's when Moore's otherwise funny antics become rather repulsive.

Moore isn't saying 'hey, look at these rich people, look at how they live, they should be ashamed of themselves for being so extremely decadent and extravagant.'

Moore is saying, 'hey, you see all these poor people, you see all these homeless people, these people with substance abuse problems, these people who are financially destitute, these children who are going to bed hungry, these people who are in prison, these single mothers with three children and no father? Rich people are to blame for it - all of it - and you should be outraged at them.'

That is wrong and it is repulsive.

The movie "Roger and Me" received its harshest criticism over Moore's anachronistic depiction of Flint's demise due to corporate downsizing. The chronology of events (cause>effect) which Moore portrays in the film goes a little something like this:

1. Flint was a happy-go-lucky and prosperous town - everything was hunky-dorey
2. GM downsized its workforce and closed plants forcing thousands out of work
3. Poverty and crime resulted
4. Flint is now a poverty and crime ridden dump - thanks to General Motors!

Except there is one little teensie insignificant problem with that - all public records show Flint's poverty and crime rates peaking BEFORE GM began downsizing and closing plants by as much as a decade. Huh? Wha??

Someone should tell Moore that the cause is supposed to come before - not 10 years after - the effect. Only those of us from Flint or the surrounding community could possess the knowledge to spot Moore's blatant dishonesty.

My parents did not simply move from Flint in 1970. They, like thousands of others, were FLEEING Flint, moving to suburbs like Flushing, Mt. Morris, Montrose, Clio, Birch Run, Grand Blanc, and a few others. Population and demographic statistics prove that people were fleeing Flint in great numbers long before Moore's favorite whipping boy - General Motors - layed off a single worker or closed a single plant. They were fleeing Flint's rising crime rate and 'urban decay', as early as the 1960's, but the greatest migration came in the 1970's, still a full 10 years before the 1980's plant closings which Moore blames for Flint's crime and poverty rates (which peaked in the 1970's).

If Moore believes so strongly in his views, if he believes his views are correct, why does he incessantly resort to utter dishonesty in order to support them? If Moore is correct, shouldn't there be plenty of truthful and honest evidence to which he can point in order to support his views?

Why lie to prove your point when you could tell the truth to prove your point?

Only one possible reason...
 
datalink7

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
I agree that Mooe has an agenda... and I don't always agree with it. I just find that he does hilarious things in his movies:D
 
T

thedan

Senior member
Aug 5, 2001
332
0
0
It wasn't meant to be a funny movie. It did have humour in it, but it wasn't a funny movie.

Very real, should be a wake up call to americans.
 
T

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
It wasn't meant to be a funny movie. It did have humour in it, but it wasn't a funny movie.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am not so sure about that. It isn't at all unlike Moore's previous films. To call it a documentary is a slap in the face to serious documentary makers. If "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" are documentaries, than so is "The Blair Witch Project". All three contain a comparable amount of pure fiction.

Moore dishonestly attempts to play both sides of the fence. He promotes all of his 'big' works as 'serious', but when pressed about "glaring inaccuracies", Moore predictably throws up his hands, gives an faux sigh, and says 'Look, it was all a joke, don't you see? I'm a comedian, hahaha, I'm the funny guy, not a scholar or journalist. Don't take me seriously.'

The following is Moore's response to critics of what Salon.com termed "glaring inaccuracies" in his book "Stupid White Men", during an interview with Lou Dobbs:

DOBBS: Salon.com just took you to task on this book, pointing out glaring inaccuracies, which -- what in the world...

MOORE: Some of these, I think they found some guy named Dan was named Dave, and there was another thing. But you know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.

DOBBS: Glaring inaccuracies?

MOORE: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know.

DOBBS: That does give one license. I think you may have given all of us a loophole.

MOORE: When Jonathan Swift said that what the Irish do is eat their young, in other words, that's what the British were proposing during the famine, I think that, you know, you have to understand satire.

DOBBS: It was metaphorical. And when you say that president...

MOORE: Well, your point was that Salon and others are like liberals, so why would they -- actually, the only attacks on the book have come from liberals.

DOBBS: Is that right?

MOORE: Yes.

DOBBS: Perhaps that's because, again, just dealing with what they know.

MOORE: Yes, maybe. Or maybe they're just -- some people get a little jealous. That's what you do. "How come he's on TV? He's on Lou Dobbs! What's going on?"

DOBBS: And it's selling well?

MOORE: It's been the No. 1 book in the country for the last month. How is that, at a time when supposedly there's 80 percent approval ratings for George W. Bush?

DOBBS: That's pretty good. And that's the next question I had for you. A couple things...

MOORE: That's my question for you. Why do you think it is? I don't have the answer.

DOBBS: Well, I will hardly pretend to be an expert.

MOORE: How could this be the No. 1 book? It's selling more than Grisham and Clancy right now, at a time when supposedly everybody's behind Bush. And this is nothing but a scathing attack on who he is, what he stands for and what he's done to the country.

DOBBS: Filled with glaring inaccuracies.

MOORE: Filled with glaring, comedic inaccuracies. And actually written by sweatshop workers in Honduras. Has that been pointed out yet? I think we might as well reveal all right now.

-- end excerpt --

This is has been the default tactic of Moore in response to valid criticism of all his "serious" works, by saying 'look, its comedy, I'm a funny man, see? Yuck yuck yuck!' and therefore he has no obligation to facts or truth because, in Moore's own words, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

There is no reason at all to believe Moore will respond any different to serious and valid criticism of "Bowling for Columbine". As Moore might even say of himself, 'that's what he does, that's who he is.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom