In reviewing the Michael Moore movie, "Bowling For Columbine," I am going to provide you with information about myself, which Moore does not do, in order to give you, the reader, an idea of where I am coming from.

You see, I am a Republican. I have a degree in Political Science from the University of Colorado @ Colorado Springs. Since I have had the right to vote, gained in 1992, I have voted in three Presidential elections. Every time, I voted Republican, Bush the elder, Dole and Bush the younger. I do not think I am a radical right wing religious fanatic; the same which are grown around the Colorado Springs area, thanks to Dr. Dobson and his religious nuts up at The Compound, a.k.a. Focus on the Family. Yet, I am a republican, and I think Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents in the last 50 years.

I am sure you are asking yourself, "Why do I need to know his politics to read a movie review?" Well, my dear readers, I will tell you. When you watch a documentary, or in Michael Moore's case, "documentary," you need to know from what point of view the director, producer or the subject of the film is coming from. Such is the case with Errol Morris' film "The Fog of War."

It is assumed documentaries are factual, BUT they are only factual in as much as what the director wants you to perceive as being factual. This is key in watching any documentary, asking yourself, "What is the point of view of the director?"

Now, in the USA, the director of a movie has a right to show only his point of view and say, "The hell with the other side of the story." That's what makes this country great. You can criticize your government. However, it is my hope the viewer of a documentary understands these films adopt a point of view. In my opinion, when a director of a documentary does not show both sides of a story then he or she is being irresponsible and is deliberately trying to manipulate the audience. I realize I am damning myself by using the metaphor, "a fair and balanced view." I ask the general documentary film audience to keep an open mind when they watch these films and realize there are two sides to every story.

It is because of that reason I can not recommend "Bowling For Columbine" as a watchable movie. While Moore makes a few valid points about problems of the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment, he does not give an equal and accurate description of problems with gun violence. He manages to blame everything on the NRA, depicting anybody who offers an alternative to HIS answer for firearm control as a gun nut, racist or an idiot. He also shows his politics way to often and blames people for their political affiliation, not on actual evidence. He even manages to blame George Bush the younger for gun violence even though he wasn't even a presidential hopeful during the Columbine High School shootings.

However, Moore ignores the fact that the decade when most of these school shootings took place was during Clinton's administration. Does he criticize Clinton? What do you think? If you haven't seen this movie, don't. The few mole hills of good information is out weighed by the Mount Everest of personal opinions and generalizations, moving this film from the land of documentary to the land of political agenda. Moore's bias is just to powerful to make this a credible movie.

Brian - the Naked Gun