Michael Moore's view on what happened to the United States after September 11; and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The United States of America is notorious for its astronomical number of people killed by firearms for a developed nation without a civil war. With his signature sense of angry humor, activist filmmaker Michael Moore sets out to explore the roots of this bloodshed. In doing so, he learns that the conventional answers of easy availability of guns, violent national history, violent entertainment and even poverty are inadequate to explain this violence when other cultures share those same factors without the equivalent carnage. In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Michael Moore takes on a deeper examination of America's culture of fear, bigotry and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership. Furthermore, he seeks to investigate and confront the powerful elite political and corporate interests fanning this culture for their own unscrupulous gain.Written by
Kenneth Chisholm (firstname.lastname@example.org)
The Willie Horton ad from the George Bush-Dan Quayle campaign shown during the film is actually two separate ads spliced together. The footage was removed from the VHS version of the film, but not the DVD. See more »
The cashiers at K-Mart are not trained nor are they required by company policy to check the identification and credentials of each customer that buys ammunition. This is because they have stores worldwide and the laws for selling ammunition are different per state, and can change on an annual basis. See more »
You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. We need to control the bullets. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders. Every time somebody get shot they'd be like, "Dang, he must've did somethin'! Shit, they put fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!" And people would think before they killed ...
See more »
There is no cast list, either at the start of the film or at the end. People are credited either by subtitle, by the narrator or by themselves. See more »
In the theatrical release, a caption was inserted into a 1988 Bush-Quayle ad, "Revolving Doors," which read "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." In the DVD release, the caption reads "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Neither version makes it clear that the text was not part of the original ad. See more »
This movie was entertaining and interesting, but in certain ways it left me wanting. Michael Moore himself is somewhat irritating, and I found myself wishing he kept more to the background than he does. At the same time, the conclusions that he draws are compelling and pragmatic. This movie was not designed to be an argument. It was not designed to sway the viewer. It was designed to fuel the fire of the already convinced. Though I think that this is Moore's intent (concluded from interviews I've read), I feel that goal could be reached at the same time as convincing a few fence-sitters, and that would have made the film more powerful.
I have two main complaints regarding this movie:
First, I felt that Michael Moore sometimes crossed lines in his interviews that in no way seemed to further his cause or drive his point home. He interviews people as though looking for his answer, not their answer, and particularly seemed to be trying to strike a blow at the conservative masses. I thought this distracted the genuinity and plausibility of the conclusions that he drew. It must be said that the conclusions that Moore drew are of a nature that strikes at conservative politics. However, I felt that the facts he represented spoke for themselves, and that the blows should not have been dealt to conservative interviewees by asking questions designed to get emotional responses out of them.
Second, I found some of the statistics needed to be qualified with per capitas or percentages. When comparing the United States to England, for instance, it is important to take population differences and density into consideration. Straight statistics do not apply. I think the statistics were somewhat skewed by this oversight, however according to some rough guesstimates I made, it wouldn't have diminished Moore's point, only made it less dramatic (which would, indeed, have strengthened his case).
These two complaints hint at an even larger problem, however, and that is this: Because Moore presents his case in this way, he can never hope to have his message truly heard by anyone who isn't already on his side.
126 of 222 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this