Rediscover Communication

I just finished the "Bowling for columbine" movie last night. It has been residing on my hard drive for 6 months or so now, but I just haven't gotten around to it until last night. I have to say I was surprised by it. Not so much in the content of it, because it is all stuff I have heard before, but I was surprised because I was expecting more liberal invective. It was more straightforward than I expected. That said, I thought that it was a little disappointing. There was a real lack of actual information and well-drawn conclusions. He brings up many questions and never really answers them. Asking Canadians what is wrong with Americans really seemed to be a pointless discussion... It just didn't go anywhere and didn't really answer anything. They just went on and on about how canadians don't lock their doors. I thought its main failing was that it spent far too long appealing to the emotions of its viewers, and making people fit into recognizable categories. There was the token extremist militia member (the Nichols guy) the downtrodden minority person (the mother of the 6 year old shooter), the insensitive rich white male (Charlton Heston), and a list of other archetypal members of society. It was obviously edited to make the people appear to be more extreme than they really were (did he get the Nichols guy drunk? he looked pretty sauced right before he went into his bedroom and put the gun to his head...).
I thought that things were too contrived emotionally... getting Kmart to stop carrying ammunition in its stores seemed like a publicity stunt. Shot after shot of abandoned houses in a late-fall rain, muddy running tracks and leaving pictures of dead children on doorsteps didn't contribute to his point (what WAS his point in the end? I really am confused... please comment), and only served to instill an emotional response.
So anyhow, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't nearly as good as it has been advertised.

Comments? What did others think about it?