Bowling for Columbine

2002

Crime / Documentary / Drama

126
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 95%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 83%
IMDb Rating 8 10 134,386

Synopsis


Downloaded 141,400 times
April 6, 2019

Director

Cast

Carla Gallo as Pantyhose Victim
Chris Rock as Mays Gilliam
Marilyn Manson as Voice of Smiling Man
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
1019.45 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
120 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.92 GB
1920×1080
English
R
23.976 fps
120 min
P/S N/A / N/A
997.16 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
120 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.89 GB
1920×1080
English
R
23.976 fps
120 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by saxman429 10 / 10 / 10

What's wrong with America?

Bowling for Columbine is perhaps the most honest and truthful documentary I have seen in a longe time. Michael Moore manages to debunk the myth that Americans are a righteous people. He does this by pointing to numerous references in American history where the government has overthrown regimes in favor of dictators and other militant groups. At the heart of his argument, however, is gun control. Moore poses the question: Why does Canada have a much lower death rate due to gun violence than the United States when Canadians seem to have the same obsession with guns? Moore points out that roughly 12000 deaths occur in America as opposed to the few hundred in Canada. To answer this question, Moore goes to Canada, where he talks to ordinary citizens. As one student remarks, Americans seem to want to fight over everything instead of talk things out. Perhaps, as Moore suggests, there is something wrong with the very framework our country is built upon. An interview with Charleton Heston, the President of the NRA, is shocking. What he answers to Moore's proposed question will astonish many. Overall, it is satisfying that rational and clear-headed individuals such as Moore still exist.

Reviewed by preppy-3 7 / 10 / 10

Fascinating

Documentary by Michael Moore about the NRA and America's fascination with guns. Much of the footage deals with Columbine and the case in which a 6 year old boy shot to death a 6 year old girl. It all culminates in an interview with the head of the NRA Charlton Heston. Riveting, chilling, hilarious and absolutely incredible movie despite what your views are on the gun issue. Moore's views are definetely anti-gun but he does try to show the opposite side also. Moore questions why there are so many killings in America by guns and almost none in other countries. He gives no real answers to this question but he raises a lot of interesting points and theories. I walked out of the theatre very shaken but, in a way, exhilirated. This is truly a great documentary. I'm not going to review this fully--it's a movie you should see for yourself. A definite must-see.

Reviewed by illusoryjane 7 / 10 / 10

A liberal's critique

This movie was entertaining and interesting, but in certain ways it left me wanting. Michael Moore himself is somewhat irritating, and I found myself wishing he kept more to the background than he does. At the same time, the conclusions that he draws are compelling and pragmatic. This movie was not designed to be an argument. It was not designed to sway the viewer. It was designed to fuel the fire of the already convinced. Though I think that this is Moore's intent (concluded from interviews I've read), I feel that goal could be reached at the same time as convincing a few fence-sitters, and that would have made the film more powerful. I have two main complaints regarding this movie: First, I felt that Michael Moore sometimes crossed lines in his interviews that in no way seemed to further his cause or drive his point home. He interviews people as though looking for his answer, not their answer, and particularly seemed to be trying to strike a blow at the conservative masses. I thought this distracted the genuinity and plausibility of the conclusions that he drew. It must be said that the conclusions that Moore drew are of a nature that strikes at conservative politics. However, I felt that the facts he represented spoke for themselves, and that the blows should not have been dealt to conservative interviewees by asking questions designed to get emotional responses out of them. Second, I found some of the statistics needed to be qualified with per capitas or percentages. When comparing the United States to England, for instance, it is important to take population differences and density into consideration. Straight statistics do not apply. I think the statistics were somewhat skewed by this oversight, however according to some rough guesstimates I made, it wouldn't have diminished Moore's point, only made it less dramatic (which would, indeed, have strengthened his case). These two complaints hint at an even larger problem, however, and that is this: Because Moore presents his case in this way, he can never hope to have his message truly heard by anyone who isn't already on his side.

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment