Joe Schmoe (SP?)

Yep ... I watched it today ... I didn't plan on it, but I had nothing else to do ... so sue me.

I thought it was going to be really stupid and pointless, but it was actually pretty funny seeing how the actors would occasionally mess up and have to correct themselves to keep Matt in the dark.

The part with the porn star/hooker was ... really unexpected.

Anyway, how else watched it?

Nae, don't even know what that is...

It comes on Spike TV.

I watched "Bowling for Columbine" this evening. Not the most accurate movie on the planet, however, I really really hope everyone had a chance to watch it.

Originally posted by Spectra
I watched "Bowling for Columbine" this evening. Not the most accurate movie on the planet, however, I really really hope everyone had a chance to watch it.

i own it ^____^

i like michael moore.

(unrelated to mr. moore.. i'm in desperate need to see
"the revolution will not be televised" but i doubt i will ever get the chance. =( )

hihi.

*goes to bank for free gun and sends it to spectra for christmas*

bewm

yeah, considering they had to plan ahead to get the gun i'd have to sort of question the accuracy of the film...

chris

The start of bowling for colubine is hilarious...banks giving out guns. lol

problem i have with it is that moore doesn't seem to think that his documentaries have to be entirely accurate. there's a number of things in bowling in columbine that range from slight embellishment to flat-out lying (charlton heston's speech is spliced together from several different speeches and made to seem like its immediately after the event for example). if you want to do that its your right as an artist, but don't present it as fact.

chris

But the point of the film wasn't Charlton Heston's speeches - it was, "Why do countries other than the US that allow gun ownership have far fewer gun related murders than the US?"

the heston speech is just one example, and i'm not even necessarily arguing the premise of the film. my problem with it is that he manipulates and remixes the facts to produce the result he wanted in variety of circumstances but then presents it as fact. sort of the contradicts the whole "documentary" idea, don't ya think? an article with a bit more info.

chris