Blogcritics: Comments on I Guess Moore's Point is... War is Bad?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:31:52 EDT

Cinematically, the film was pretty bad and in my opinion certainly didn't deserve a Palme d'Or. As to your question, though, yes, many people do "need to be told that." And he did go beyond just presenting his points generically as you did, naming names. Note that the people who "need to be told that" include Wolfowitz, who had a star turn slobbering over and tonguing his comb, then running that replusive mess through his hair, helping to clarify the meaning of the term "lick-spittle" when one of his flunkies then, bare-handedly, patted down Wolfie's spit-covered hair. It helps.

Comment by eileen

Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:20:36 EDT

If you want to know the point of this film you should realize that it's premise is that Bush has sent our young men and woman to die in a war based on lies. Saadam was NOT involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq(have we found them yet?). Also, Rodney, the premise of Bowling For Columbine was to support gun control, which hopefully could PREVENT school shootings.

Comment by Rodney Welch

Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:53:42 EDT

You sound like a Johnny-come-lately who's trying to cough up something interesting to say now that the film has been talked to death. One could just as easily put the old reductio ad absurdum spin on Moore's other films -- or ANY film -- if you were in a similarly pissy mood. So what were Moore's points in Bowling for Columbine? Hmmm... 1. School shootings are bad. 2. The NRA is insensitive to people who die from gun deaths. 3. We have too many guns in this country. Etc., etc., etc.

Comment by Aaron, Duke De Mondo

Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:17:14 EDT

Heh, whilst i don't agree that F*9/11 was boring, it certainly did lose focus a tad in the last half. But that synopsis of his next flick "so as we can go see the next bruce willis" was great, good sir. The Duke salutes you, good Pete.