Lord of War (Fascinating Movie)


PDA






MrDig
January 20, 2006, 03:24 PM
This film really isn't an indictment of Gun Ownership or RKBA as much as an embellished look at Small Arms Trafficking in West Africa. It is a discussion of the problems (Human Suffering)that Illegal Small Arms trafficking creates. I say embellished due to the fact that it seems improbable that one person experienced all of the events in the film. The character is more of an amalgam of Gun Runners. The Depictions are brutal and graphic, and many of the Characters including Nicolas Cage's are unlikable, showing only occasional human characteristics. This is intentional since they are Gun Runners, Petty Dictators and War Lords.
Gun Runners and Drug Traffickers are not the kind of people I am sympathetic with.

There is a serious flaw in the Extras DVD however, in one of the extras it states that an M-16 fires a 7.62 round. Imagine my surprise to discover that my D.I.'s were giving me the wrong ammo to shoot in my weapon!!!
A watchable movie but disturbing imagry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lord of War (Fascinating Movie)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tequila_Sauer
January 20, 2006, 03:28 PM
I REALLY liked this movie, it's one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. Nicholas Cage is great as a man who views relationships as either business associates or means of possession. His dedication to supplying Wars has left him hollow and without purpose.

Great movie.

Rem700SD
January 20, 2006, 03:51 PM
I thought the movie swung a bit left/hollywood at times, but the ending brought things more into perspective. I think that the movie was based loosely on an actual Ukranian gun runner. He was living in South Africa until a group of men broke into his house commando-style a few years back iirc. I don't recall his name, however. His "cover" was that he managed an airfreight company.

There was a scene in which a woman was hacked to death by soldiers while Cage was negotiating a gun deal. The scene occured in Africa(uganda?). I was disturbed not so much by the blood shed, but that the characters made no comment that the lack of weapons obviously had no effect on the violent climate.

MachIVshooter
January 20, 2006, 11:53 PM
I bought this film the other night. It was OK, but if I had it to do over again I'd wait for it to show up on the $6.99 pre-veiwed shelf, instead of dropping $20.

It wasn't all I'd expected, but it also wasn't the anti-gun diatribe I had feared it might be.

Lupinus
January 21, 2006, 12:20 AM
I rented it the other day and really liked it. A movie you really have to watch and pay attnetion to though to follow it.

Nightcrawler
January 21, 2006, 12:51 PM
I was disappointed. From the previews and the first half of the movie, I thought it was going to be a black comedy. The humor was obvious.

Then...well, then it got all preachy. Including having the "did you know..." text at the end of the screen...ugh. Please. I don't need some film producer preaching to me.

Had it made up its mind regarding what kind of movie it wanted to be, it could've been a lot better, I think. I didn't know what to make regarding the obvious pot-shot taken at Oliver North. I was more concerned with Transformers when that whole affair was going on, in any case.

The INTERPOL agent, Jack Valentine? God, you just wanted to slap him. All self-righteous with the slight lisp in his voice. That character was pretty well done, actually.

Phaetos
January 21, 2006, 02:02 PM
I just watched it myself a few days ago. Not what I was expecting, but better than I had hoped it would be. I thought it was a rather smart film.

texasguy
January 21, 2006, 03:18 PM
I liked it, I thought it was a good movie. I didn't at the least bit feel like it was anti-gun, I felt that it was anti-kalashnikov. But that gun is what it is. cheap, reliable, deadly.

Lucky
January 21, 2006, 03:35 PM
Was a little preachy, but still cool.

Biggest gripes:

#1 They don't show the cartridge case forming process. I REALLY want to see how they turn the disc of brass into a case.

#2 Except for 1 quick scene the fact that machetes are weapons of mass destruction is ignored. No-one EVER mentions the possibility that you could defend yourself with a firearm, only that you can murder others. I think they could have pointed out that since there ARE murderers with rifles, it makes sense that those likely to be murdered would want firearms too!


If I was Nick I'd have told that prissy Interpol bastard that he GOT what he wanted in Rwanda, they left the people disarmed and helpless, and the international community showed JUST how much they care. So Interpol could go ???? themselves because THEY are just as responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths since they could have stopped them IF they cared.

And that interpol guy showed how responsible he handles weapons when you fire a 2 second burst of cannon-fire from an aircraft into another aircraft, as a warning shot. (and the cannon fire did remarkably little damage)

mbs357
January 21, 2006, 04:06 PM
They might have mistaken the AR-10 for the M16...

Carl N. Brown
April 19, 2006, 12:00 PM
Not only did the DVD extras have spex for the M60 under the M16,

BUT

my son would love one of those AK47s with the LEFT side ejection
port :D since he is left handed.




Machetes are NOT being ignored:
Massachusetts was talking about requiring a police permit to own
a machette, and requiring a "show need" for brush removal.
Anything you can do wrong with guns (or machetes) is already
illegal, and the restrictions on legal ownership only hinder
legitimate uses.

BigG
April 19, 2006, 12:09 PM
Here's my take: The Lord of War. (http://www.epinions.com/content_227098267268)

There were numerous firearms bloopers but nothing somebody unknowledgeable would catch. It was neither pro nor anti gun, imho. It was showing a guy who did what he did and didn't apologize.

:)

Carl N. Brown
April 19, 2006, 12:10 PM
THR > Social Situations > Legal and Political
> Hollywood Lobbies U.N. on Gun Control

Boom-stick
April 19, 2006, 12:56 PM
I enjoyed the film the other night, I did notice most of the faults listed above along with what looked like un-primed rifle cases laying in the war zone in the opening sequence:confused:

I laughed on the 'extras making of' on how that it was easier to buy 3000 AK's from an Arms Dealer than hire them for the filming??

And that they could only use the tanks (All owned by one dealer)for a few more days as they were being shipped out for use in a warzone.

Creeping Incrementalism
April 19, 2006, 12:58 PM
This film really isn't an indictment of Gun Ownership or RKBA as much as an embellished look at Small Arms Trafficking in West Africa.

This movie is an indictment of RKBA, even if it focuses on evil dictators. Consider these specific incidents:


The "how do we arm the other 11?" joke obviously implies that arming people is a bad thing.
An evil warlord jokes that the gun runner is the true warload ("lord of war").
The movie opens with a kid getting shot between the eyes by an AK in Africa
In Lebanon, it shows a child up against a wall being executed by (I believe) AKs
In Liberia, it shows child soldiers armed with AKs
The good-guy INTERPOL agent calls guns worse than nuclear weapons (since the nukes are in silos while the guns are currently shooting peole)
No legitimate defensive uses of guns are showed, other than the good-guy INTERPOL agent carrying one around with him.
The Liberian dictator forces the gun runner to execute someone, simply by grabbing his hands and forcing him to pull the trigger.


The makers of the movie made children so prominant to truly disgust viewers, and so viewers would associate that disgust with guns.

Gallingly, the movie does all this while showing machetes being used to kill innocent people, but only as a stop-gap until guns are available, and not preaching against machetes at all. It's so galling because the movie focuses on Africa, and we all know what happened in Rwanda. Basically, the movie implies the fooling notion that if guns were outlawed, most of the killing in Africa would stop.

Yes, the film focuses on international arms dealers, and evil 3rd-wrold warlords as the true evil, but it calls guns the be-all and end-all enabler.

'Card
April 19, 2006, 12:59 PM
Everything since Raising Arizona has been pretty much downhill for Nicholas Cage.

"I ain't gonna be payin' for these here Huggies."

jason10mm
April 19, 2006, 01:09 PM
I thought it was utter crap. Maybe I was trying to hard, but I found TONS of anti-gun things in this fiilm. Starting with the bullet we follow to Africa that gets shot and misses all the fighters to hit some kid in the head, continuing to Cage not letting his son have a toy pistol, to the warlords waiting till they had rifles to massacre a village when they could have easily done it with machetes. Yeah, the main point is a condemnation of international arms trading, but they still focus on the GUN, not the act itself.

Besides all that, the film itself was boring, poorly paced, there was no chemistry between the leads, Nic looked asleep most of the film (which works for him on occasion, but not here), and in the end just didn't have much of a point.

seeker_two
April 19, 2006, 02:44 PM
Thanks for the info. I'll be skipping this particular film--7.62-firing AR's and all... :rolleyes:

Africa will never see peace until Sally Struthers & the CCF put the rice bags on hold and start shipping GUNS to the good guys... :fire:

rbernie
April 19, 2006, 07:00 PM
Everything since Raising Arizona has been pretty much downhill for Nicholas Cage.+1. :D

Ruger451
April 20, 2006, 03:25 AM
The "how do we arm the other 11?" joke obviously implies that arming people is a bad thing.
An evil warlord jokes that the gun runner is the true warload ("lord of war").
The movie opens with a kid getting shot between the eyes by an AK in Africa
In Lebanon, it shows a child up against a wall being executed by (I believe) AKs
In Liberia, it shows child soldiers armed with AKs
The good-guy INTERPOL agent calls guns worse than nuclear weapons (since the nukes are in silos while the guns are currently shooting peole)
No legitimate defensive uses of guns are showed, other than the good-guy INTERPOL agent carrying one around with him.
The Liberian dictator forces the gun runner to execute someone, simply by grabbing his hands and forcing him to pull the trigger.

I don't think these points indicate an indictment of the RKBA, keep in mind, they happen in AFRICA. The film really assaults the impact of small arms trafficking in violent third world countries, but these people are not given the RKBA. It may be anti-gun, but it has nothing to do with OUR rights as citizens of this country.

Oh, and the child at the beginning is shot on purpose, because he was a combatant in the depicted battle, and somebody shot him. He wasn't innocent, he was holding an AK. The film DOES also criticize the use of children in third-world warfare, which I beleive has merits as an argument.

BigG
April 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
The "how do we arm the other 11?" joke obviously implies that arming people is a bad thing.
An evil warlord jokes that the gun runner is the true warload ("lord of war").
The movie opens with a kid getting shot between the eyes by an AK in Africa
In Lebanon, it shows a child up against a wall being executed by (I believe) AKs
In Liberia, it shows child soldiers armed with AKs
The good-guy INTERPOL agent calls guns worse than nuclear weapons (since the nukes are in silos while the guns are currently shooting peole)
No legitimate defensive uses of guns are showed, other than the good-guy INTERPOL agent carrying one around with him.
The Liberian dictator forces the gun runner to execute someone, simply by grabbing his hands and forcing him to pull the trigger.

Wow. Creeping paranoia? Those were black humor, showing what an SOB Cage's character was. Also, the Interpol guy LOST, he was not the "hero," he was depicted as a schmuck.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 20, 2006, 12:33 PM
Funny how the message of the movie is automatically (even by the filmmakers) is automatically to assume that guns are bad.

I thought the real message it sent was pretty clear:

The real reason why Yuri was in business to begin with, was because
a sizable portion of the world's population just suck. The crappier the
country, the higher probability that a larger portion of the people suck.

Carl N. Brown
April 20, 2006, 07:27 PM
I really do not tink that making guns magically disappear
would make a world with despots the like of the character
modeled on Charles Taylor safer for his victims: witness
the machette massacre in the film.

Guns are not evil, some people are.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2006, 01:57 PM
Victor Bout, who became famous for running guns into
improvised air strips in Africa in exchange for raw diamonds,
is a Russian national. Leonid Minin, arrested in Milan, Italy
on August 5, 2000 for selling arms to the Revolutionary
United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, is from Ukraine.
-- Hollywood Lobbies U.N. on Gun Control
by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006

THAT DOES NOT MATTER.
Hollywood blames a fictional American Yuri Orlov.
IANSA blames the NRA.
The Victor Bouts and Leonid Minins are NOT in the
crosshairs of Hollywood or the UN, us NRA hunters ARE!

from my letters-to-the-editor archives

Carl Naaman Brown - 2003 Aug 24 -- UN and Guns

The official U.S. government delegation objected to U.N.
language against private ownership of personal firearms
by civilians. The language on private ownership was the
subject of protracted debate. The U.S. delegation did
support policies aimed at illegal international trafficking
in small arms which was supposed to be the subject of the
conference.

The International Action Network on Small Arms is an
umbrella organization of 500 world-wide gun control groups
with widely different agendas founded in Britain in 1998,
the year after the law was passed in Britain ordering the
confiscation of all legally registered handguns. Flush with
that success in Britain, the gun control movements did
indeed lobby the U.N. to intervene in private ownership of
guns within the borders of other copuntries including the
U.S. under the color of controlling illicit trade in small
arms. IANSA whose spokesperson is Rebecca Peters (whose
proudest achievement was the 1996 confiscation and destruction
of 640,000 firearms registered to lawabiding Asutralian
citizens), is financed by George Soros, an international
billionaire with his own visions of a world restructered
to his ideas. See iansa.org

(percent morphed in rate)
During the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and
Light Weapons, July 9 to July 20, 2001, the Coalition for
Gun Control told the U.N.: "In the United States, where gun
control is almost a dirty word, the number of homicides by
handguns is 62.4 per 100,000...." According to the FBI Uniform
crime reports, the U.S. homicide rate BY ALL MEANS was six
(6) per 100,000 per year, of which 62.4 percent were by
shooting, making a handgun homicide rate of 3.6 per 100,000
per year, NOT 62.4. This statistical trickery prompted the
National Rifle Association of America to seek certification
with the U.N. as a non-government organization (NGO) to
answer the gun control groups. The UN granting NGO status
to NRA upset IANSA and HCI.

The U.N. had to issue a pamphlet stating: "The focus of the
conference is on illicit trade in small arms, not the legal
trade, manufacture or ownership of weapons, The U.N.
conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to
legally own and bear arms."

Illegal trafficking in weapons is exemplified by the siezure
in Oakland, California, of two thousand AK47 full-automatic
assualt rifles from the Chinese freighter Empress Phoenix in
1996, and a similar seizure of a shipping container in San
Diego labelled "sewing machine parts" that contained machineguns
and grenades. It is suspected these seizures were just a
fraction of the illicit smuggling of bootleg weapons to
criminal gangs. This is an example of the problem the U.N.
and Kofi Annan wanted to address: the illicit traffic for
unlawful use.

On the handgun ban in Britain, the Centre for Defence Studies
at King's College, London, reported: "....the short-term impact
strongly suggests that there is no direct link between the
unlawful use of handguns and their lawful ownership."'
Ann Pearston, founder of the Snowdrop Campaign to ban handguns
in England, answered: "This completely misses the point of what
we were trying to do. We never thought that there would be any
effect on illegal gun crime, because that is a totally separate
issue.... What we were campaigning for was to make sure that a
civilian could not be legally trained to use a handgun."

The international gun control groups want to hijack
the U.N. policy on illicit small arms trade to achieve their
utopian goal of a world free of legal gun ownership,
a world where only governments and criminals would have arms.
This fact has to be faced before a workable policy on
illicit traffic can be formulated.

-----------------------------------------------------
Counting words in un&guns
Words: 567 over 1 chars; Total Words: 606

Reasonable control to prohibitionists is always prohibition.
The effect of international gun control is a world where
the law-abiding are disarmed, and only governments and
outlaws, the Charles Taylors and Idi Amins, have arms.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lord of War (Fascinating Movie)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!