[QUOTE][I][B]Bowling for Columbine[/B] is a 2002 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film"]documentary film[/URL] written, directed, produced, and narrated by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore"]Michael Moore[/URL]. The film explores what Moore suggests are the causes for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre"]Columbine High School massacre[/URL] and other acts of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence"]violence[/URL] with [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun"]guns[/URL]. Moore focuses on the background and environment in which the massacre took place and some common public opinions and assumptions about related issues. The film also looks into the nature of violence in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States"]United States[/URL].[/I][/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg[/media]
It is in 360p unfortunately but oh well it's very interesting
Great watch if you like extremely biased and misleading documentarys.
Wait how exactly
care to explain why so I don't have to watch two hours of documentary to find out?
Micheal Moore is pretty interesting. I liked Fahrenheit 9/11 too.
Only Moore documentary I've seen was Roger & Me.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37760852]Wait how exactly[/QUOTE]
Moore is horrible about misrepresents things. In the film when showing the NRA holding a rally in Denver directly after the columbine shooting, it implys that the NRA was there holding a rally directly in relation to the shooting. In reality it was just an annual meeting for members that had been pre scheduled.
Theres tons of other things as well if you look them up.
My only gripe is the director himself. While he is a capable film-maker, he makes too many attempts at humour where there should be none, and has a tenancy to load a situation with hostility to make a scene he's shooting more interesting. Makes sense for the film industry as a whole, but not for documentaries.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37761013]Moore is horrible about misrepresents things. In the film when showing the NRA holding a rally in Denver directly after the columbine shooting, it implys that the NRA was there holding a rally directly in relation to the shooting. In reality it was just an annual meeting for members that had been pre scheduled.
Theres tons of other things as well if you look them up.[/QUOTE]
Well Matt did say it was stupid for them to have a rally just after a week or something from the shooting, they should of re-scheduled out of respect
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37761055]Well Matt did say it was stupid for them to have a rally just after a week or something from the shooting, they should of re-scheduled out of respect[/QUOTE]
Unless you know that it was a pre scheduled membership meeting your still going to think it was directly related . I really dont even have a problem with it being biased, its trying to prove a point but Michel Moore has shabby ethics when it comes to these documentary.
Here is a ton of other stuff
[URL]http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html[/URL]
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
Also the NRA cancelled all of the events besides thier members meeting, which was required by law.
i prefer bowling for soup
[QUOTE=Liber;37761812]No it doesn't.[/QUOTE]
Lets say it dosent, the film still dosent mention the fact that everything was cancled besides the memebers meeting. Moore also splices the hell out of the speech he gave.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37761851]Lets say it dosent, the film still dosent mention the fact that everything was cancled besides the memebers meeting. Moore also splices the hell out of the speech he gave.[/QUOTE]
You know it's not only about the fucking NRA right? The entire film is about how America's gun culture and fixation with crime and fear are what drives people to do horrible shit like this (which is entirely correct). And even if he did fuck with the NRA stuff it's not like I believe his point any less, a lot of the other evidence he puts forward is accurate.
[QUOTE=Winters;37762467]You know it's not only about the fucking NRA right? The entire film is about how America's gun culture and fixation with crime and fear are what drives people to do horrible shit like this (which is entirely correct). And even if he did fuck with the NRA stuff it's not like I believe his point any less, a lot of the other evidence he puts forward is accurate.[/QUOTE]
And a lot of other evidence he puts forward is false and purposely misconstrued. If the point he is trying to make is true he shouldn't have to basically lie half the film.
Im not arguing for or against what the film is trying to point out, only that Moore has shit ethics and his films shouldn't be supported.
It's nevertheless an interesting documentary, but be sure to watch it with grain of salt, as it does contain some bias.
My favorite Michael Moore documentary.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuSivrsbRws[/media]
I thought it was quite obvious the NRA meeting had no relation to Columbine.
It also has a great scene with Marilyn Manson.
fuck Michael Moore and all his shitty films
There was one guy in the movie who was accused of a bombing but was found innocent later. He was really defensive about the issue though and when he showed Micheal his gun he pointed at his head. That really isn't helping you convince people of you not bombing a building.
This is one of his better documentaries.
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;37763430]It's nevertheless an interesting documentary, but be sure to watch it with grain of salt, as it does contain some bias.[/QUOTE]
Its not just some bias, its totally and purposely misleading.
Even if his portrayal of the NRA or certain other things is wrong, it seemed like the main point of the documentary was cultural differences between the US and countries with lower violent crime rates. Was his comparison to Canada wrong?
I watched it a few years ago. It was so boring, I bought a puppy, just so I could punt it off a cliff.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37767374]Even if his portrayal of the NRA or certain other things is wrong, it seemed like the main point of the documentary was cultural differences between the US and countries with lower violent crime rates. Was his comparison to Canada wrong?[/QUOTE]
Its not that his portrayal was wrong, its that he went in, cut up the speech and glued it together again to fit his movie. Thats just unacceptable but everyone seems to ignore it.
I'm not necessarily saying his comparison to Canada was wrong, but once again he uses dishonest methods to prove his point.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37767507]Its not that his portrayal was wrong, its that he went in, cut up the speech and glued it together again to fit his movie. Thats just unacceptable but everyone seems to ignore it.
I'm not necessarily saying his comparison to Canada was wrong, but once again he uses dishonest methods to prove his point.[/QUOTE]
Not to say that it's ethical, but I don't really feel like him cutting up the NRA speech contributed much to his overall point. Was there anything dishonest in his methods for investigating cultural issues (which is arguably the main point)?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37767687]Not to say that it's ethical, but I don't really feel like him cutting up the NRA speech contributed much to his overall point. Was there anything dishonest in his methods for investigating cultural issues (which is arguably the main point)?[/QUOTE]
you know you can do some simple research and uncover the untruths, exaggerations, and distortions yourself.
Considering the untruths and lies told form the foundation of his film, they ultimately undermine whatever point he is trying to make in addition to destroying his credibility.
You can't say, "oh he lied, but his point still stands right?"
in addition, the NRA's supposed callousness is a major point of the film.
so yes, it does contribute to his overall point.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37767871]you know you can do some simple research and uncover the untruths, exaggerations, and distortions yourself.
Considering the untruths and lies told form the foundation of his film, they ultimately undermine whatever point he is trying to make in addition to destroying his credibility.
You can't say, "oh he lied, but his point still stands right?"
in addition, the NRA's supposed callousness is a major point of the film.
so yes, it does contribute to his overall point.[/QUOTE]
His point was that there's a culture of fear in the US that encourages people to buy guns and makes them more likely to react violently with said guns. I suppose if you're looking at it from the perspective that the NRA's callousness encourages that culture (or is maybe an extension of it) then misrepresenting them hurts his point a bit, but I wouldn't say it's the foundation of his argument.
Also, you're making the assertion that Michael Moore misrepresents things, so you're the one that has to bring evidence to the table. I mean, I'm interested, so I'll probably be doing the research, but in the meantime you can't just say that the info is out there and win the argument.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;37767999]His point was that there's a culture of fear in the US that encourages people to buy guns and makes them more likely to react violently with said guns. I suppose if you're looking at it from the perspective that the NRA's callousness encourages that culture (or is maybe an extension of it) then misrepresenting them hurts his point a bit, but I wouldn't say it's the foundation of his argument.[/QUOTE]
Because he can't generalize all American gun owners, he attacks the NRA because it is the single largest association of gun owners in America. It is a major point in the film.
He paints the organization as racist, callous, and negligent and supports his accusations with false hoods and distortions.
[QUOTE]
Also, you're making the assertion that Michael Moore misrepresents things, so you're the one that has to bring evidence to the table.[/QUOTE]
What I'm trying to say is I'm not going to waste my time dissecting Micheal Moore's film when you can easily do the same with a simple google search.
[QUOTE]I mean, I'm interested, so I'll probably be doing the research, but in the meantime you can't just say that the info is out there and win the argument.[/QUOTE]
This isn't an argument
I was just pointing out if you did the research, you would know what I am talking about.
Fuck Micheal Moore, Louis Theroux 4 lyfe.
Best part of the movie:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.