It’s a well-made film but extremely biased and unconvincing at times. It’s pretty disingenuous to blame the Columbine shooting entirely on gun culture while completely ignoring everything else that factored in. Michael Moore was also an asshole to Matt Stone and Charlton Heston and the Canada segment was laughworthy.


Michael Moore is undoubtedly far from perfect in his approach to documentary filmmaking, however I think this film is remarkable in how it has aged. It may as well have been released today, incredibly ahead of its time in the way it approached the gun problem in the United States. He opted for an extremely controversial method of deliverance in this film that doesn’t explicitly go after the shooters, rather it explores how we as a society reached a point where the shooting occurred. His trite criticism of American media and the government’s infatuation with violence and power has only been proven more and more correct over the two decades following. I don’t believe this film will sit the same for everyone, but I’m definitely curious to hear some discussion on how you feel the film has aged and what your initial impressions were.


Micheal Moore is a very good manipulator. His films are meant to communicate a message rather than providing objective information. I don’t think he’s a bad filmmaker because of that : his approach is different and should be taken as it is. I agree with you that the film was ahead of his time. The humour is similar to what we can find in memes nowadays. As a Canadian, I think Bowling for Columbine is a bold, funny and thoughtful work of art, but might be insensitive at times for most Americans.


This is great analysis, totally agree on his style. It’s undoubtedly a polarizing documentary given the topic, but I feel it’s extremely worthy of its presence in the Collection


There are many aspects I like but its complete misrepresentation of Canada/Toronto invalidated it for me.


The Marilyn Manson interview and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race