Diagonaldi Very well executed

ShangLuda Admirable film.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

groggo Filmmaker Michael Elder is opposed to Michael Moore's message in 'Bowling for Columbine' (i.e. there are too many guns in America). but he borrows many of Moore's techniques to tell his story: find enough people who support your thesis, play it to the hilt, and presto! you have a film. Elder uses examples of unarmed people who have been violated by gun-toters, and shows us they could have extricated themselves safely if they had been armed. This may or may not be true, but from that general premise, Elder jumps to a specific conclusion: because you never know when a bad person is going to come into your life with a gun, every red-blooded American man and woman should be armed and therefore dangerous. That's how you fight crime in America. As a Canadian, where rigid gun controls are supported by most, I kept asking the same question that many millions of people in this and other countries always ask: why do Americans find it so necessary to arm themselves with enough weaponry to launch a third world war? What causes this 'siege' mentality? Why does the National Rifle Association remain one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, one that routinely pays off politicians to ensure that America remains a gun-loving country? There are many 'whys' that come out of this film, but there aren't many answers. Root causes of crime and criminality are only superficially explored; finding out why America is such a violent country in the first place isn't on Elder's agenda. He's more occupied with 'liberty,' 'freedom,' and all things directly connected to one's constitutional right to bear arms -- everywhere, at all times, if I understand Elder correctly. This is a disturbing movie. Gun-loving Americans would probably not understand why someone would say that.

greencardink This film was an obscure one to me. I had not even heard of it until recently when a friend dropped it off for me to see. I was always curious on how Michael Moore could be so hypocritical to dismiss any blame from artist Marilyn Manson and place it on another artist (actor) Charlton Heston. I notice Bowling for Columbine never addrressed black crimes, and I found his editing style very fishy. I mean who else at the time really believed Canada the entire country allows people to walk into their homes.So this brings me to Michael and Me. Larry Elder intelligently and open-mindingly presents his view on his defense of gun ownership. When watching this film I laughed at the idiotic statements made by pedestrians who opposed gun ownerships, I gasped at the rape victim's story and her newly realized empowerment, I had also was amazed at the statistics showing Canada's suicide rate being high.This film may have not had all of the funding that Michael Moore had. In fact I believe Larry Elder put his own money into this project. It is a shame that this did not receive enough air time in theaters because I feel this film is a great rebuttal to Michael Moore's film.Common sense has been replaced with political actions. So what if one entire party stands for guns, that should not influence the other political party to be against it completely. Whats more is that we see a lot of hypocrites who oppose guns, and yet hire bodyguards who own guns (Rosie O'Donnell).Michael and Me is a great film. Lary Elder is brave to make a film against a commercial film like Bowling for Columbine. I believe if anyone is going to watch Bowling for Columbine, they should have this film as a companion piece. Michael and me is much more even handed with the issue of gun ownerships, and Larry Elder presents his material in a much more credible way than Moore has (no chopping of different footage to twist a person's words).

user-5376 Many of those who object to Elder's position engage in the same sort of logical fallacy that most anti-gunners rely on. The fact there are sensible restrictions on the sort of explosives you can own is NOT relevant to the debate about letting private citizens carry defensive handguns. The fact that you can't own a nuclear bomb doesn't mean everyone who agrees with that logical policy is pro gun-control. An analogy--if you agree that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you're for restrictions on free speech. No one really thinks that! What Elder is getting at is the simple fact that crime is only more likely to happen when law abiding citizens are prevented from carrying defensive weapons. Gun control punishes everyone and prevents wide swaths of people from carrying defensive weapons in a futile effort to keep a small percentage of the population from getting access to guns. Access that they get anyway, despite our best efforts. The bad guys are going to get guns whether we want them to or not; there's no benefit to society from preventing trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens from carrying defensive handguns. Every state that's allowed private citizens to defend themselves has seen crime go down, not up. As Elder proves, criminals certainly prefer you to be unarmed.

ddunn-2 This movie uses the Michael Moore name to try and sell a totally slanted propaganda piece that offers little insight to anyone who has not already staked-out a position on the gun control issue. The obvious counter arguments to most of the points made will leave anyone logical and sensible, a very frustrated viewer. A simple example: Should people be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons? If no, then you agree with weapons limitations. Should the average person be allowed to own and use 50 caliber sniper rifles that can shoot through cars? If no, then you believe in gun control. Now, let's discuss sensible gun control rules we can all live with. Spare me that nonsense that few rules are needed. If you think that way, you are simply a moron.Anyone can use extreme examples to make any point. One lady gets raped on day 2 of her 10 day waiting period. Of course they fail to mention the many hot-heads who are deterred from using guns in anger BECAUSE of that same waiting period. As I say, the counter arguments, which this film avoids, are glaringly missing. In this film, everyone who loves guns shoots straight, is always sober, and has keen judgment. Anyone who wants any sort of gun control is portrayed as an idiot. Don't waste your time with this one. There is nothing there.