Nonureva Really Surprised!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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).

ReelCheese Okay, okay. Before you dismiss me as some gun-toting right-wing zealot for my 8/10 rating, hear me out. I don't own a gun. I've never fired a gun. I don't even think I've actually held a real gun. For years gun control and strict licensing sounded pretty reasonable to me. What do guns do other than kill people?I had gradually softened on that viewpoint, but it wasn't until I watched MICHAEL & ME that I completely understood true spirit of the pro-gun argument. I was literally enthralled by Larry Elder's line of reasoning and the stories from everyday Americans he shared. He hammers home the point that as much as we might wish the need for guns as self defense didn't exist, it does. Just ask the rape victim Elder interviewed.Because of its title (referring to Michael Moore) and its pre-2004 election release date, MICHAEL & ME has basically be lumped together with a host of anti-Moore films designed to counter FAHRENHEIT 9/11. But Elder's work isn't really about Moore. Moore, whose views on the subject are shared by millions, is merely used as the embodiment of anti-gun arguments that Elder seeks to answer. Not everyone will agree with those answers, but it never hurt anyone to learn both sides of the story.

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.