GBExpat
Member
I have never, and will never, watch a Michael Moore product.
I saw the most anti gun movie ever yesterday
- Thread starter guitarhero323
- Start date
- Status
jimmyraythomason
Member
I'm with GBXpat! DEO Vindici!
papajohn
Member
From what little attention I pay to Hollyweird, it seems Mr. Moore is a persona non grata these days. He may be a card-carrying Liberal, but he's also known to pretty much the entire planet as a charlatan and a liar.
He's also a fat slob, a shameless self-promoting whore, and a lousy filmmaker. Man, talk about redundant statements........I already called him a Liberal!
PJ
He's also a fat slob, a shameless self-promoting whore, and a lousy filmmaker. Man, talk about redundant statements........I already called him a Liberal!
PJ
Sindawe
Member
As a comedic film, Bowling for Columbine is one of the funniest farcical pieces I've seen in quite a while. The depths of the idiocy in the film had me in stitches the first time I saw it in the theatres (I was dragged to it by the granola girl I was seeing at the time). 
For some odd reason, the rest of the audience did not seem to share my opinion.
For some odd reason, the rest of the audience did not seem to share my opinion.
romeo212000
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 427
It does kind of look like a spoof with the logic he uses doesnt it?
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
The thing I remember most about Bowling For Columbine (and the one or two of his other films I've seen snippets of) is the fact that he himself never really seems to have a clear-cut message. I'll at least hand it to the Brady Bunch that they can keep their propaganda lines straight most of the time. Moore simply seems to be flailing away in random directions, using stereotypical demagogue tactics to bolster his image. Except that there's no real position behind it. It almost makes one thankful that he really doesn't know what to hate, because were he to ever learn to actually focus, it would make his films all the more dangerous to us.
Agree with Jim Keenan.
Moore doesn't make documentaries, he makes crocumentaries.
I saw Bowling for Columbine. It was here on TV. It was after that film that I came to the conclusion that Moore is worth less than a boil on the edge of a syphilitic camel's a*us.
Moore doesn't make documentaries, he makes crocumentaries.
I saw Bowling for Columbine. It was here on TV. It was after that film that I came to the conclusion that Moore is worth less than a boil on the edge of a syphilitic camel's a*us.
Deanimator
Member
"Bowling" is the gun control equivalent of Holocaust revisionism.
It was made by a pathological liar and should be viewed in that light.
It was made by a pathological liar and should be viewed in that light.
CountGlockula
Member
This was the ONLY best part of the movie...
Marilyn Manson sheds some light, best comment at the end: "I wouldn't say a single word to 'em I'd listen to every word they say...and that's what no one did."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90xJVOUuV-I
Marilyn Manson sheds some light, best comment at the end: "I wouldn't say a single word to 'em I'd listen to every word they say...and that's what no one did."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90xJVOUuV-I
Cosmoline
Member
Boy is this thread old news. Do a search for long threads on this from years ago. Moore's 15 minutes have run out now.
Lady with a Gun
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 61
Michael Moore is a dishonest scumbag.
My favorite part was when some guy was explaining that what was really going on was sensationalism by the media about violent crime. He said that the media was working people up and scaring them so much that the people were going out in droves to buy guns. Then he tried to emphasize his point by saying that even while people continued to buy more and more guns the crime rate was actually dropping!
I guess he didn't see the connection there that some of us might point out.
I guess he didn't see the connection there that some of us might point out.
Animal Mother
Member
I know this would will probably be considered blasphemy but I tend to enjoy Michael Moore's movies. I certainly didn't like the message in Bowling for Columbine, but I thought it was fascinating how he was able to selectively edit the footage to achieve the result he wanted.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty good, although you could definitely tell there was a fair amount of selective editing used to make his point.
Sicko was fantastic though, absolutely fantastic. There was selective editing used in that film as well (of course), but he really is able to use America's sympathetic nature as well as the well seated middle American unease at sky high medical bills to really drive home his point.
He's talented, even if I only agree with less than half the stuff he says.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty good, although you could definitely tell there was a fair amount of selective editing used to make his point.
Sicko was fantastic though, absolutely fantastic. There was selective editing used in that film as well (of course), but he really is able to use America's sympathetic nature as well as the well seated middle American unease at sky high medical bills to really drive home his point.
He's talented, even if I only agree with less than half the stuff he says.
MiddleAgedKen
Member
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, one could say the same of Leni Riefenstahl, and she was a lot easier on the eyes than Michael Moore.
That said, I'm at least a little with Animal Mother in that I don't totally despise Michael Moore, although I do despise his last three movies. His earlier stuff was better. Roger and Me probably wasn't entirely fair either, but Roger Smith was such a buffoon that he pretty much deserved whatever he got. Moore's cable series TV Nation (I think it was called) was generally entertaining.
Moore also gets minor props from me for his shtick in the opening sequence at the Academy Awards about five years ago. He was digitally inserted on screen, reprising his "This is an illegal war!" rant, and got stomped flat by a mumak from Return of the King.
hankdatank1362
Member
I got into it one day in class about this movie (I've never seen it, and won't), with just about everyone in there. Of course, I had logic on my side, so it was easy to dismantle their arguements, point by point.
Leter, after class, this one blonde came up to me. She said something about "Yeah, but there's this part where he (Moore) tries to take the bullets that killed someone back to Walmart, and they wouldn't accept the return. That's pretty powerful, dontcha think?"
I was awestruck by the phenomenal idiocy of the entire statement. I re-swallowed my luch and walked off, because I couldn't think of a single nice thing to say.
Leter, after class, this one blonde came up to me. She said something about "Yeah, but there's this part where he (Moore) tries to take the bullets that killed someone back to Walmart, and they wouldn't accept the return. That's pretty powerful, dontcha think?"
I was awestruck by the phenomenal idiocy of the entire statement. I re-swallowed my luch and walked off, because I couldn't think of a single nice thing to say.
romeo212000
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 427
I think, "Please for the sake of mankind, Do not procreate," would have done nicely.
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
I kinda liked the movie.
Yes, it's true that it is a polemic, written by a guy who seems to favor gun control (or something?). Yes, it is sensationalism, and yes, the dude was unaccountably rude to Heston, in his own home, after receiving hospitality from the man (this was the worst of it for me).
However, I have known a few people who have been converted to our side by watching this movie. There is a big shift going on in grassroots leftist thinking, away from the gun control thing. It's not nearly the speaking point it was a few years ago, and I think it will eventually go the way of white supremacy, which was a big left-wing thing in its day, but has now become politically unfashionable.
In the movie, Moore comes right out and says that having guns isn't the problem; he gives some statistics about gun ownership and gun crime in various places, and how america's gun crime is prominent, but Canada's isn't. Then he interviews some Canadian gun owners who generally say that they own guns but don't worry about crime or even lock their doors. He says or implies that we have a disproportionate amount of gun crime because of our culture-- which is a whole other can of worms, and I won't go into right now.
The point is, though, that even the most radical anti-gun person would watch and listen to this movie, and that it introduces the idea that guns aren't the root problem in a non-threatening way.
Yes, it's true that it is a polemic, written by a guy who seems to favor gun control (or something?). Yes, it is sensationalism, and yes, the dude was unaccountably rude to Heston, in his own home, after receiving hospitality from the man (this was the worst of it for me).
However, I have known a few people who have been converted to our side by watching this movie. There is a big shift going on in grassroots leftist thinking, away from the gun control thing. It's not nearly the speaking point it was a few years ago, and I think it will eventually go the way of white supremacy, which was a big left-wing thing in its day, but has now become politically unfashionable.
In the movie, Moore comes right out and says that having guns isn't the problem; he gives some statistics about gun ownership and gun crime in various places, and how america's gun crime is prominent, but Canada's isn't. Then he interviews some Canadian gun owners who generally say that they own guns but don't worry about crime or even lock their doors. He says or implies that we have a disproportionate amount of gun crime because of our culture-- which is a whole other can of worms, and I won't go into right now.
The point is, though, that even the most radical anti-gun person would watch and listen to this movie, and that it introduces the idea that guns aren't the root problem in a non-threatening way.
Drgong
Member
He did make ONE good movie, which is the only one that was not supposed to be a documentary, which is Canadian Bacon.
His other movies suck.
His other movies suck.
Cosmoline
Member
That was his only really interesting work, and it gets less impressive on repeat viewings. He made a career out of that movie, though. All his subsequent work uses the same basic patterns: "concerned" voice overs; ambush interviews; Moore at the center of attention as the hero of the piece; careful editing to make people look either good or bad depending on how Moore views them; and of course a partisan political subtext. He knew what his audience wanted and he gave it to them. I would not consider any of his work "documentary." It's a sort of postmodern agitprop calculated to reassure his audience in their political assumptions, reinforce their fears and above all line his pockets. For a film allegedly about how the media markets fear, BFC was marketed on fear and is chock full of illogical sequences designed to make his audience afraid of you and me . The film reaches a zenith of absurdity when Moore presents a fake South Park cartoon which claims among other things that the NRA was formed to help the KKK kill blacks. There are antis to this day who are adamant that this has to be the truth because it was in the film. It takes a master manipulator to turn an organization formed by vets from the Grand Army of the Republic into an adjunct of the KKK.
A friend and I created a Bowling for Columbine drinking game years ago. I don't remember all the elements but IIRC you were to take a shot every time he ran after someone with a microphone and every time there was a totally illogical link. As from a scene about S-Mart to a montage of people killing each other or a missile factory.*
*Of course if you do this, remember to lock up all weapons and potential weapons first if you do this as the temptation to shoot or otherwise destroy the TV can be overpowering. I suggest DVD skeet as a safe alternative.
romeo212000
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 427
It is propaganda plain and simple.
lloydkristmas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 281
It was used as an example of misinformation forced on the American public, scholarly sources made up the bulk of the essay, of course.
- Status
