You Should Rent Bowling for Columbine (1297 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.96 on 52 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <confused_forever.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-10-03 23:47:33 EDT
Enough said. Most Americans don't realise that if Michael Moore was lying or even exaggerating that you would see him in court till he dies.
Although Farenheit 9/11 was a money grab (still true though)
User Reviews
Submitted by MavisMing (user info) at 2005-12-04 09:05:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-05 07:35:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2005-10-04 17:00:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Its propaganda vs. propaganda.
I just said he didn't lie. Those sites listed claim he lied by twisting things to their side.
Neither are right.
--------------------------------
Dumbass.
Those sights have proof he lied. 100% undeniable proof he lied. Did you even read them?
Fucking read them again and try watching the movie.
It isn't propaganda.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-10-04 17:05:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You should rent a bazooka, aim it at your head, and pull the trigger.
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2005-10-04 17:00:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its propaganda vs. propaganda.
I just said he didn't lie. Those sites listed claim he lied by twisting things to their side.
Neither are right.
Submitted by Mrs.Love (user info) at 2005-10-04 14:26:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That movie is full of half-truths and pre-fabricated "reality."
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
Michael Moore is a faggot.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-10-04 14:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Un-authorized linkwhore - http://www.ubersite.com/m/76419
A debate on why the rest of the world hates American pride. Please... Chime in!!!
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-10-04 14:20:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by WhatTheHell (user info) at 2005-10-04 14:07:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
and YOU should go fuck yourself.
Submitted by Spuds002 (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:35:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Recalcitrant (user info) at 2005-10-03 23:55:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
I remember that film being left-wing garbage. If you want to see a Michael Moore film that's actually worth a damn, watch Roger & Me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
no no no ramathorn, this highwya is........ wait, sorry im off track.
but still no, canadian bacon is his only good movie. i saw BFC and F911. too much spin for me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:23:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
To the poster, I bet you were real impressed about how crazy that bank was in bowling for columbine to give him a gun for opening an account. Did you know that whole scene was bullshit. They didn't give him the gun there as he tried to make it look in the movie. He had to drive 45 minutes to the store to redeem his coupon. Then he drove 45 minutes back to the banks and walked around with his gun with the cameras on to make it look like they gave it to him there. To be honest when I first watched it I was impressed he showed a few things I did not know about. However, afer reading about the bank/gun scene and the countless other ways he tries to warp reality in this "documentary" I realized he doesn't care about the truth just about making money on his films.
---------------------------------------
this in one of my replies below. It is just the tip of the iceberg as far as his "creative editing" goes.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A good point Indy and one I may have made myself in the past.
Incidently I apologise to you Anna for calling you Butters.
Submitted by Thanatos (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:21:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow, what an amazing post.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:17:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Now I reckon that Micky Moore has inspired people to engage in political debate and has polorised the populace. I reckon that's a good thing.
--------------------------
Engaging in political debate is normally good. But not when you polorize the populace. No one is going to listen to the other side. He creates a world of black and white, right and wrong. Which would be okay if it was based 100% in truth, but it isn't.
I just think his work is more likely to obscure the issue rather then shed light on it which is required for intellegent debate. Plus he is a fat fuck.
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:13:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Roger and Me was a good movie.
Whats the difference with the new movies?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:08:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
When are lies and half truths effective? I am suprised by the number of people who know about how much he skews the truth or just makes things up, and still say it is ok. Is it because you like his overall message? If he were making right wing movies would his twisting of the truth be ok? Why is FOX news so villified when it is much more truthful? What if he were a skin head and he was exaggerating the number of black on white crimes?
-----------------
It is, of course, no different from that skinhead. It's political rhetoric (that's the description I was looking for Butters). It's not about the facts or right and wrong. It's about politically charging people.
Now I reckon that Micky Moore has inspired people to engage in political debate and has polorised the populace. I reckon that's a good thing.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 09:01:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
When are lies and half truths effective?
---------------
I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE!
Some of the methods he uses ARE effective. Most of what he does, however, is not.
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:59:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ignorant.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:58:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:45:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Not everything he says or does is a half truth or a lie - and those things are effective.
He loses validity when he starts bending the truth beyond simplification of an argument into downright falsehood.
-----------------------------------------
He loses validity when he cuts out scenes when people answer his questions and make him look bad.
He loses validity when he makes up quotes by cutting up other peoples speeches.
He loses validity when he uses an entire can of cheese whiz in his omlette(ok I made that one up).
I think he lost all his validity when he set out not to make a documentary but to make a propaganda movie for his beliefs.
When are lies and half truths effective? I am suprised by the number of people who know about how much he skews the truth or just makes things up, and still say it is ok. Is it because you like his overall message? If he were making right wing movies would his twisting of the truth be ok? Why is FOX news so villified when it is much more truthful? What if he were a skin head and he was exaggerating the number of black on white crimes?
Submitted by Off_The_Wagon (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
It made some good points, but Moore has a habit of exploiting unfortunate people to make those points.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:48:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:47:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
*looks at feet*
Alright I lied about Lenin, that was Trotsky's train that sorted him out.
I bet it's worked for loads of other people though!
------------
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I never made that conclusion!
Honestly...
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*looks at feet*
Alright I lied about Lenin, that was Trotsky's train that sorted him out.
I bet it's worked for loads of other people though!
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:29:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:25:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not sure to be honest - I just think there's a better way to achieve what he's trying to without all the bloody exaggeration, half-truths, deliberate misinterpretation and sensationalism.
That's not to say some his methods aren't effective and appropriate... I just feel he sometimes takes it too far.
------------------------
You can't fight apathy and ignorance with half truths and lies. And I don't think they are ever appropriate (or effective on intellegent people) in documentries.
-----------------------
Not everything he says or does is a half truth or a lie - and those things are effective.
He loses validity when he starts bending the truth beyond simplification of an argument into downright falsehood.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:43:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:38:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
You can't fight apathy and ignorance with half truths and lies. And I don't think they are ever appropriate (or effective on intellegent people) in documentries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worked for Lenin. In fact it's worked for a lot of people.
------------------
Did it?
I never thought that, and I'm supposed to know these things.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:38:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You can't fight apathy and ignorance with half truths and lies. And I don't think they are ever appropriate (or effective on intellegent people) in documentries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worked for Lenin. In fact it's worked for a lot of people.
Not going to work forever thoguh, not when we've got mega babies.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:29:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:25:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not sure to be honest - I just think there's a better way to achieve what he's trying to without all the bloody exaggeration, half-truths, deliberate misinterpretation and sensationalism.
That's not to say some his methods aren't effective and appropriate... I just feel he sometimes takes it too far.
------------------------
You can't fight apathy and ignorance with half truths and lies. And I don't think they are ever appropriate (or effective on intellegent people) in documentries.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:26:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Agreed. I'd like for us all to be genetically enhanced superbeings who openly weep when we here about the 1 person who failed to ninja leap out of a burning air bus and are able to live in a world of free information and communication. That sort of thing isn't going to happen over night though.
We'll get there though, with small steps.
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:25:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All I wanted to see is how much people hated this guy.
I guess since people on the internet are usually more open minded anyways that many people do not like him compared to do like him.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:25:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:43:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:29:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
I personally think America needs more people like Michael Moore - people who are prepared to stand up and shout about what they think is wrong, and try to do something about it, instead of lying down and simply being walked over.
I'm not entirely convinced his methods are the best ones though...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well don't leave us all hanging in suspense, what methods would you like to see?
--------------
I'm not sure to be honest - I just think there's a better way to achieve what he's trying to without all the bloody exaggeration, half-truths, deliberate misinterpretation and sensationalism.
That's not to say some his methods aren't effective and appropriate... I just feel he sometimes takes it too far.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:19:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:10:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
That's neither here nor there Indy (may I call you Indy?). He's got the point out over the media airwaves. He's presented his point in an abriged format that is popular with both the population and the media corps themselves.
That his efforts have prompted yourself to go out and look more closly at the various issues he raised is proof enough of his success, the simple fact that he has achieved so much exposure is also admirable.
His motivations are irellevant when held in contrast to his results, i.e. the increase of awareness (albeit not the actual knowledge) of the American people.
--------------------------------------------
I don't see the results as an overall positive. Most the people who see his stuff swallow it whole. They think since it is a "documentry" then it must be true. I don't think fighting apathy and ignorance with lies and half truths is ever a good idea. I would rather people don't know shit thenb to take what michael moore made as gospel.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 08:10:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That's neither here nor there Indy (may I call you Indy?). He's got the point out over the media airwaves. He's presented his point in an abriged format that is popular with both the population and the media corps themselves.
That his efforts have prompted yourself to go out and look more closly at the various issues he raised is proof enough of his success, the simple fact that he has achieved so much exposure is also admirable.
His motivations are irellevant when held in contrast to his results, i.e. the increase of awareness (albeit not the actual knowledge) of the American people.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:53:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 06:52:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
This post is gash. However I will say a few words in Michael Moore's defence.
US Television is a very hard format to break into. It's controlled largely by the corps with little support for independant work. There is PBS, but that is does not have a broad audience.
Now think about this: Everyone knows about Michael Moore, everyone knows about the issues he has highlighted and everyone knows his views. He has intergrated his message with the sensationalist tom-foolery that the big networks demand.
Michael Moore is extreemly similar to a British comedian/activist called Mark Thomas. Mark has more freedom than Moore in what he can do, however he does use humour as a vehicle to get his message out.
What I'm saying is that yes, moore has stepped over vast swathes of important information to deliver his message to the public however he has had too because it is the only vehicle he can use to get that message out. I admire the man's dedication and ingenuity.
------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell are you talking about? Sensationalist tom-foolery that the networks demand? He isn't on any of the networks here. And it isn't sensationalist tom-foolery, it is lies.
What freedom does Mark have that Moore doesn't? He makes movies full of his skewed truth, outright lies, and half truths then calls them documentries. What doesn't he have the freedom to say?
To the poster, I bet you were real impressed about how crazy that bank was in bowling for columbine to give him a gun for opening an account. Did you know that whole scene was bullshit. They didn't give him the gun there as he tried to make it look in the movie. He had to drive 45 minutes to the store to redeem his coupon. Then he drove 45 minutes back to the banks and walked around with his gun with the cameras on to make it look like they gave it to him there. To be honest when I first watched it I was impressed he showed a few things I did not know about. However, afer reading about the bank/gun scene and the countless other ways he tries to warp reality in this "documentary" I realized he doesn't care about the truth just about making money on his films.
Farenhiet 9/11 was the biggest crock of shit I have ever seen. Any argument against him, or reasonable responses to his "interviews" was edited out. He was 100% lying when he said that Fox called the election for Bush first. I remember because I had a bet with my friend over who would win and it came down to florida. Nevermind the fact that it was first called for gore, causing bush supporters not to vote in florida (bush supporters in florida tend to have jobs so they have to vote after working, where gores largest demographic in florida were the unemployed or retired ). Nevermind the large military population in florida that would be voting with mail in ballots (probably around 90% Bush supporters).
Bottom line if you believe anythng moore says without checking his facts you are worse than an O'Riely fan, at least you know when he turns off the microphone of people he is debating, Moore isn't even honest enough to do that.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:43:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:29:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
I personally think America needs more people like Michael Moore - people who are prepared to stand up and shout about what they think is wrong, and try to do something about it, instead of lying down and simply being walked over.
I'm not entirely convinced his methods are the best ones though...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well don't leave us all hanging in suspense, what methods would you like to see?
Rioting? Intimidation? Bribery? Burglary? Co-ercian of Goverment staff to leak confidential information to the press?
Look at it this way, if you went out and asked the public about Watergate how many do you think would know anything about it? Fuck all, hell I barely know about Watergate and I'm well clever.
How many will know about Supersize Me or the Michael Jackson trial?
Q.E.D.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-10-04 07:29:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I personally think America needs more people like Michael Moore - people who are prepared to stand up and shout about what they think is wrong, and try to do something about it, instead of lying down and simply being walked over.
I'm not entirely convinced his methods are the best ones though...
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-04 06:52:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This post is gash. However I will say a few words in Michael Moore's defence.
US Television is a very hard format to break into. It's controlled largely by the corps with little support for independant work. There is PBS, but that is does not have a broad audience.
Now think about this: Everyone knows about Michael Moore, everyone knows about the issues he has highlighted and everyone knows his views. He has intergrated his message with the sensationalist tom-foolery that the big networks demand.
Michael Moore is extreemly similar to a British comedian/activist called Mark Thomas. Mark has more freedom than Moore in what he can do, however he does use humour as a vehicle to get his message out.
What I'm saying is that yes, moore has stepped over vast swathes of important information to deliver his message to the public however he has had too because it is the only vehicle he can use to get that message out. I admire the man's dedication and ingenuity.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2005-10-04 06:28:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Barnymeinhoff (user info) at 2005-10-04 05:25:08 (#)
Ranking: 1
Bill Hicks and Michael Moor are some of the few things that prevent me from writing the continent off.
------------------------------------------
how dare you even speek those names in the same sentence???? Bill hicks is a legend in comedy and political satire and um, stuff... (it's 6:30a, cut me some slack)... moore, is a hack job "activist". and nothing more- with too much tie and too much public following for someone who can take up hours of video and say basically nothing.
but, before you all take shots at me, i still think bush may not have been the best thing for the country. i just dont think we need moore (or that other bitch, whatever her name is) standing infront of the whitehouse with a poster and a video camera. YOURE NOT HELPING, douche.
Submitted by pizdets (user info) at 2005-10-04 06:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wanting to make people think: +2
Trying to use Moore to that end: -4
Submitted by Barnymeinhoff (user info) at 2005-10-04 05:25:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Bill Hicks and Michael Moor are some of the few things that prevent me from writing the continent off.
Submitted by DooZa (user info) at 2005-10-04 04:04:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Mike Moore is a tool of the bush administration. Check out the documentary loose change if you wanna see some real shit.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-10-04 02:47:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-10-04 02:27:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm a hardcore, fuck you, Baby aborting, Christian Stomping, ACLU loving, UN supporting, Liberal...
... and I think Mikey Moore is a little crazy.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-10-04 02:22:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oh em gee. how can anyone handle the amount of content in this post? it's over FUCKING WHELMING.
get a life, assclown.
Submitted by ThineJericho (user info) at 2005-10-04 01:07:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Didn't like it.
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:55:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
I like his stuff.
Biased, no fucking doubt, but still good. Perhaps he shouldn't call himself a documentarian... Documentor? Documentator? Documentist? Whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a satirist
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:55:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like his stuff.
Biased, no fucking doubt, but still good. Perhaps he shouldn't call himself a documentarian... Documentor? Documentator? Documentist? Whatever.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:31:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Do I have to?
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:31:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It was OK. I still think those two guys were just way into role playing to the point that they just lost touch with reality. To them, the whole thing was an RPG, until they realized that they were surrounded by police. Then they were like "FUCK! I'M DUMB AS HELL" *cap myself
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:09:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-10-03 23:59:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Post = +2
Michael Moore = -2
= 0
______________________
ok I'm sure I'm not the only one here when I look at that and go:
= 0 OH NOES!
Submitted by celine (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:08:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Exaggerating is different than libel. He is guilty of the first but not the second.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-10-04 00:03:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
because you aren't allowed to lie or exaggerate in a work of fiction.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-10-03 23:59:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Post = +2
Michael Moore = -2
= 0
Submitted by Recalcitrant (user info) at 2005-10-03 23:55:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I remember that film being left-wing garbage. If you want to see a Michael Moore film that's actually worth a damn, watch Roger & Me.
Submitted by HighFructoseCornSyrup (user info) at 2005-10-03 23:52:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah. It had a couple decent things in it (like the segment about Michigan's welfare work program ), but Moore is a polarizing jackass. His movies might actually convince some people if he didn't throw in unnecessary truth-stretching.