The history of my experience with Michael Moore's atrocity Bowling for Columbine is an interesting one, though it may apply with many others who hold the exact same views that I have of he and his movies. I had never heard of the man until this film, and in the few hours before I went to see it, I had to listen to my ridiculously unobjective, incredibly conservative and Republican father say, "Michael Moore? He's a loony leftist crook, and only people like Jen (the friend of my mother's who was taking me) would go to see his CRAP."

"I've never heard of him..." ...That was me.

"You've never heard of Michael Moore? He's one of the biggest liberal IDIOTS out there! And Bowling for Columbine is just him commercializing on a tragedy!"

As you can see, my father isn't very open-minded. But he'd probably kick your butt in a debate. Seriously.

So, that night, I went to go see Bowling for Columbine. We were fifteen minutes late, but with a movie like this, that doesn't matter much, because it carries you on its shoulders the whole way through, and if you're late for the ride, it'll let you hop on. Since I try to be fair to everybody, I gave Michael Moore a chance, and came home ready to give the film a five-star rave review. My dad, who still hadn't seen the movie, asked how it was. "Well, I thought it was pretty good."

"WHAT?! YOU THOUGHT THAT LOONY, LEFTIST CROOK'S MOVIE WAS GOOD?"

"Well, yeah Dad, I mean, he made pretty fair arguments-"

"TOM, HOW COULD YOU EVER SAY ANYTHING THIS MAN MADE IS FAIR! HE'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY!"

"Well, Dad, watching the movie, I just think he's a good guy trying to help America, and-"

"HE'S A LIBERAL! LIBERALS DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT AMERICA! THEY JUST WANT TO EXPAND THE GOVERNMENT AND TURN US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!"

"Well-"

"WHAT WAS REDEEMING ABOUT THIS MOVIE, TOM?"

"Dad, have you seen the movie? Can you make a judgment?"

"Uh... er... uh... um... I WOULD NEVER WASTE MY TIME!"

Needless to say, I won the argument. That was a year and a half ago.

So, for the months following, I kept walking around, telling everybody how much I liked this movie, and the entire time my dad kept bashing the movie (though he still hadn't seen it... and still hasn't). I read several reviews on the movie, and really couldn't find a good reason to not like it. I read a few negative reviews that featured people simply saying they didn't enjoy it, and that was about it. I was just about to be completely content with my opinion on Bowling for Columbine. But then, out of nowhere came punkrawka's review.

This, while not completely changing my opinion, did open my mind up to the fact that this movie's not very objective. What you must understand is that Moore, as a world-class film-maker, is good at deceiving you into thinking he's objective. Obviously, it doesn't take much thought to realize this is not true. But, if you watch BFC, it's easy to not think about the film's lack of objectivity. However, reading punkrawka's review did at least open my eyes to that.

Then one day, I typed in the words "Michael Moore" on Google. And then I found moorewatch.com.

But moorewatch.com wasn't the answer. Hardylaw.net was.

David T. Hardy, who is a lawyer for the NRA (which Moore's film so rabidly hates), goes through a step-by-step analysis of how fictional "Bowling for Columbine" is, and then some. And there's more than that: go to bowlingfortruth.com, and you'll find a hell of a lot more. Moore's film is fiction. It is not a documentary. It slices and dices true things and then splices them together to make you believe something that's not true. This is deceptive film-making at its best. Michael Moore, and you would see this, reading about his history, is a brilliant, brilliant, BRILLIANT man, and he was truly meant for great things. Unfortunately, he uses his talents and skills to write books and make movies that are full of crap.

The most crucial example that must be shown has to do with Charlton Heston and the NRA. Michael Moore claims that the NRA rushed to Denver after the Columbine shootings took place. However, this is entirely a falsehood. That meeting was, in fact, scheduled years in advance. Most of the activities scheduled were cancelled, except for the voters' annual meeting, because by state law, that could not be cancelled, and by New York law, the location could not be changed (see http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml for all of that). That's right, Moore... they rushed...

Moore does the same thing with Flint, where the five-year-old (was she six?) girl was shot and killed in an elementary school. Heston actually showed up in Flint eight months after the shooting, and that was when Bush and Gore were both there trying to gather votes. It was a "get out the vote" meeting. That's why you see "Bush-Cheney 2000" signs. Moore does this, so deceptively to show, "hey, the scumbag NRA votes for Bush and Gore", when he's really completely failed in showing us how much of scumbags they are. And he tells us they rushed right over there.

You also have Moore, later, convincing us that the NRA and KKK were founded together, when they were really founded five years apart (KKK in 1866, NRA in 1871), with the NRA being formed by former Union officers in New York. But of course, I guess you could just say, "The KKK migrated up to NY and converted a bunch of officers!" Ugh...

Later we have Moore implying that Heston, and his organization, are very racist, when Hardy, on his page, notes and sources all of the anti-discrimination/segregation leadings Heston, even working with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at one point in his life. And all of that can be found on Hardy's page.

And tons more! Want a direct link? It's http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html . And remember, bowlingfortruth has more: the editing of Heston's speech, the bizarre and unneeded gun death statistics changes, Moore's purchasing guns, and the likely possibility of the interview with Heston also being a falsehood. There's so many things in this review that I'd include, if only I wasn't directly ripping off so many people.

Moore dismisses all of these people, just calling them "Wacko Attacko's" and probably not even paying any attention to their arguments, which is funny, because that's just how he deals with his facts. I guess you just can't fix some people.

So what do I think of "Bowling for Columbine"? Well, if it declared itself a "mockumentary", then I'd give it a five-star as a fictional film. It's amazingly moving, you see. Even when I watched the other night, for the first time in over a year in a half, I was still belittled by all of its falsehoods. Moore, with his seemingly passionate voice delivers things to you like few others can do, and almost makes you want to jump out of your seat and go fix this country, while he presents you with "fact" after "fact", and a surprisingly good sense of humor.

Unfortunately, this movie does not purport itself to be a fictional film; it wants to be a documentary, and it miserably fails, as it cannot find the facts to document; nor can it present what it does have correctly.

"Bowling for Columbine" is an out-and-out atrocity, and should you see it, take it with a grain of salt.

Rating (as a fictional film): A
Rating (as a documentary): The biggest, fattest F you've ever seen (until Fahrenheit 9/11)

More on Moore:
Downsize This!
Stupid White Men

P.S.: I showed my dad Hardy's review. He said, "I see what he's saying." He still hasn't seen the movie.
P.P.S.: But my dad's a great man. Just not very objective.

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD