Review over at ViewedAskew

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Basically what the topic says, and I'd like to hear what you guys thought of it. I'm listed as Wasfy Jones. So, ermm, yeah, go to the site now and read that shit, than come here and post some shit.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

One of you bastards had to have something to say about it..

[Guest red_file]

If you want an opinion on it, either post a direct link to the review, or post the review on this board. Trying to find something on that board is neigh impossible.

[Guest MrRant]

Here. http://viewedaskew.com/article.php?sid=17&...=thread&order=0 .

 

If you go to Viewedaskew.com you would see it on the main page.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I thought I put it in my sig, my bad. Well, there you go anyways.

[Guest red_file]

I thought I put it in my sig, my bad. Well, there you go anyways.

I have .sigs, pics, and emoticons turned off, as they really add nothing and only cause pages to load slower. Mea culpa if the link is included there.

 

Your reviewing style comes across as very editorialized; you're rather upfront about the fact that you've a biased view of the film and that you're not going to present anything you disagree with in a positive light. This is both good and bad. It's good if the person reading your review agree with you; they'll nod their head and smile at the shots taken at the idiots in the film. It's bad in that it's not going to convince anyone of your viewpoint. The casual profanity at times also doesn't seem to add anything to the piece.

 

Your opening paragraph works well as an introduction, but I seem to recall reading in Moore's book that Canadian citizens owned as many guns per capita as American citizens. I'm not really sure how that effects your argument of believing guns had no place in the home of regular citizens, but it did jump out at me.

 

The second paragraph is where you lose a bit of focus. I'm not sure where the first few sentances come from. Quotes? Are you saying you're in high school? What's the deal with the assfucking business? When you get to telling the reader about the confusion about the title, it gets better, but the opening sentances don't instill confidence in the reader, and makes one wonder the point.

 

From there you do a lot of info-dumping, telling the reader facts that they would get if they watched the movie. The info is usually accompanied by more editorializing, which, again, isn't necessarily bad, but didn't strike me as the best route to go (going off on the Rosie O'Donnell tanget seemed unnecessary and spiteful; likewise calling Charlton Heston a "stupid motherfucker" doesn't quite seem necessary given the information presented previously).

 

I'd say that you've got a decent first draft of a review in what you've posted. It needs a good deal of polish and, again, I feel that the editorial nature of the review works against it, but there's something nice there. As you say in your final paragraph, reviewing a documentary is harder than reviewing an actual film. Perhaps you should practice more on regular films before going back to documentaries.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Thanks for the input first off....

 

To be honest, I was biased, but when you're reviewing a movie like this one, you have to be. Also, I thought I pointed out that Canadians had as many guns per capita, but the death rate is what I was referring to as the major problem, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

I can see that you found the opening bit immature, but there is a fine line between immaturity and humour in my humble opinion, which I may have crossed. Really, that was just thrown in there for shock value, but I now see why you would have thought it made the review seem juvenile from the get-go.

 

I exaggerated the parts about Rosie and Heston, but again, I did that to lighten up and it isn't meant to be taken to heart. There's some truth though....

 

You said there's something nice there. Why don't you instill some confidence in me and state what that might be

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Being a non-“stupid white” Canadian, I’ve never understood the fascination with guns. To devote your life to something that generally destroys humanity seems pretty ridiculous to me. I realized I sounded like a hippie there, but guns really have no use in the homes of your average Joe.

 

 

 

Being in high school, it goes hand in hand with the superiority complex that most people have, as in you have to prove you’re better than other people, mainly by having “back” and kicking the shit out of them. This is an attitude of power, something that any gun owner will tell that he experiences when he has that .45 in his hands. Sometimes, to prove you’re a really big man, you try to shoot them up. Of course, you won’t feel so big when Mr. Cheeks is raping you up the ass in prison. Hmm, I think that it would be best if I pointed out that Bowling for Columbine is not a movie about raping someone up the ass, but rather a movie about guns, and more specifically, America’s sad obsession with them. Just to point out, the title comes out of the fact that the teenage killers went bowling the morning before that fateful day. Yeah, I don’t get the title either, even after hearing that.

 

Personally, this movie opened my eyes to a lot of things, as the whole gun ownership debate is something that I have never really gotten into, as it has never nor will it ever directly affect me. For instance, I knew gun violence in the past year was much higher in America than anywhere else, including here in Canada, but I didn’t know the numbers read something like Germany having 39 gun deaths, while the US had something ridiculously high like 11 227! Canada had 165 just for the record, yet I believe that we actually have a higher gun-home ratio, which is something that just boggles the mind. I’m not a complete idiot, however, as I knew that the US gave Saddam Hussein about four billion dollars in the 1980s, as well as helping Osama Bin Laden train his army. These two facts were stated in a chilling montage accompanied by Satchmo’s “It’s a Wonderful World, cept I can’t use the bathroom”. A few include USA’s overthrowing of other governments, which happened to be democratic, and replacing them with dictatorships. This is an effective use of pointing out how inconsiderate some of the decisions made by the US government were, at least that’s what I got out of it. If you feel differently, not regarding the actual footage, but rather my opinion, tell me aboOt it. Can’t get enough of that political discussion, no sir.

 

You may also be surprised to hear that Moore is a card-carrying member of the NRA, and that he won a national marksman award. His mind has changed however since his teenage days, where in fact he has done a complete 180. He *tries* to interview Dick Clark on his employment policies, who to sum it up told him to fuck off and not much else, albeit a lot more courteously. He also interviews a few people, who are in favour of gun control, and I hate to say it but most of them sound like dumbasses. For instance, one used to room with Timothy Mcveigh….the same. He points a loaded gun to his head, than goes on a rant on how we should all have the right to own guns as long as we can be safe aboOt it. Riiiight, so is this guy trying to tell us that he’s NOT crazy? It’s not working. Most telling, though, are his interviews with Marilyn Manson and Charlton Heston, the latter of which I’ll get into later. When asked what he would have told the Columbine killers, Manson simply states, “I would have shut up and let them talk, because it seems that that is what no one seemed to do.” As true as that may be, there is a slight problem; no one gives a shit about Manson anymore. The media is so out of touch with youth in general that they don’t realize that wearing a female body suit with your penis tucked under is passé. Seriously, his music has always sucked, and now people choose to get depressed with the help of…I don’t know actually, who is the local angst rocker these days? Let’s just say Andrew WK, because listening to that bastard sure as hell ruins my day.

 

My personal favoUrite part of the film was when resident creators of the greatest cartoon ever, Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame, created a cartoon short explaining racism in a much more unique way than whatever the hell you’ve probably seen before. Basically, a bullet outlines a brief history of the US, all the way back to the Mayflower, and relates the gun-fanaticism to fear, of pretty much anything. These days, he says that the media is responsible for that, as even though statistics for crime went down in the past year, TV coverage went up 600%. Anyway, the bullet helpfully points out that they feared the natives, blacks, than each other. They used guns to express the fear, perhaps not the smartest way to go about it. It also points out that the NRA was founded at around the same time that the KKK became illegal, which is just a coincidence if you ask me. Seriously. *Puts on hood* *Gets kicked out for not falling under the “criteria” it takes to be a Klansmen*

 

Perhaps the most powerful moment in the film is when Moore meets up with two Columbine victims, who still live with the bullets of said incident inside of them. One is in a wheelchair, the other one is fairly close, and has too many health problems to list. It is at this point that we realize that the bullets were bought for seventeen cents each, and that they were freely sold to TEENAGERS. Remember when I said that those bullets were still inside of them? Well, they go to Kmart headquarters to return those bullets for a refund, which provides for some great drama, with all of it being real making it that much more interesting. Basically, after trying and failing a couple of times, they win, causing Kmart to completely change their policies regarding the selling of bullets. Moore is baffled, and understandably so, as in his career as an activist, he rarely ever wins. I’d also like to take the time to point out that this portion of the film reminded of that whole debacle with Rosie O’ Donnell and Tom Sellick, where she berated him for being responsible for the deaths of a few kids who had died that way. Oh right, she’s also a spokesperson for MOTHERFUCKING Kmart, the biggest distributor in the US of A, so that kind of takes away whatever credibility she had. Of course most people watching probably didn’t care, but that’s because they were probably just stupid middle aged moms like the big fat lesbian herself, or at least I think she’s a lesbian. She’s a stupid bitch either way, but again no one who matters gives a shit about her, THANK GOD, so she’s essentially worthless by anyone who matters’ standards.

 

Remember how Moore stated that he was a card-carrying member of the NRA? Well, that little bit of information helps him, since that’s what he tells Charlton Heston in the final scene, in order to get an interview. It’s very revealing, especially when Moore points out that Heston did a gun rally in Columbine a mere ten days after the shooting. Heston proclaims that it was merely a scheduling coincidence, and that it was too late to change it. When Moore helpfully points out that he did the same in Flint, Michigan after the shooting of a six year old girl had occurred, Heston is speechless and can’t really back up his earlier statement, thus taking away a lot of his credibility. What takes away ANY credibility that he might have had was when he pointed out that the high crime rate is probably due to people of “mixed ethnicity”. Finally, Moore asks Heston why he’d feel that he needed a gun to protect himself in his Beverly Hills home, with all the security he has and the general lack of serious crime where he lives. Heston doesn’t answer, but instead tells Moore to leave. The argument here is that Heston revealed that he had Alzheimer’s perhaps why he was so out of touch with his policies and that he couldn’t answer Moore properly, if at all. That was recently though, and this was filmed a while before that, so I don’t buy it, and even though I’m of “mixed ethnicity”, I’ve never felt the urge to shoot someone. Stupid motherfucker.

 

Perhaps I’m biased because I agree with most of what Moore has to say, due to my nature to be left wing regarding most matters, but I still think that everyone should watch this movie regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. It’s a poignant look at America’s obsession with guns, and does a great job of dissecting it. The gist is that America is obsessed with guns due to fear, which is the only factor that has stood out even when America was forging that “violent history”, which was the argument that was suggested in the beginning. The media only heightens this fear in an effort to exploit the crimes committed by magnifying them, thus making a quick buck. At least that’s what Michael Moore will have you believe. Me, I just think y’all should stop shooting each other. Like Chris Rock said, if bullets were five thousand dollars, you’d have a lot less innocent deaths. I also understand that this seemed a lot like a summary, but it’s hard to critique a film that’s not necessarily a “film”, but rather a documentary. Simply put, it was great. Go and watch it. This was also my first stab at reviewing movies, so I’m still working out the kinks…dents…alright fine, huge gaping holes in my “work”. But it was fun to write, and hopefully it was fun for you to read. If not, ah well you could probably go and fuck yourself.

 

Rating: **** (out of *****)

 

-Someone had to post it.

[Guest MrRant]

Couldn't just click the link eh?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Being a non-“stupid white” Canadian, I’ve never understood the fascination with guns. To devote your life to something that generally destroys humanity seems pretty ridiculous to me. I realized I sounded like a hippie there, but guns really have no use in the homes of your average Joe.

 

A really good opening line, got me interested. You didn't really follow it up well though. You could have said "That's the Way Canadian Society is, we don't place an emphasis on self-defense because we generally feel safer than our neighbours to the south. This is what Michael Moore tries to convey in his film 'bowling for columbine' - a light-hearted documentary on a very serious subject done in Michael Moore's classic Gorilla-Style approach to filmmaking." You should try to connect your opening to your subject. Your subject isn't guns, its a documentary on guns. Red File brings up a very good point about Editorializing, it is a good idea to do it with a film like Bowling... but I wouldn't have done it right away - but rather when the documentary review called for it.

[Guest red_file]

To be honest, I was biased, but when you're reviewing a movie like this one, you have to be.

 

I don't think you have to be overtly biased in reviewing any type of entertainment. Certainly objectivity is impossible in any forum where you're presenting an opinion on quality, but introducing biases external to what is being reviewed typically is not necessary (though it is a valid style, and if that's what you're going for, disregard my opinion on it).

 

Also, I thought I pointed out that Canadians had as many guns per capita, but the death rate is what I was referring to as the major problem, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

It was just that it makes your opening clause ("Being a non-“stupid white” Canadian") seem unnecessary. Why not merely open with "I've never understood the fascination with guns"? The fact that you're Canadian doesn't really factor in. It's the not understanding that's the important part.

 

I'm torn on the info-dumping aspect of the paragraph when you talk about the statistics. On the one hand, it is interesting and could be the type of thing that might make a reader want to see the movie, on the other hand it does come across as rather dry. It's more interesting when you talk about why the presentation was effective than what the presentation was about.

 

I can see that you found the opening bit immature, but there is a fine line between immaturity and humour in my humble opinion, which I may have crossed. Really, that was just thrown in there for shock value, but I now see why you would have thought it made the review seem juvenile from the get-go.

 

It's not so much that I felt it was immature as it was a bit sloppily written and hard to understand what your point was. The goal of shocking your audience from the get-go can work if the reasons for doing so lead somewhere. I'm not sure where you were going with it and thus it felt ineffective.

 

I exaggerated the parts about Rosie and Heston, but again, I did that to lighten up and it isn't meant to be taken to heart. There's some truth though....

 

It just felt like you were stepping outside of the review to stand on a soapbox. And that certainly has its place -- all reviewers do it from time to time -- and perhaps it wouldn't have seemed all that out of place had I seen more reviews by you. But this being the first thing I've read by you, and, as you say, the first review you've written, it was a bit offputting to have a review turned into a political forum, regardless of how much it was meant to elict humor.

 

You said there's something nice there. Why don't you instill some confidence in me and state what that might be

 

Certainly. As I said, aside from the Canadian bit, I found your opening paragraph to be very well written. Introducing with a personal confusion that the documentary answered is certainly the right way to go. You're telling the reader that if they are like you and they never really understood the fascination with guns, this documentary might work for them.

 

Most of the paragraph that talks about the cartoon is well written and does a good job of describing what it was talking about. The tone is very even in it. It was probably the best part of the review that didn't have any editorializing in it. The only mistake, imo, is the opening clause: "My personal favoUrite part of the film was when resident creators of the greatest cartoon ever." "Personal favourite" strikes me as redundant, and I'm not sure how well calling South Park the "greatest cartoon ever" works. Not really arguing quality here, just saying that statement like that sometimes influence opinion negatively.

 

Your conclusion works rather well, and I like the idea of laying out your political leanings for the reader to see, though I wonder if that might've worked better earlier. It might also be prudent to not tell the reader to go fuck themselves if they didn't enjoy it. Yes, yes, that was meant to be humorous, but still.

 

The part where you're talking about the powerful usage of the Columbine survivors is done well, but the effectiveness is blunted by the Rosie O'Donnell bit that follows it. Also the Charlton Heston part is handled well, but is hurt by judgement you make about him.

 

The review is at its best when it's talking about what works in the film and why it works. It falls apart a bit when you go off on political tangents or attempt to insert humor that doesn't quite come off well. A bit of editing and perhaps the humor would come off better and the political business might work. As it is, it seems like a political rant squashed into a movie review. You obviously like the movie and that comes through in the movie review and we're given reasons for why you like it. It's just that those reasons are a bit buried and sometimes not clearly discussed.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

*BUMP* for that guy who asked for it...