100 freakin’ films. A hundred! When the
year began, I thought I would make it to the century mark only by
pure luck, but my number came up early. Man. I still haven’t
decided if this makes me a class-A loser or not, but I am pretty
sure that it does.
Partially because I had really wanted to see
this ever since I first saw the trailer for it, and partially
because my friend Yac responds to each and every Bellview by only
saying “Bell—‘Bowling for Columbine’”, I finally caught up with the
flick for a matinee today. Without a doubt, documentary filmmaker
Michael Moore’s latest film was worth the wait.
An often scathing look at gun control in the
United States, “Bowling for Columbine” is mostly an essay on our
nation’s obsession with firearms, and how this relates to our
out-of-control gun homicide rate, both before and after the tragic
events at Columbine High School in 1999. In a series of interviews
with experts, civilians, celebrities and victims of some of the
numerous violent tragedies of the last ten years, writer/director
Moore gives us a good picture of some of the problems the United
States has overcome and gives a glimpse of what to expect in the
near future.
“Bowling for Columbine” is very good
throughout, especially when it sticks to the topic that its title
most directly covers—the ridiculous number of fatalities caused by
firearms here in the United States. Going from firearms dealers all
the way to an interview with Charlton Heston, current head of the
National Rifle Association, then taking us through what I think is
never-before-seen footage of the two kids’ rampage through Columbine
from security cameras in the high school, to interviews with some of
the shooting victims from that day, the film is never boring.
Getting the perspective on what is was like to be at school one
morning and suddenly being caught in a hail of gunfire from your
fellow students was intriguing yet devastating, and watching a
parent of one of the victims from the day try to give a speech at a
rally was just sad. Moore backs the interviews with statistics out
the wazoo, and he really beats the media that covered the events
from the day into the ground by compiling a montage of shots from
news reports; our nation’s obsession with “If it bleeds, it
leads”-style newscasts really is depressing, isn’t it?
As good as the film is, though, it just
seems to sprawl on to cover almost anything crime-worthy, which from
a film perspective (especially a documentary) isn’t what I was
looking for. As an example, Moore correctly riffs on our media’s
obsession with profiling white suburban America’s constant fear of
the black man. I thought that this segment was very well done.
Does it belong in a documentary on gun violence? Yes, if it talks
about white suburban America’s obsession with gun violence amongst
members of the black community...but instead, Moore goes for an
interview with the executive producer of “Cops” to talk about why
his show always seems to feature white cops chasing down black
guys. In my mind, this is like seeing the lobby shooting spree
scene from “The Matrix” in a romantic comedy; maybe the action WAS
pretty sweet, but what is it doing in a film where boy meets girl,
boy loses girl, boy gets girl back? Moore does this more than once
and it makes his documentary over two hours long; he clearly has
enough to do another film on crime in America, but it doesn’t belong
in an argument that mostly deals with gun control.
For that matter, Moore seems to do what
almost every media person does when talking about crime—there are
only black people and white people. Latinos seems to get no
coverage here, odd given that they make up so much of our country’s
current population. Asians are left out altogether, which is
amazing to me. (Sure, a small part of the overall population,
but...) However, it cannot be denied—“Bowling for Columbine” is an
impressive film, if anything because it will leave you with plenty
to talk about when you leave the theater, and you are guaranteed to
learn something by watching this film. The film is showing pretty
much everywhere now, so if you can, sneak this one in as soon as you
can.
Rating: $9.00 Show
Comments? Drop me a line at
justin@bellviewmovies.com.
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Office Space").
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
half stars."
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard
Vice"-rated movies.)