Just saw this last night/at lunch for the first time. Very good and much better than Fahrenheit 9/11, I think. I remember some board discussion on CMJ a few years ago when it came out, but what are your opinions on it?

holy cow, a blast from the past.

I liked this movie, but did not care to see Farenheit 911 because i knew it would be so politically biased.

I thought it was great even though there are a few holes in his arguments, not to mention some fact bending/editing.

The school footage of the cafeteria during the shootings is about as powerful stuff as it gets.

I liked the questions he raises about violence in the US vs violence in Canada and how "fear" is a big culprit in our society. It's not near as leftist as Fahrenheit is.

Made me want Charlton Testine's old ass to just go ahead and croak.

I liked "Bowling". I liked "Farenheit" less.

I think Moore "documentaries" have to be approached with a not-so-serious attitude. His films are pure sensationalism, a few random facts strung out in order to make abject conjectures...

I don't know what makes the Michael Moore of today so much better than Bill O'Reilly, besides his blatant liberalism and his smokin' bod...

I enjoyed it...he's very polarizing, but he makes a lot of good points. What really blew my mind was that where I'm located in Ontario is roughly 2 hours from Flint, Michigan. In terms of cultural differences and opinions, that 200 km drive might as well be 200, 000 km. It's hard to believe that there is really just an arbitrary geographic line that separates the US and Canada because it seems like so much more.

I thought Bowling for Columbine was better than F/911 too. There was a movie released in 2004 that my brother brought home one time that was better and more effective than F/911 as well. If I remember correctly, it was called Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire. Highly recommended.

Here's a short review of it.
---
University of Massachusetts Communication professor and filmmaker Sut Jhally and Media Education Foundation producer Jeremy Earp attempt to engage viewers in critical thinking regarding U.S. foreign policy and the alleged quest by neo-conservatives to gain world domination through military might and intimidation — with generally effective results — in a documentary that is as informative as it is difficult to sit through.

Hijacking Catastrophe is, perhaps, not as aesthetically engaging as its high-profile counterpart Fahrenheit 9/11 due to an abundance of talking heads and the simple fact that Jhally and Earp are more devoted to exposing what they see to be a great injustice rather than relating the information in a sympathetic or personal level. However, the revealing and sometimes chilling observations made by such well-informed whistleblowers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, and Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski combined with the detailed deconstruction of the much-talked-about "Wolfowitz Doctrine" of global domination through unilateral force certainly make for compelling viewing.

By tracing eroding civil liberties in post-9/11 America back to the fall of the Berlin Wall — when a small group of neo-conservatives struggled to devise a way in which the U.S. could become an unchallenged superpower while remaining in control of ever-dwindling natural resources — Jhally and Earp engage in more than simple Bush bashing. Wolfowitz himself concedes that many of the proposed actions advised in his controversial report could not be accomplished without a catalyst in the form of a disaster "like a new Pearl Harbor" to set them in motion. When the 9/11 attacks followed almost exactly one year later, the Bush Administration's resulting policy incorporated many of Wolfowitz's ideas and seemed to point down a slippery slope toward fascism in which the quality of life for the general population is sacrificed for the benefit of a select few.

Opponents argue that the actions proposed in the Wolfowitz Doctrine will not only place an unimaginable financial burden on future generations, but also flare anti-American sentiment around the globe — decreasing stability both at home and abroad. There's no question that Jhally and Earp are, to a certain extent, preaching to the choir with Hijacking Catastrophe, but whether viewers lean to the left or right, the filmmakers certainly gave potential voters food for thought as President Bush began his bid for a second term. — Jason Buchanan

this movie was thought provoking on many levels. I enjoyed it, though much of it was BS. The kids at Columbine skipped their bowling class that morning, they don't actually give you a gun inside the bank, etc...

What I want to know is, why is it more effective criticism if you are a member of an organization? i.e. what's his fat is a "practicing Catholic" so Dogma is a critique of that religion. Michael (ffaaaaat) Moore is an NRA member, so it makes his criticism more valid? Zell miller's a Democrat, so him speaking at the RNC is a better critique.

yeah, that school footage (and the soundtracking) was pretty powerful. i remember absolute silence around the theater during those scenes.

i was taking a course in college on how media and crime play off each other when this film came out. it was excellent material to drop into essays afterward. my professor loved me for it.

There was no bowling footage in it. I felt cheated.

I liked it cause I hate Bush, but I also realize it was only half the truth and one mans opinion.

I would suggest that it simultaneously is and is not more effective. Certainly, if one is privy to the ins and outs of a certain organization (be it Catholicism or the NRA) compared to an outsider or non-group member then one's criticism directed at that organization can be perceived as more valid. A Protestants' critique of Catholicism might not be as impressive. I would think that as an example, the movie 'The Insider', shows someone who toiled within the cigarette industry for years and his critique of its behaviour lends a certain weight compared to others. However, when one is on the inside, there is an inherent subjectivity and bias present, particulary when one is levelling a critique, so the person will always be somewhat tainted as one who is 'unhappy' with the current state of the organization and their opinions ignored.

I missed the first nine minutes, but there was shots of Moore bowling at the end. COLD BUSTED.

BLAST!

I actually really didn't like this movie, but like FH 9/11. Bowling represents everything about Michael Moore that I don't like, which has been covered before (exaggerating, drawing incorrect conclusions, biased, etc.). In FH 9/11, for the most part he was able to take a step back and let the footage speak for itself. I thought it was more coherent, powerful, and polished.

Regardless of what you think of his politics, he is a very good filmmaker. He creates all these different layers, and his movies flow very well. He's telling a story in his films rather than just spitting out facts and figures.

Borg sez :

"There was a movie released in 2004 that my brother brought home one time that was better and more effective than F/911 as well. If I remember correctly, it was called Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire. Highly recommended."


If you have DirectTV, the "Link" channel shows this a lot. I keep meaning to catch it.

Yeah that was definitely a point that tripped me out as well.

Do politicians in Canada play on fear to get elected? That could be a possible difference, as politics in the US is almost entirely based on fear. Also it seems like people are trained from birth to despise at least one segment of the population. There's a lot of HATRED in this country, it's bizarre.

Speaking of fear, I recently got a chain letter from the wife's aunt (one of many aunts) demanding prayer in school... and we're about as pinko-leftist as it gets. The shocking part, for me, was her response to my "don't include us from now on" letter that I sent back, in which she claimed that she was tired of the minority oppressing the "majority," and was tired of her rights being trampled on.

Say what now? I reminded her of Christian God being on our currency, in our national anthem, and in our voting booths last November. My question is how in the world does she feel trampled upon? What exactly is she afraid of? Why does stopping her from making my kids (future) pray in school trample her rights somehow?

Yeah, that's the kind of cultural divide I'm talking about. That kind of religious outrage/zealotry just isn't seen up here thankfully.

I own Bowling for Columbine. I have no interest in seeing Fahrenheit 911 again.

Same here. I would like to add that my opinion of Marilyn Manson went WAY up after watching Bowling.