The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It was excellent - very shocking, very satirical, very now. A lot better than reading his books, even though his style of writing is very apparent throughout the film. Plenty of clips of people shooting themselves and each other (most of them I'd seen before, which is quite disturbing), which I'm glad weren't censored because the reality and consequences of this type of crime should be shown. The one that really stood out was the protestor/rioter standing, topless, with his arms spread out, and he gets shot in the stomach by the police. Not sure which country it was - looked like Asia. The one where the woman was pushed to the floor and then shot happened at a funeral - it was the victim's ex-husband, and it was "shot" by a film crew that were covering a story involving them. Now THAT is reality TV!
It did feel at times that he was badgering his interviewees in that quick, sharp tone of his. Charlton Heston in-particular. Sure, he may be a racist, heartless nobcheese (which he proves), but he was also suffering from Altzheimer's, so it was a bit unfair of Moore to pursue him like that. Getting the result from Wal-Mart was amazing though! Just when they thought they were getting ignored, the execs suddenly come down and say they're withdrawing bullets from sale - result! They were discussing it all along, and it turned out good for Moore's cause and good publicity for Wal-Mart. Although it won't help the Columbine victims. Also, did anyone notice how disabled-unfriendly that Wal-Mart place was? A bit like SR Towers!
Something that I got in the books also appeared here - contradiction. There was a whole section of the film devoted to the media and right-wing Christian types trying to put the blame for their violent society on videogames and entertainment. But then Moore points out that some young kids are playing a lightgun arcade game - whose side is he on? One minute he's defending the videogame industry, then he's using it in examples. Just a small episode, but it's sloppy when compared to the facts and figures he can throw at us, seemingly at will.
But Canada rocks. They can leave their doors open and sleep safely at nights, even though they're just over a river from a major USA city (Delaware? - can't remember), and the only gun crime anyone could remember was when a guy from Delaware shot someone with a gun stolen from someone in Minnesota! And I don't think they did ever figure out why there was such a difference in crime rates, even though the population and amount of guns owned and lifestyle was very similar. The finger of guilt was mainly pointed at the media. Stories of killer bee invasions, and bubonic plagues were used as examples of how news channels scare-monger.
So who was to blame? Media? Turbulent and violent history? Politicians? Moore didn't seem to come to any real answers. But if he could find someone or something to blame then the Americans wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Like I said, it's a very good documentary - much more easy to digest than his books, which seem to drag. I enjoyed it a lot, although some parts you don't really "enjoy". Very educational, I hope it makes people more aware of how their countries screw them over.
It did feel at times that he was badgering his interviewees in that quick, sharp tone of his. Charlton Heston in-particular. Sure, he may be a racist, heartless nobcheese (which he proves), but he was also suffering from Altzheimer's, so it was a bit unfair of Moore to pursue him like that. Getting the result from Wal-Mart was amazing though! Just when they thought they were getting ignored, the execs suddenly come down and say they're withdrawing bullets from sale - result! They were discussing it all along, and it turned out good for Moore's cause and good publicity for Wal-Mart. Although it won't help the Columbine victims. Also, did anyone notice how disabled-unfriendly that Wal-Mart place was? A bit like SR Towers!
Something that I got in the books also appeared here - contradiction. There was a whole section of the film devoted to the media and right-wing Christian types trying to put the blame for their violent society on videogames and entertainment. But then Moore points out that some young kids are playing a lightgun arcade game - whose side is he on? One minute he's defending the videogame industry, then he's using it in examples. Just a small episode, but it's sloppy when compared to the facts and figures he can throw at us, seemingly at will.
But Canada rocks. They can leave their doors open and sleep safely at nights, even though they're just over a river from a major USA city (Delaware? - can't remember), and the only gun crime anyone could remember was when a guy from Delaware shot someone with a gun stolen from someone in Minnesota! And I don't think they did ever figure out why there was such a difference in crime rates, even though the population and amount of guns owned and lifestyle was very similar. The finger of guilt was mainly pointed at the media. Stories of killer bee invasions, and bubonic plagues were used as examples of how news channels scare-monger.
So who was to blame? Media? Turbulent and violent history? Politicians? Moore didn't seem to come to any real answers. But if he could find someone or something to blame then the Americans wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Like I said, it's a very good documentary - much more easy to digest than his books, which seem to drag. I enjoyed it a lot, although some parts you don't really "enjoy". Very educational, I hope it makes people more aware of how their countries screw them over.
Page:
Ahem... "poignant comment".
Look through my posts and you'll note a number of things I mention which are conspicuous by their absence. The only reason Moore doesn't mention, for example, the horrendous high school murders in Japan and German is that it'll dilute the effect of his American ones. It'll also greatly call into question his rapid dismissal of them having no gun crime despite violent histories and heavy video game usage. He wants to blame gun crime on The Man, and quickly, though totally ineffectively, dismissing any other reason needs to be done to let him run riot. From memory the other dismissal is that it can’t be due to broken homes as the UK has a far higher rate of divorce – but broken homes don’t necessarily arise solely for divorce considering the number of non-married parents, or parents that stay together but argue/fight/cheat/beat up their kids/whatever. To take each individually is also highly artificial… but it all sets up the rant Moore has in mind, so forget about actually looking at it seriously.
I'm not saying any of these things mean America hasn't got a huge gun problem, just that in looking at it Moore plays for nothing more than entertainment value, at the expense of a well presented and through investigation of an issue. A surprising number of people think he does the later, when he simply does not.
It's hard to give the other side of the story as Moore never really makes any sort of a point, other than "isn't the US FREAKED OUT!!!". He ambles between schlock tales, emotive voice overs and tweet stunts, without really saying very much at all. His climax? Bullying a confused old man. Granted, he has some shocking views, but Moore totally exploits Heston, again, failing to make any real point.
In the movie the most poiniot comment surprisingly comes from Marilyn Manson - when asked what he'd say to the people of Columbine he said something along the lines of too many people were busy making self-serving comments rather than actually listening to what the victims had to say. Take heed Mr. Moore - it's in your own movie after all.
I'm not saying any of these things mean America hasn't got a huge gun problem, just that in looking at it Moore plays for nothing more than entertainment value, at the expense of a well presented and through investigation of an issue. A surprising number of people think he does the later, when he simply does not.
It's hard to give the other side of the story as Moore never really makes any sort of a point, other than "isn't the US FREAKED OUT!!!". He ambles between schlock tales, emotive voice overs and tweet stunts, without really saying very much at all. His climax? Bullying a confused old man. Granted, he has some shocking views, but Moore totally exploits Heston, again, failing to make any real point.
In the movie the most poiniot comment surprisingly comes from Marilyn Manson - when asked what he'd say to the people of Columbine he said something along the lines of too many people were busy making self-serving comments rather than actually listening to what the victims had to say. Take heed Mr. Moore - it's in your own movie after all.
Just out of interest Dr Gonzo, in your view, what actually is the other side of the story when it comes to this topic?
Blank wrote:
> His voice overs aren't emotive at all, from what I remember, and I'd
> like evidence of figure "skewing".
Prime example - the gun death per country stats, which he flashes as meaningless totals rather than per head. Now, I've no doubt the US would still be the highest... but it wouldn't have that shock factor of jumping ten fold. You'd get a useful figure to make your judgment on... but Moore would get his gasp of horror at the useless figure that distorts the reality. For emotive, see later…
> He clearly states where everything is, what
> everything is etc. I didn't come away thinking the areas he visited
> were the norm, nor should anyone else.
He completely doesn't though. Obviously he says where he is, but it's as much about what he doesn't say. Why in his "Isn't Canada such a nice place" rant doesn't he mention the rather violent Toronto, which has plenty of gun deaths? Why doesn't he look into the reasons some US states have very low gun crime, but others don't? Oh, because then he could get off on saying how awful America is, rather than how it's managed to conveniently dump it's problems into small, contained areas rather than having to bother all the nice folks who can live in other States.
You see, in the across the river bit, he compares one of America’s most violent cities with one of Canada’ least. Why doesn’t he provide general crime stats so the viewer can see that one is just generally a safer place to live in regardless of guns? That’d dilute his point, that why! Who needs bother about presenting things honestly when there’s a movie to be made!
> And what, in your eyes, is serious, impartial journalism?
Joking? Michael Moore isn't that far away from Louix Theroux, but on a political rant. Michael Moore starts by going "Isn't America awful!!!", then finds ways of proving it. An impartial journalist would wonder about American gun crime and investigate it rationally, not leaping from tenuous point to tenuous point without actually every displaying anything worthwhile. For example – does he even mention the numerous similar high school killings in Germany while saying the historically war-mongering country has little or no gun crime? Ditto Japan? I don’t remember them even being mentioned – I remember endless montages of Columbine footage that did little but stir the emotions. Tragic event, granted, but treated impartially? Nope, hammed up for all it was worth. Cast goodies and baddies – NRA = evil, look at what they’ve done to this poor father. These were cases where the OTT presentation wasn’t necessary, the point was there for all to see. Ah, but that would play it at face value and not get the OUTRAGE!!! Moore is aiming for.
Michael Moore = great entertainer, but that's about it.
> His voice overs aren't emotive at all, from what I remember, and I'd
> like evidence of figure "skewing".
Prime example - the gun death per country stats, which he flashes as meaningless totals rather than per head. Now, I've no doubt the US would still be the highest... but it wouldn't have that shock factor of jumping ten fold. You'd get a useful figure to make your judgment on... but Moore would get his gasp of horror at the useless figure that distorts the reality. For emotive, see later…
> He clearly states where everything is, what
> everything is etc. I didn't come away thinking the areas he visited
> were the norm, nor should anyone else.
He completely doesn't though. Obviously he says where he is, but it's as much about what he doesn't say. Why in his "Isn't Canada such a nice place" rant doesn't he mention the rather violent Toronto, which has plenty of gun deaths? Why doesn't he look into the reasons some US states have very low gun crime, but others don't? Oh, because then he could get off on saying how awful America is, rather than how it's managed to conveniently dump it's problems into small, contained areas rather than having to bother all the nice folks who can live in other States.
You see, in the across the river bit, he compares one of America’s most violent cities with one of Canada’ least. Why doesn’t he provide general crime stats so the viewer can see that one is just generally a safer place to live in regardless of guns? That’d dilute his point, that why! Who needs bother about presenting things honestly when there’s a movie to be made!
> And what, in your eyes, is serious, impartial journalism?
Joking? Michael Moore isn't that far away from Louix Theroux, but on a political rant. Michael Moore starts by going "Isn't America awful!!!", then finds ways of proving it. An impartial journalist would wonder about American gun crime and investigate it rationally, not leaping from tenuous point to tenuous point without actually every displaying anything worthwhile. For example – does he even mention the numerous similar high school killings in Germany while saying the historically war-mongering country has little or no gun crime? Ditto Japan? I don’t remember them even being mentioned – I remember endless montages of Columbine footage that did little but stir the emotions. Tragic event, granted, but treated impartially? Nope, hammed up for all it was worth. Cast goodies and baddies – NRA = evil, look at what they’ve done to this poor father. These were cases where the OTT presentation wasn’t necessary, the point was there for all to see. Ah, but that would play it at face value and not get the OUTRAGE!!! Moore is aiming for.
Michael Moore = great entertainer, but that's about it.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Look to the people he interviews - a confused old man, someone
> implicated in terrorist activity, kids ditching school in Canada,
> people in a militant cult-like clan... these aren't Mr. Average
> American.
And he clearly says who and what they are. So what's your point? He's just putting the stuff out there, you make up your own mind.
> Look to the emotive voice over and pictorials. Look at how figures
> are nicely skewed.
His voice overs aren't emotive at all, from what I remember, and I'd like evidence of figure "skewing".
> Look at the total schmaltz involved in taking a
> shot kid to WalMart. Look at how he concertrates on the areas of
> America with the highest violence and presents them as the usual.
Does he present them as the usual? I don't think so. If you think "Wow, America must be really violent!" after seeing a clip of an incident in one place, that shows something about you and not the film maker. He clearly states where everything is, what everything is etc. I didn't come away thinking the areas he visited were the norm, nor should anyone else.
> These are nice stunts, not serious, impartial journalism.
And what, in your eyes, is serious, impartial journalism?
> Look to the people he interviews - a confused old man, someone
> implicated in terrorist activity, kids ditching school in Canada,
> people in a militant cult-like clan... these aren't Mr. Average
> American.
And he clearly says who and what they are. So what's your point? He's just putting the stuff out there, you make up your own mind.
> Look to the emotive voice over and pictorials. Look at how figures
> are nicely skewed.
His voice overs aren't emotive at all, from what I remember, and I'd like evidence of figure "skewing".
> Look at the total schmaltz involved in taking a
> shot kid to WalMart. Look at how he concertrates on the areas of
> America with the highest violence and presents them as the usual.
Does he present them as the usual? I don't think so. If you think "Wow, America must be really violent!" after seeing a clip of an incident in one place, that shows something about you and not the film maker. He clearly states where everything is, what everything is etc. I didn't come away thinking the areas he visited were the norm, nor should anyone else.
> These are nice stunts, not serious, impartial journalism.
And what, in your eyes, is serious, impartial journalism?
Yes, I was impressed with the film, and a bit shocked by the fact that you get a free gun when you open up a bank account. And Canada does indeed rock, as I used to live there, in fact was born there and will be going back there someday.
Regarding the doors - define "locked".
Most people in the UK (certainly that I've ever known) have a Yale-style lock, so that - even though the door would not be considered 'locked' - it can't be opened from the outside without a key.
In addition, most people have at least a mortis-style lock which they lock at night.
In Canada - it seems - that no-one has any real lock on their door during the day, so you can just go up, turn the handle and walk in. To me, that seems daft in this day and age. But I think it would be nice to live in such a place. Apparently it used to be like that here, or so my parents tell me.
I didn't see all of the film, unfortunately - only the last hour or so. And I didn't quite know what to make of it.
But the one thing I DID take from it, is that Charlton Heston is a grade-A a-hole.
Most people in the UK (certainly that I've ever known) have a Yale-style lock, so that - even though the door would not be considered 'locked' - it can't be opened from the outside without a key.
In addition, most people have at least a mortis-style lock which they lock at night.
In Canada - it seems - that no-one has any real lock on their door during the day, so you can just go up, turn the handle and walk in. To me, that seems daft in this day and age. But I think it would be nice to live in such a place. Apparently it used to be like that here, or so my parents tell me.
I didn't see all of the film, unfortunately - only the last hour or so. And I didn't quite know what to make of it.
But the one thing I DID take from it, is that Charlton Heston is a grade-A a-hole.
Blank wrote:
> People try to say that Moore is a liar, but they really don't
> have a leg to stand on. Moore asks questions, and all the shocking
> stuff comes straight from the mouths of those he is interviewing.
Look to the people he interviews - a confused old man, someone implicated in terrorist activity, kids ditching school in Canada, people in a militant cult-like clan... these aren't Mr. Average American.
Look to the emotive voice over and pictorials. Look at how figures are nicely skewed. Look at the total schmaltz involved in taking a shot kid to WalMart. Look at how he concertrates on the areas of America with the highest violence and presents them as the usual. These are nice stunts, not serious, impartial journalism.
> People try to say that Moore is a liar, but they really don't
> have a leg to stand on. Moore asks questions, and all the shocking
> stuff comes straight from the mouths of those he is interviewing.
Look to the people he interviews - a confused old man, someone implicated in terrorist activity, kids ditching school in Canada, people in a militant cult-like clan... these aren't Mr. Average American.
Look to the emotive voice over and pictorials. Look at how figures are nicely skewed. Look at the total schmaltz involved in taking a shot kid to WalMart. Look at how he concertrates on the areas of America with the highest violence and presents them as the usual. These are nice stunts, not serious, impartial journalism.
monkey_man wrote:
> He was showing the kids playing the gun game and said they were going
> to watch a Schwarzenegger movie. It was just a bit clumsy to portray
> it like that.
No, they said they just had seen End of Days, and when asked they said it did make them want to play the game.
It's not clumsy or contradictory, because he wasn't saying "This is how it is." It was showing the other side of the argument. He simply asked the kids and let them reply. As he did for most of the film. People try to say that Moore is a liar, but they really don't have a leg to stand on. Moore asks questions, and all the shocking stuff comes straight from the mouths of those he is interviewing.
I saw it for the first time on Saturday and was also very impressed with it, for that reason, mainly. You can't stick up for Heston or others, because no matter what Moore did, they said those things. Another point you could argue, is that if Heston has Alzheimer's disease, should he really be allowed to go around preaching about the benefits of gun ownership? In towns that have just had mass murders? With no disclaimer before his speech that lets everyone know he's a nutter?
> He was showing the kids playing the gun game and said they were going
> to watch a Schwarzenegger movie. It was just a bit clumsy to portray
> it like that.
No, they said they just had seen End of Days, and when asked they said it did make them want to play the game.
It's not clumsy or contradictory, because he wasn't saying "This is how it is." It was showing the other side of the argument. He simply asked the kids and let them reply. As he did for most of the film. People try to say that Moore is a liar, but they really don't have a leg to stand on. Moore asks questions, and all the shocking stuff comes straight from the mouths of those he is interviewing.
I saw it for the first time on Saturday and was also very impressed with it, for that reason, mainly. You can't stick up for Heston or others, because no matter what Moore did, they said those things. Another point you could argue, is that if Heston has Alzheimer's disease, should he really be allowed to go around preaching about the benefits of gun ownership? In towns that have just had mass murders? With no disclaimer before his speech that lets everyone know he's a nutter?
We lock our doors to protect our belongings, Americans lock their door to protect themselves.
I wasn't exactly shocked to see unlocked doors when people were home. I think in the UK most don't lock their doors. Perhaps at nights too.
Did anyone see him on Jonathan Ross' show awhile ago? He compared our fear of anyone being able to carry a gun (when you go to America) to Americans fearing our football hooligans. That made me think he was a prat, well like he said in his documentary the media hype everything even football hooligans so no wonder they scare Americans.
I wasn't exactly shocked to see unlocked doors when people were home. I think in the UK most don't lock their doors. Perhaps at nights too.
Did anyone see him on Jonathan Ross' show awhile ago? He compared our fear of anyone being able to carry a gun (when you go to America) to Americans fearing our football hooligans. That made me think he was a prat, well like he said in his documentary the media hype everything even football hooligans so no wonder they scare Americans.
Page: