Michael Moore in a blue shirt and cap aiming a handgun with both hands indoors
Film review

Bowling for Columbine

2002 · Directed by Michael Moore · 2h 00m · MPA R

In a sentenceA man in a baseball cap asks America why it keeps shooting itself, and a bank hands him a free rifle

Michael Moore opens a bank account in Michigan and is handed a rifle over the counter as his free gift. From there he sets out to ask why Americans shoot each other so much more often than anybody else. He starts in Flint, Michigan, his home town, with the local militia, then drives to Littleton, Colorado, where two pupils killed twelve classmates and a teacher at Columbine High School on 20 April 1999. Richard Castaldo, who was shot that morning and now uses a wheelchair, talks to him. So does a missile plant outside the town. Moore has questions for Charlton Heston, then President of the National Rifle Association, and for television news, and he eventually crosses the border into Ontario to find out why nobody there locks their door.

Fi1m review

Moore’s film about American guns is funny, furious and, when it stops talking, properly horrifying. It is also an argument that keeps changing its own terms, and the stunts that made it famous are the parts that age worst.

The question is on the poster: are we a nation of gun nuts or are we just nuts? Michael Moore spends 120 minutes asking it, in Flint, Michigan, where he grew up, in Littleton, Colorado, where two boys shot up Columbine High School on 20 April 1999, and across the border in Ontario, where people own guns and do not seem to use them on each other. The film is angry, it is often very funny, and it is far better at showing than at proving. We think it is worth your evening. We also think it should be watched with your guard up.

It opens with the best joke Moore ever found, which is that he did not have to write it. A bank in Michigan gives you a rifle for opening an account, and Moore opens one, and walks out with the gun. What follows in the first half hour is a run of people saying things into his camera that no scriptwriter would have dared: militiamen, teenagers, a man who sleeps with a pistol under the pillow. Moore is good at this. He asks a plain question and waits, and people fill the silence.

Then he goes to Columbine, and the film changes. Kurt Engfehr cuts together the security camera footage from the school cafeteria, grey and silent, with the emergency calls from that morning laid over it, and holds it far longer than a news bulletin would. There is no music from Jeff Gibbs here and no narration from Moore. We were horrified, and it was the ordinariness that did it: tables, a drinks machine, children under the tables, and a voice on the phone asking someone to stay calm. Richard Castaldo, who was shot that day, sits in a wheelchair and answers questions without self-pity. These are the minutes the film is remembered for, and they earn it.

Engfehr is the film’s real weapon and its worst habit. His montage of American interventions abroad, including the removal of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, is cut to Louis Armstrong singing What a Wonderful World, and it is funny and cheap in exactly equal measure. An animated potted history of the United States, done as a cartoon, gets a laugh and settles nothing. The Canadian section is gentler and better. Mike Bradley, the Mayor of Sarnia, Ontario, sits in his office and explains that his town has guns and no dead schoolchildren, and Moore walks down a residential street trying front doors, which open. It is a stunt, but it is a stunt with a point.

The trouble is that Moore cannot decide what his point is. He rules out guns, because Canada has them. He rules out poverty and violent films and heavy metal, and he sits Marilyn Manson down to say so. He lands on fear, stoked nightly by local television news, and that section is the strongest case in the film. But he also wants the Lockheed Martin plant outside Littleton to be guilty, and a welfare-to-work scheme in Flint, and Charlton Heston personally. Arthur A. Busch, the county prosecutor in Flint, gives a careful, decent interview about a shooting involving a six-year-old, and Moore cuts away from him to chase Dick Clark across a car park because a company Clark part-owns is involved. The interview with Heston, at his own home, we will not describe. It plays as an old man being ambushed by a younger one with a camera, and the film’s case is weaker for it, not stronger.

Moore’s Roger & Me (1989) had one target and hit it. This has a dozen, and the editing is doing work the argument should be doing; several joins have been questioned since, and once you notice one you start looking for others. Most critics rate the film higher than we do, and we understand why: nothing this rude and this alive about guns had been put in a cinema before. But a film that asks to be believed has to play straight, and this one does not always.

See it for the people Moore stops and listens to, and for those grey cafeteria minutes, which have lost none of their force. When he starts to enjoy himself, you are allowed to look away. Certificate 15, and for once the certificate is not about the language.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

75
Positive
14
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics like Bowling for Columbine, and none dislike it outright. The reviews agree that Moore’s mix of savage comedy and real horror is the film’s engine: the animated history of the bullet, the K-Mart confrontation and the interview with Charlton Heston are named again and again as the sequences that land. Several credit it with reaching past guns to a wider argument about a country run on fear.

The reservations are about Moore rather than the material. Admirers and doubters alike call it scattershot; the more measured reviews go further: self-aggrandising, glib, loose with logic and inclined to fight too many battles at once. The Evening Standard notes a selective compression of the facts while still finding the whole powerful. The spread is narrow. The mixed notices from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Independent still find it disturbing and often funny, and hold back only because the method frustrates them.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · Andrew Collins
100

Moore leaves no stone unturned in exploring the root causes of America's gun deaths with humour and pathos. The film is important and outspoken, if uncomfortable to watch.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
17 May 2002
90*

Moore's emotive exploration of America's gun culture is a wide-ranging, often shockingly funny documentary that balances wicked wit with serious insight into paranoia and violence.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 November 2002 · Jon Ronson
90*

Moore's film is a brilliant polemic that interweaves macro and micro issues with archive material and savage comedy. It ultimately examines America's culture of fear.

Read the full review →
Variety
16 May 2002 · festival review · Lisa Nesselson
90*

The review describes the documentary as rollicking and incendiary, praising Moore's blend of research, satire and chutzpah while noting he is not objective. It highlights effective sequences like the animated bullet segment and K-Mart confrontation.

Read the full review →
Empire
· Alan Morrison
85*

Moore's documentary is a brave and important piece of filmmaking that asks difficult questions about America's gun culture and national psychology. The critic singles out the inventive K-Mart confrontation scene and the Heston interview for particular praise.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012 · Alexander Walker
80*

Moore's agitprop documentary records a vast volume of testimony about the high value placed on gun-owning and the low price of human life in America. The critic notes Moore's occasional scattergun approach and selective compression of truth but finds the overall impact powerful.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Bowling for Columbine worth watching?
Bowling for Columbine is worth watching for anyone with a stomach for a documentary that is funny, furious and not always fair, and we scored it 72. Moore is at his best when he lets ordinary Americans talk into his camera and when he falls silent over the Columbine cafeteria footage. Watch it with your guard up, because the editing does work the argument should be doing.
How long is Bowling for Columbine, and what is it rated?
Bowling for Columbine runs 2h 00m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a documentary and drama film.
Where can I watch Bowling for Columbine in the US?
Bowling for Columbine is streaming on The Roku Channel and Tubi in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $3.99. It leaves The Roku Channel on 1 October. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Bowling for Columbine, and is it suitable for children?
Bowling for Columbine carries a UK 15 certificate, and the rating is earned by its subject rather than its language. The film shows silent security camera footage from the Columbine cafeteria with emergency calls laid over it, held far longer than a news bulletin would, and we found it properly horrifying. It is not for young children, and teenagers should know what is coming.
How does Bowling for Columbine compare to Roger & Me?
Bowling for Columbine is the broader and messier film, and Roger & Me is the tighter of the two. Moore's first film has one town and one target and hits it; the later one has a dozen targets, from television news to Charlton Heston, and cannot settle on which is guilty. Start with Roger & Me if you want Moore at his most controlled, and come to this one for its people and its grey cafeteria minutes.
What should I watch after Bowling for Columbine?
After Bowling for Columbine, try Roger & Me (1989, Fi1m 78): Moore’s first film, one town and one target, and much the tighter for it. Then The Thin Blue Line (1988, Fi1m 90): Errol Morris proves a case patiently, which is the thing Moore will not do; and Elephant (2003, Fi1m 84): Gus Van Sant walks a school’s corridors on the day, and explains nothing.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 2003

Won
Best Documentary Feature Film

If you liked this, try…

  1. Roger & Me (1989, Fi1m 78)Moore’s first film, one town and one target, and much the tighter for it.

  2. The Thin Blue Line (1988, Fi1m 90)Errol Morris proves a case patiently, which is the thing Moore will not do.

  3. Elephant (2003, Fi1m 84)Gus Van Sant walks a school’s corridors on the day, and explains nothing.

  4. Bus 174 (2002, Fi1m 82)A Rio hostage crisis on live television, and the fear machine seen from Brazil.

  5. The Act of Killing (2012, Fi1m 88)Killers restage their crimes for the camera; the stunt has a moral purpose here.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever