It's sad that some see Michael Moore as some kind of crusader when in reality his "working-class smart ass" routine is as tired as his flannel shirts. Moore typically frames any debate as a "smart vs. dumb contest" rather than an exchange of ideas and as a result immensely pleases his target audience: elitist urban liberals. This type of "debate" is not uncommon to liberals. The New York Times and the Washington Post do much the same although they do a much better job of insulating the rhetoric with polished invective.
Moore's films are a guilty pleasure for the swine who enjoy them. Even a simpleton sees that Moore specializes in taking cheap shots but rarely creates anything of substance. Unlike the talented Errol Morris, Moore has his mind made up before he shoots a frame of film. "Now", he thinks, "If I can only make up other people's minds for them."
"Bowling for Columbine" is no different. It's another worthless mockumentary in which Moore gets to make fun of guns, gun-owners, and the military while exploiting the deaths of so many young children at Columbine High School. Why is it exploitive? Because he is using a terrible tragedy perpetrated by sick, disturbed children to try and portray legal gun ownership as insane. Sorry, little buddy, but the Constitution of this great country is quite clear. Hey, China has gun-control! Why not move there Mike? While you are there try and make an unflattering documentary about their industry or human rights practices? Now THAT would be a short lived project. All the while, Mr. Moore sleep safely under the very veil of freedom you criticize. Because right now there is an armed force of patriotic men and women protecting your fat movie-making rear.
bowling review from imdb
It's sad that some see Michael Moore as some kind of crusader when in reality his "working-class smart ass" routine is as tired as his flannel shirts. Moore typically frames any debate as a "smart vs. dumb contest" rather than an exchange of ideas and as a result immensely pleases his target audience: elitist urban liberals. This type of "debate" is not uncommon to liberals. The New York Times and the Washington Post do much the same although they do a much better job of insulating the rhetoric with polished invective.
Moore's films are a guilty pleasure for the swine who enjoy them. Even a simpleton sees that Moore specializes in taking cheap shots but rarely creates anything of substance. Unlike the talented Errol Morris, Moore has his mind made up before he shoots a frame of film. "Now", he thinks, "If I can only make up other people's minds for them."
"Bowling for Columbine" is no different. It's another worthless mockumentary in which Moore gets to make fun of guns, gun-owners, and the military while exploiting the deaths of so many young children at Columbine High School. Why is it exploitive? Because he is using a terrible tragedy perpetrated by sick, disturbed children to try and portray legal gun ownership as insane. Sorry, little buddy, but the Constitution of this great country is quite clear. Hey, China has gun-control! Why not move there Mike? While you are there try and make an unflattering documentary about their industry or human rights practices? Now THAT would be a short lived project. All the while, Mr. Moore sleep safely under the very veil of freedom you criticize. Because right now there is an armed force of patriotic men and women protecting your fat movie-making rear.
