If you haven't watched this movie. Go out and watch it. If you read my review before watching the movie, you may find that you may approach the movie with a slight bias given by my bold statements and arguments about it. So, I'd suggest anyone who has not watched this movie to go watch it first before reading my review and opinions. That said, here's the review.

Don't get me wrong. I actually like this movie. What I don't like about it is that this can be a deceptive and manipulative movie. It should not really be classified as a documentary because a lot of the facts and figures are not accurate. In fact, a lot of the scenes were staged, scripted and edited in a manipulative way to evoke a specific emotion, and a specific point, a point in which Mr. Michael Moore wants us to believe. In this movie, Michael Moore shows us how the US media and the politicians can manipulate the US people into being scared so that they will consume and buy things and keep the great US economy going. I agree with that. But, unfortunately, most of the same viewers of this movie doesn't realize that Michael Moore is doing the exact same thing, he's manipulating his viewers by carefully staging, manipulating history events, footage for his own personal benefit. That, being to sell more of his movies on DVD, his book and whatever else he sells and profit off them, just like any filmmaker in the industry. The only thing different about Michael Moore is that he makes it look like he is educating the public, but in reality he is only feeding his viewers half truths. And that's a dangerous thing, to show half truths to people and let them believe that all the facts were given and that they were now "informed". A good example of people who probably were fed half truths, believed it to be all the facts and then formed their own narrow-minded views would be Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. These two people acted in such a way so as to make a statement about their anger toward the government and society. This statement ended up costing a heavy toll of innocent people and bystanders. Don't get me wrong. I am NOT comparing Michael Moore to Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Michael Moore is an intelligent filmmaker and very vocal at expressing his views and I respect him for that. I am merely only saying that by his manipulation of the facts, statistics and footages of his movie that Michael Moore might very well misinform his viewers to an extreme which could be very dangerous as I've already mentioned. I just hope that this movie won't aid in making history repeat itself. That said, I will begin my review of this movie.

The beginning parts of the movie starts off with the infamous bank opening scene at North Country Bank and Trust in Traverse City where Michael Moore opens up a bank account and comes out a little later with a rifle in his hand. I was shocked by that scene, which is pretty much the effect that Michael Moore wanted, I'm sure, and then shortly afterwards I get the scene in which Michael Moore gets his haircut at a barbershop where they also sell live ammunition. Michael gets a box and accidentally drops one on the floor. He apologizes and the barber says "it's okay, it didn't discharge". Huh? That's when I started to question whether what I'm watching was real. Could this really be happening? Could these people really be okay being filmed like this, knowing full well that it will be made into film? That's when I started doubting but still continued to watch but then seriously sense that I was being manipulated into a view, an emotion and exactly the way that Michael Moore wanted. And that's what I didn't like, being manipulated by half truths. You see, a lot of the "facts" and statistics and history that Michael Moore presents in this movie are not complete facts, but part facts that he uses to emphasize his view and manipulate the viewer into coming into a conclusion that Michael Moore has implanted. During the course of the film, Michael Moore interviews a lot of people, some of them are clearly identified when interviewed, like James Nichols, the brother of Terry Nichols and other representatives of corporations like Lockheed Martin, but a lot of them weren't identified. That disturbed me since I can't verify whether their quotes were scripted, staged or whatever or whether it was consented for release. That was my first problem with the movie, the lack of identification of all the people interviewed. In a true documentary, I would expect that to be clearly shown.

Second, I was very disturbed to watch the actual footage of the Columbine massacre taken from the school cameras. I thought that it was very distasteful, to subject people to such footage. That, to me, showed a lack of respect to those who went through the ordeal, the victims and everyone affected. I felt like I was watching one of those sensational TV programs such as A Current Affair, etc but remembered that I was watching a "documentary". To me, it was uncalled for to show such footage because by showing it, I'm sure that a lot of people would evoke some kind of emotion. That strengthened my view of the obvious manipulation of Michael Moore in this movie and I was not pleased.

Third, in the movie, Canada was presented as some peace loving country where people don't lock their doors. Of all the households where Michael Moore supposedly went up to, their doors were unlocked, even in Toronto. I couldn't help wondering whether that could be true, that people in Toronto didn't lock their doors or that Michael Moore opted to not show footages of the houses that did lock their doors. It is, after all, Michael Moore's film, and he does have the power to edit it any way he liked. What's to stop him from cutting footage that doesn't support his claim or his view?

Fourth, I didn't like the tactic that Michael used to get Charlton Heston, the head of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to an interview. He contacted Charlton Heston at his home and asked for an interview, claiming that he, Michael, was a lifetime member of the NRA. Charlton, like most people, would assume that it was a pro-NRA interview. And then, when Michael confronted Charlton about the surprising statistics of deaths due to guns, Charlton was speechless to provide an answer. Not that I'm siding with Charlton Heston, but I thought that it was unfair to put someone on the spot like that. After all, Charlton wasn't even prepared for the interview. He's an actor without a script. No wonder he's speechless.

Fifth, a lot of the facts and statistics and statements made in the movie were not the entire facts. The 11,127 of gun homicides figure was taken from National Center for Health Statistics or from the Center of Disease Control and not from the FBI. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 10,117 gun murders in 1999. Also, stats from other countries were taken from police figures. That by itself is not a valid comparison.

Take the bank scene for instance, apparently, in order to be eligible for a free rifle, you have to make a substantial deposit in a CD. And, the rifles are not given to you directly at the bank. And, there is a waiting period during which the background checks and others are to be made before they ship the guns out to you. And, in Canada, it isn't as easy as it looks to get a rifle and ammunition at the local Wal-mart. In order to get any type of gun, you have to undergo a strict background check, etc. And military style weapons are illegal to possess. Handguns require special circumstances for possession. In order to buy a gun in Canada, you are required to posses a PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) which requires passing the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, or valid FAC (Firearms Acquisitions Certificate) under the former law. I don't own any firearms but I don't think just any American gun owner can come into Canada and purchase a gun if he doesn't have a valid Canadian gun possession license. Correct me if I'm wrong though. And there are lots more holes in his statements that most people won't pick up unless they start picking them out. And being classified a documentary, who would be?

This movie reminded me eerily of a powerful movie, American History X, starring Edward Norton, an amazing actor. In that movie, it showed how easy it was to brainwash people by propaganda and bold statements accompanied by statistics. What was scary about the movie was that a lot of people can be easily misled into thinking a certain way if they believe everything they hear without taking the time to find out whether it's true. Facts and statistics are numbers. Without the other factors taken into account, it means nothing and can be taken to make inaccurate statements. I'm quite sure that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were brainwashed into a way of thinking based on half truths. Of course, I don't have solid facts but for a level headed person to kill that many innocent civilians just to prove some "point" does not make sense for me. And let's not forget how harmful propaganda and half truths can be with reference to the persecution of Jews in the second World War.

In this movie, Michael Moore shows the ways in which the media and the politicians manipulate the US people into fear. You turn on the news and what do you hear? Murder. Homicide. Kidnapping. There is so much exposure of crimes in the news that they do it to subconsciously make people go out to buy things, to keep the great US economy going. The politicians scare people into stockpiling for the y2k bug, the potential chemical attacks from bio-terrorists so people run out to buy duct tape and plastic and seal up their houses. There is way too much fear in the US that is exploited by the media and the politicians. Get a gun because you have to protect yourself. Your neighbor most likely has one. But what Michael Moore fails to tell you is that he is doing the same in his movie. He's manipulating the viewer into thinking that it's the fear that causes the Americans to kill. It might be true in some respects but he fails to try to look for other answers than the ones he has presented. Could it be the lack of gun control? The lax controls of sales of military style weapons, handguns and other non-hunting style weapons? The lack of education on gun use? There is so many reasons and factors but those were not discussed because that's not his argument. This movie is not a documentary. This movie is an essay. Michael Moore comes up with his argument and comes up with his points to back them up.

This is a good movie in that it may be a wake up call for those viewers who weren't aware of what their government is doing. Although it exposes a lot of things, it covers up a lot of things as well, especially things that does not fit in Michael Moore's view or argument. Let's not forget that this is really an essay. So, watch it with a grain of salt and an open mind but be careful of being manipulated into thinking a certain way because this movie has a lot of half truths in it. And Michael Moore's hidden agenda in this movie? To make lots of money off ticket sales and DVD sales, just like any other filmmaker out there. The only thing different about him is that he tries to make something that "looks" non-fictional.

There are currently a few websites that criticize the facts in the movie that I think are interesting:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.galun.com/articles/2002-12-17_Bowling.php

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/entertainment/movies/reviews/s_100042.html

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208

http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html

If you haven't watched this movie, I'd suggest you watch it first. Come up with your own interpretation and then go and check these sites out so that you wouldn't feel that you approached the movie with a biased view.

And, no, I wasn't even aware of the websites that criticize the facts of his movie until after I watched it. After watching the movie, I was feeling very confused. I felt like I was manipulated and started doubting the facts and that's when I started to do some research about the events and stats and facts in the movie.

But even with these, you only have a portion of the story, but a better portion. At least you got it from a different side. Just like the slogan from Globe And Mail: "Never stop looking. Never stop asking. Never stop reading. Never stop thinking." (or something like that).

One last note. Michael Moore is still a lifetime member of the NRA (National Rifle Association). His excuse for remaining as a member is that he wants to beat Charleton Heston for the president's position and bring the NRA back to what it once was. Do you honestly think that he will succeed in doing so, especially if the members know his position? I think he still has his hidden agenda for remaining as a member and I won't waste my time trying to figure it out.

In ending, I have to give out some interesting quotes from the movie:

"This is an American tradition. It's an American responsibility to be armed. If you're not armed, you're not responsible. Who's gonna defend your kids? The cops? The federal government?" (some real estate broker who was a member of the Michigan Militia)

"they scare you into doing...conforming you into doing good in school by saying 'if you're a loser now, you're a loser forever'" Matt Stone co-creator of South Park

"You're watching television. You're watching the News, You're being pumped full of fear. There's floods, there's aids, there's murder. Cut to commercial. Buy the Acura. Buy the colgate. If you have bad breath, they're not gonna talk to ya. You've got pimples. Girls not gonna f___ you. And it's just this, it's a campaign of fear and consumption. And that's what I think it's all based on. It's the whole idea that 'keep everyone afraid and they'll consume'. And that's, that's really as simple as it can be boiled down to." Marilyn Manson, rock singer

"Anger does well, hate does well, Violence does well. Tolerance, understanding and trying to be a little different than you were last year does less well." Cops show producer

And a definition of the word "documentary": 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

And my expectation of a documentary is that it should be unbiased and impartial. This film was neither in my view.

=============
June 30, 2004

Now that Michael Moore's even more controversial and fictitious movie about George W. Bush and how he's responsible for 9/11 is out, no doubt many people will flock to the theaters to be brainwashed in thinking that GWB has ties to Osama Bin Laden. But, if past history is any indication, beware of the lies and same type of manipulation to happen in this movie, to "lead" the viewer into believing in Moore's lies.

Get yourself informed and read the movies all over the web from the different newspapers. And read the articles and postings on www.MooreWatch.com . Dissect how the "facts" in the movie are presented to lead viewers into believing in "lies". Don't be conned.

=============
Thanks as always for taking the time to read this especially lengthy review.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV