 |
|
||||
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Upcoming Release Calendar
xx
Beer for My Horses Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
|
Bowling for Columbine
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||
MPAA RATING: R for some violent images and language
Starring Michael Moore, George W. Bush, Dick Clark, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Manson, John Nichols, and Matt Stone
Famed documentarian Michael Moore returns with his first feature film in five years, as he tackles the issue of America's unique obsession with firearms.
| GENRE(S): | Documentary |
| WRITTEN BY: | Michael Moore |
| DIRECTED BY: | Michael Moore |
| RELEASE DATE: |
DVD: August 19, 2003 Video: August 19, 2003 Theatrical: October 11, 2002 |
| RUNNING TIME: | 120 minutes, Color |
| ORIGIN: | Canada / USA |
Named Best Documentary Feature at the 75th Annual Academy Awards and 18th Annual Independent Spirit Awards. Winner, 55th Aniversary Prize, 2002 Cannes Film Festival. Named "Best Documentary of All Time" by the International Documentary Association in 2002. Michael Moore also received a WGA award for Best Original Screenplay.
All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...
The average user rating for this movie is 6.6 (out of 10) based on 163 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.
Alicia gave it a4:
Sooooooooooooooo overrated! Surprisingly I did enjoy parts, but only after I began to approach the 'documentary' as an entirely fictional movie. I'm an Aussie and we all 'hate' Americans but i was under the impression that they're all fiercely patriotic. Michael Moore attacks his country and its institutions in a desperate attempt to be scandalous and get people to watch bowling for columbine. How could he use a tragedy like this? And even more importantly how could he receive awards for fictitious events in the category of documentary?
Riren gave it a3:
Bowling For Columbine is an example of a sad and increasingly popular trend in documentary: to no longer inform, but to program. Like most sensationalist works, it goes for the emotional reaction instead of the logical. It's very good at stirring up a cloud of feelings whenever it's logic is weak and might be criticized by a thinking audience. It preys on factual confusion and cynicism to paint an anti-patriotic picture, something done much more thoroughly and intelligently in other mediums such as the books of Noam Chomsky. But where you could argue with Chomsky's writing, Moore's theatrics are unrelenting - rather than let you disagree, he will coyly pretend he wasn't making that point, throw something at you so that you are too uncomfortable to respond, and change the subject so that you won't have the chance to think things through. Moore has made a great contribution to turning documentary into the next great form of propaganda. The only thing he has to be proud of is how many millions of dollars he has duped audiences out of in doing it. Please, if you want to educate yourself on the great problems facing modern society, read a book. Leave this documentary to the liberals who, like a quire, relish in being preached at my their own congregation.
Ginger O. gave it an8:
Whether we like Michael Moore or not, I believe it is important to understand and take into account that his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” conveys a very important issue here in the United States. Overall, the terrible tragedy speaks to a wider range of cultural concerns already present in this country. And by this I’m referring to the issues of gun control and violent influential media. Although I do believe that the essential element of “credibility” is important when analyzing a documentary, I don’t think that any of the statistics could’ve changed or further supported my opinion of the cause in the tragedy at Columbine High school. It doesn’t take many relative statistics, to understand that the United States has a big problem in their hands. This is what makes Moore’s documentary so appealing to us as an audience. It is because we are able to recognize and sympathize with this issue that we somehow continue to watch through the documentary. But on the other hand I also understand the degree to which Moore altered these scenes to his advantage. All I Can say to that matter is that his technique does prove effective. I believe it conveys a lot of important aspects we as a society must re-consider.
amurabi m. gave it an8:
Hilarious, funny, entertaining, thoughtful, universal & extremely controversial but the best documentary ever.
Ray A. gave it a0:
It"s just moore leftwing BS from M.Moore.
Gabby H. gave it a9:
What a great flick. Not only does it give feeling, it informs us Americans that we actually can be ignorant and we aren't all that we think we are. People who give this movie a low rating are uninformed as to what the situation really is in America right now. We can rebuild this nation in 2008, as soon at Dubya is out of office.
Yoon C. gave it a 0:
Moore is a juvenile idiot and if he wants to filter serious issues thru SNL style antics, oh well. but, when he opportunistically puts on a sickenly self-serving self-righteous teddybear face and mopes as the conscience of mankind, it's about as nauseating as movies and politics get. left-leaning critics, weaned on SNL cynicism and pc self-righteousness themselves, may identify with moore and feel ennobled and justified thru moore's manifesto where noam chomsky meets howard stern. they have no idea how much they've compromised the cause of film as art and politics as serious business.
 |
Return to top of page |  |
