Re: "Bowling for Columbine" - How graphic....

I don't remember any graphic scenes, honestly. I believe there were some 'save-these-children-with-only-3-pennies-a-day' shots to showcase poverty conditions - but nothing graphic. My memory may be fooling me.

Watch it - you won't regret it - even if you do disagree.

I don't remember anything that is too graphic in this movie... it is certainly nothing like what you would see in a horror movie.

I think there were a couple of clips of Columbine and the aftermath. I don't think there was anything you wouldn't see in network news. There may have been one montage of violent images culled from the popular media (this stuff doesn't phase me so I might not be remembering something..)

Most of the movie is based on ironic interviews. The highlight of the movie is a very entertaining, but kind of unfair interview with Charlton Heston.

In my opinion it is worth watching.

It is not too graphic, but it is too long. But that's another issue.

the most frightening scenes are the ones with Dubya Bush Jr and the school children.....That's our president?
*shivers

Aren't you thinking of "Farenheit 9/11" instead of "Bowling for Columbine?"

Both films are admitted polemics and the only graphic scene is watching supposedly smart Heston being royally baited and falling for it. His sour-faced smugness was enough of a message to make the interview quite fair in my opinion. Not someone I would care to know.

"F-9/11" does have some graphic scenes but they are kept at a minimum and not played on as one would believe. Those who criticize both films seem to be those who haven't even seen them.

Bowling was good....F 9/11 stunk/.

Bowling will open your eyes. Whether you like Bush or not.

Yeah, just agreeing with everyone else, in that I can't recall any graphic scenes in Bowling for Columbine. Granted it's been a while since I saw it, but still, I don't think it's all that violent.

Aren't they really the same flick?






And no, I still haven't seen either, LW.

No. No no no. No. No no. NO.

And NO.

Oh, and did I mention NO? Jeez, people and their false pretenses...

The trees continue to be in the way of the forest.

Is a "false pretense" different that a "real pretense"? Just curious.

I guess as different as false teeth are to real teeth.

So then a false pretense is no pretense at all. Gotcha.

No, false teeth are still teeth. They still can chew up the scenery.

Well, when using the defintion "a right asserted with or without foundation; a claim," then yes, they are different.

But, Tico, I'll give you the answer you're just dying inside to hear instead:

Wow, you're right, there's no difference at all. I'm such a moron!!! Please save me from myself!! You're so much better than I am!!!!!!!

(Provided you've used lots of Polident!)

Thought not. (You are talking about the movies right; not the pretenses or the dentures?)