>As long as it means a critical approach from the left wing >in terms of other people in the left wing. All you >leftwingers should quit the limp-wristed apologetics and >face the fact that this movie was shitty through and >through.
It was the highest grossing documentary ever. Something was on point.
> >In terms of it 'doing what it intended to do'... I have to >disagree. Its intention was marred by its presentation, >which was to provide a framework for justification of >American socio-cultural trends. It didn't do this. In fact >it bearly held itself together thanks to the half-assed >satire and unexplained leaps of logic that Michael Moore >(aka 'the fictition') presented. He never 'connected the >dots' to provide a direct correlation to anything, and as a >result the entire thesis is loose if not non-existent.
I thought he wanted to make a point about the prevailance of guns in America. I figured it out after five minutes.
>They let this dummy win the Academy Award because it looked >great for the republican fascists who could then claim that >'there are critics' and that 'they are recognized by and >large'.... however shitty and limited these critics might >be. So really Bowling For Columbine was a victory for the >right wing because it made the left wing look so awful by >default.
It's kind of hard not to notice a documentary that took in the amount of money Bowling for Columbine did. I'm pretty sure the other nominees were grateful for his film's success. Just think about what his movies will do and have already done for the genre.
*************************************** "Science" and Religion are the two most dangerous weapons of ideology. See holocaust.
Why do "scientists" constantly produce statistics based on "race", a social construct?