 |
|
 Home
Products
Store
Forum
Warehouse
Contact Us
|
|
|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Bowling For Columbine
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-26-2003 11:44 PM
Sorry, but I didn't care for this one.
If you ask me the title for this movie should have been, Roger and Me Part 2: I got in this time!
It seemed to me, like it was nothing more than a continuation: Flint, Michagan is now a poor town because the General Motors Plant closed down so we all went crazy, moved to Colorado and killed a bunch of people.
I don't like his style of "Ambush Journalism"... Put a guy on camera and trap him into making an ass of himself. Okay, he didn't have to try very hard sometimes. But,heck! Even Chuck Heston played along for a while until pushed too far.
Moore is known for setting up his shots in advance. We have no way of knowing if the Heston interview was staged or not. I'm almost sure the part where he opens people's front doors to see if they are locked was staged. Other times he seems to have picked the most outlandish footage. Okay, that's his style: Lampoon a person/subject to make your point. I just don't like that style much anymore. It worked the first time. Now it's worn thin.
Showing the video footage of the shooting at Columgine H.S.?? Pretty tasteless! Annoying, in fact. If I want to watch people fighting, screaming and trying to kill each other, I'll watch Jerry Springer or something. If I want to watch people get killed on video, I'll rent Faces of Death. I don't want to watch any of that. It's a big "gross-out" to me. Furthermore, he does in his film the very same thing that he decries: Violence and sensationalism. Is he saying that he has to "fight fire with fire?" It's a pretty lame excuse, if you ask me. Oh yeah! Let's ambush the AUDIENCE, even! Let's make them sit through yet ANOTHER repeat of footage of an airplane crashing into the World Trade Center! I didn't watch this film just to be subjected to that crap!
I also agree with others in that this is not really a documentary film. A documentary is where you learn something by watching. This is more of an essay, where the film maker tells you his point of view. Back in the late 80's this kind of thing played well. Now, some frumpy fat guy in a baseball cap doing a spoof on 60 Minutes is just... well... So 80's!
I agreed with some points he made in his film but I didn't agree with others. I'm going to leave what I though about the subject matter out of it because we can discuss that all day long and not get anywhere. As a matter of fact, that's one more thing I didn't like. I sat through this whole film expecting him to break new ground but he did nothing more than sensationalize the very thing he's crying out against.
Good material to start a heated discussion in a bar with... Bad cinema.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic