Bowling For Columbine (2002)

I already had seen Michael Moore Hates America and other articles on this film so most of this I already knew something about. But I did find the contrast between the Columbine shooting scenes and then segue into the zero tolerance that seemed to permeate all schools at the time. I wonder if he realizes that much of that was paranoia brought about by anti-gun advocates as well as the liberal leftists. And in a way is a parody of his own film. No, doubt he would find the irony of his own inflated ego.

Then the next segue was even more hilarious at the short cartoon of "A Brief History of the United States of America". It claims that "Pilgrims" were afraid of being persecuted so they left for the USA. Well he starts out that they were just paranoid sons-of-bitches and were not really prosecuted ("so they would never be scared again"). "But as soon as they arrived, they were greeted by savages and they got scared all over again so they killed them all." First they were scared and left and now they got scared and were thus never harmed so "killed them all". They got scared of each other and burned witches, which I wonder if Michael understands history that Europe started these practices before even discovery of the new world and killed more WOMEN. There were no witches burned-stupid Michael. In 1775 they started killing the British. LOL stupidy Michael Moore. And still scared so they passed the second amendment so every WHITE MAN could keep his guns. Michael Moore-so free blacks could not own guns? Do you have proof? White people were afraid of doing work also so they started the slave trade. LOL-Idiot Michael Moore. Slavery made the US the richest country in the world. Actually we did not get to be rich until the industrial revolution-selling cotton was good but it would not have made us as rich as we are now. Of course we can thank the transfer of the wealth from the south to the north for much of that development also.

No coincidence between the NRA and the KKK they say but then the cartoon shows both groups working together. Then after the civil rights were gained by blacks the whites went fleeing to the suburbs because why-they were afraid again.

And everyone lived happily ever after.
MM: Or did they?

Filmmaker, author, and political activist Michael Moore trains his satirical eye on America's obsession with guns and violence in his third feature-length documentary, which gets its title from a pair of loosely related incidents. On April 20, 1999, shortly before they began their infamous killing spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended their favorite class, a no-credit bowling course held at a bowling alley near the school, the same bowling alley which would become the scene of a robbery and triple homicide two years later. While pondering these events, Moore humorously considers the link between random violence and the game of ten pins; along the way, Moore calls on the Michigan Militia (and gets to know some of the models for their "Militia Babes" calendar); spends some time with James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bombing accomplice Terry Nichols; visits K-Mart's corporate offices with two teenagers injured in the Columbine massacre as they ask the retail chain to stop selling bullets for handguns; investigates the media's role in the American climate of fear and anger; compares crime statistics in the United States with those of Canada (which, despite higher unemployment and a larger number of guns per capita, manages to rack up a small fraction of the homicides committed in the United States), and questions actor and National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston regarding his appearance at a pro-gun rally held in Littleton a few days after the Columbine massacre, and a similar rally in Flint, MI, after a six-year-old boy killed a classmate with a gun he took from his uncle's house. Bowling for Columbine received its first public screening at the 2002 Ann Arbor Film Festival; the film's official premiere took place a few months later at the Cannes Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Theatrical Feature Running Time: 119 mins

Bowling For Columbine (2002)

Micheal goes on and on about how US citizens are afraid of nearly everything including their shadow, but how does that long montage of fears propagandized by the MSM relates to having guns? Not much but then tries to paint Americans as racist pigs and the news media only gives a negative image of Blacks in our society. I wonder if this film is about guns or Michael Moore's hate of Americans. Uprooting the New Racism

He does go to Florence and Normandy and tries to show how safe it is. Of course during the middle of the day in that busy intersection he is perfectly safe. But I had a man after the riot stop his Mercedes in front of me and go to his trunk and pretend to take something out of it. Boy did that scare my fellow employee who was in the truck at the time.

LOL, The kissing capital of the world has a Fox radio station.

Lions for Lambs (2007)

Robert Redford directs this dramatic tale of intersecting lives that weaves together the stories of an idealistic professor's attempts to inspire a privileged student, a former student of the teacher who is wounded behind enemy lines in Afghanistan, and a congressman whose interactions with a seasoned journalist reveal much about the man behind the public persona. Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford star in a film scripted by Matthew Michael Carnahan. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

Theatrical Feature Running Time: 92 mins
Lions for Lambs (2007)

Wow! More liberal talking points in one film than I have ever seen. Of course full of cartoon characterizations of what some conservative points of view are and were. Clearly the only good war is a War with a Democratic President.

Lions for Lambs-Wiki

2007 film about a platoon of United States soldiers in Afghanistan, a U.S. senator, a reporter, and a California college professor. With a title that alludes to incompetent leaders sending brave soldiers into the slaughter of battle, the film takes aim at the U.S. government's prosecution of the wars in the Middle East. The film was written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, and directed by Robert Redford. It stars Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise. The film was released in North America on Friday, November 9, 2007, to mixed, but mostly negative reviews and disappointing box office receipts.

Well it was released to really bad box office receipts and released to DVD in a mere 5 months even though it had a lot of really top notch actors.

Lots of mentioning of Hearts and Minds in the film. I actually think the Afghanistan plan was kind of a novel idea at conquering the insurgents. Although logistics would be a nightmare in such remote areas up to and including medical help and basic supplies like shelter, food and water. Seems the drones and other surveillance measures would have been better than putting so many troops spread thinly across the territories.

Robert Redford thinks the film was not propaganda and from his perspective I am sure he thought it was balanced. But many of the leftest questions were not responded to in a thoughtful manner. It was kind of glossed over when obvious little slanders were slipped in by Meryl Streep.

One of the ironic aspects of the film was Redford's character was trying to get his students to not be apathetic and then when two of his minority students decided to join the Marines or special forces, he took it personally as a failure. But those two actually were putting their principles into action and were doing something for the country. So he wanted them involved but in a strictly liberal mindset.

Hearts and Minds (1974)

I am Peter Davis and I directed Hearts and Minds. My principle idea for H&M after a number of months of research really was to focus on 3 questions:
1. Why did we go to Vietnam?
2. What did we do there?
3. And what did the doing intern do to us?
I didn't expect the film to answer those questions.
Unfortunately it only gave a one sided view to those questions without looking beyond the propaganda from the left.

The title of this documentary was inspired by the mantra recited by those in charge of the Vietnam War: "In order to win the war, we must win the hearts and minds of the people." The failure to achieve this, coupled with the disastrous no-win policies of the higher-ups, is the nucleus of this film, put together by director Peter Davis in the same manner as Marcel Ophuls' The Sorrow and the Pity. Like the Ophuls film, Davis juxtaposes news footage of the Vietnam war with interviews conducted with its observers and participants, interspersing vignettes of the fatuous comments made by the generals and politicians. The film was briefly withdrawn from distribution when Walter Rostow, one-time advisor to President Johnson, insisted that his reputation had been damaged and demanded that the two minutes featuring Rostow on-camera be deleted. More controversy arose when Hearts and Minds won the Best Documentary Oscar, whereupon the Academy issued a statement--read during the awards ceremony by Frank Sinatra--that it did not condone or advocate the volatile statements made by the producers during their acceptance speech. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

Warning: This product is intended for mature audiences only. It may contain violence, sexual content, drug abuse and/or strong language. You must be 17 or older to purchase it. By ordering this item you are certifying that you are at least 17 years of age.

Theatrical Feature Running Time:
112 mins Hearts and Minds (1974)

The usual propaganda that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky would be proud to put their name on. Stuff like Ho Chi Minh was fighting for freedom and unification. Yes for a fictitious nation that was put together by the French. And note that not all were happy about unification as in:
Boat people
Operation Passage to Freedom

One hippie talks shit and blatantly lied about living through a napalm attack. Shows the director's standard for allowing lies into his supposed "documentary".

And yes I can see why Walt Whitman Rostow did not want his interview portion included in the film.

The question use to be: might it be possible that we were on the wrong side in the Vietnamese War? But we weren't on the wrong side, we are the wrong side.

BS! I don't see any people flocking to Vietnam.

Fail-Safe (1964)

Based on the novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail-Safe is set for the most part at Strategic Air Command headquarters, where a misguided transmission sends a squadron of bombers hurtling towards Russia, fully prepared to drop their atomic weaponry on Moscow. Air Force commander Frank Overton desperately tries to establish radio contact with the bombers, but once the pilots have passed the "fail safe" point, they've been instructed to disregard any reversal of orders. Racing against time, US President Henry Fonda, through his interpreter (Larry Hagman), informs the Russian premiere of the impending nuclear disaster. Working in concert with SAC, the Russians send up interceptors to shoot down the American bombers, while some of the planes run out of fuel and crash. Unfortunately, one aircraft, piloted by Edward Binns, manages to escape destruction and continues on its fatal mission. Realizing that Moscow is doomed, the President must decide how to avert World War III. Featured in the cast of Fail Safe are Walter Matthau as a hawkish scientist, Fritz Weaver as a round-the-bend colonel, and Dom DeLuise (billed as "DeLouise") as a weeping sergeant. Fail-Safe is followed by a government-dictated disclaimer insisting that the events leading up to the nuclear disaster depicted in the film could not possibly happen. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

Running Time: 112 mins
Fail-Safe (1964)

For a special feature it has a nice long documentary with various people including George Clooney.

Funny that this film and Dr. Strangelove both blamed the other for losing audiences. Maybe people did not want to watch more negative propaganda. But honestly the film was good except for the ridiculous graphics and the time frame is so instantaneous and the sense of urgency that is nearly unbelievable.

Herman Kahn was vilified in the movie. But really from his bio he was simply a realist that if nuclear war was to break out, we should not assume total nuclear war would be the end result. And thus we would need to do things to prepare for the aftermath. In fact the movie ends with the President of the USA using a nuclear bomb on New York city. Imagine what the repercussions of that would be??? Self destruction of our country by the President. That to me is the most shocking part of the film.