Tomac
Member
Idaho is a "shall issue" state, I see almost as many CCW permits presented for ID as I do DL's.
Tomac
The Brave One
- Thread starter CZ223
- Start date
- Status
Idaho is a "shall issue" state, I see almost as many CCW permits presented for ID as I do DL's.
Tomac
(Sigh) I dislike going to "hot-button" issue movies. I feel like I'm getting duped. P.T. Barnum behind the curtain?
I may go out to see this movie though just to see what the hubbub is all about.
I am getting the feeling that this movie isn't so much anti-gun; but rather about vengeance. We as the firearms owning community should make that CLEAR demarcation between responsible firearms ownership and vengeance and vigilantism. The latter two being clearly unacceptable; and the former that must be clearly defined and strictly adhered to.
There are extremely few reasons to shoot someone. Can't believe I'm so serious so early on this thing. I need my coffee.
I may go out to see this movie though just to see what the hubbub is all about.
I am getting the feeling that this movie isn't so much anti-gun; but rather about vengeance. We as the firearms owning community should make that CLEAR demarcation between responsible firearms ownership and vengeance and vigilantism. The latter two being clearly unacceptable; and the former that must be clearly defined and strictly adhered to.
There are extremely few reasons to shoot someone. Can't believe I'm so serious so early on this thing. I need my coffee.
Jodie Foster's life bears about as much resemblance to mine as George Bush's. In my opinion, neither of their opinions on moral matters is as valid as mine, nor as relevant. I would as soon ask an elm tree for advice.
That said, it's just a friggin' movie. If it's entertaining, watch it. If it's not, don't.
That said, it's just a friggin' movie. If it's entertaining, watch it. If it's not, don't.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Dunno. It was an excellent, thorough review.
So last night there was some movie review show on. It was a british chick and some dude. Have no idea who they were but they must not be too popular because they were on at like 1 a.m.
Anyway, the British chick starts going off about how violence does not deserve violence, how people should not take the law into their own hands and how this movie paints new york as the wild west with people having guns and getting shot, etc...
All I was thinking is that this woman was clueless. People DO get shot in NYC on a regular basis. People DO have guns in NYC. And guess what lady, ITS OKAY TO HAVE THEM!!!
Sorry, but this woman really got to me. I want to hear political conversation from movie reviewers about as much as I want to hear financial advise from the dude asking me for spare change on the corner.
Her comments almost made me want to go see this movie. Almost.
Anyway, the British chick starts going off about how violence does not deserve violence, how people should not take the law into their own hands and how this movie paints new york as the wild west with people having guns and getting shot, etc...
All I was thinking is that this woman was clueless. People DO get shot in NYC on a regular basis. People DO have guns in NYC. And guess what lady, ITS OKAY TO HAVE THEM!!!
Sorry, but this woman really got to me. I want to hear political conversation from movie reviewers about as much as I want to hear financial advise from the dude asking me for spare change on the corner.
Her comments almost made me want to go see this movie. Almost.
I think that's correct. Vengeance and self-defense get very muddled in the main character's head. The main character begins with self defense and ends in vengeance. It's really about her obsession and her reaction to that obsession. It is not very clear to me how her character feels about the change - she doesn't like the character she has become, but feels like it's a more realistic character.
I thought it was a pretty good movie.
I did not think it was intended to be a statement about RKBA.
Evil
Browns Fan
Member
Quote:
"hmmm that christian review made me want to see the movie more..... is that bad?"
I, for one, am grateful for www.pluggedinonline.com. I wish I woulda gone there before I saw "300"!
Quote:
"That said, it's just a friggin' movie. If it's entertaining, watch it. If it's not, don't."
Exactly! To me, it's not, so I won't.
"hmmm that christian review made me want to see the movie more..... is that bad?"
I, for one, am grateful for www.pluggedinonline.com. I wish I woulda gone there before I saw "300"!
Quote:
"That said, it's just a friggin' movie. If it's entertaining, watch it. If it's not, don't."
Exactly! To me, it's not, so I won't.
A few more thoughts from me.
I think viewers will tend to create the "message" of the movie based on their own biases. In that way, both a pro-RKBA person and an anti-RKBA person can leave the movie feeling their view is vindicated.
A pro, will point to the vicious attack on the loving couple as an indictment of the anti-gun laws that prevented them from having an effective defense. By contrast, they will point to the shooting by Erica of the assailant in the market as vindication of RKBA. After all, had Erica not had the "illegally" obtained gun, she would have yet again become a victim. BTW, when she tries to buy a gun at a gun store, she is told it will take 30 days, to which she replies, "I won't survive 30 days." The killing of the two thugs in the subway is another example of self-defense, even though Erica has second thoughts later and wonders if it was necessary--she could have shown the gun and they would have left, maybe.
An anti will also find some material to bolster their arguments. Bloomberg could use the ease with which Erica got the black market gun as support for his anti "illegal" gun crusade. Also, and anti might concede Erica defended herself in the market, but might point out that the enraged husband used a gun to kill the clerk, his estranged wife.
The killing of the mob guy, while motivated by good intentions, shows that Erica has crossed from self-defense to vigilantism. It's interesting to note that she didn't use a gun as the weapon. No points to either side there.
The final killings are the most controversial, in my opinion, and might be debated among the pro crowd. Yes, the guys she kills are the ones who savagely attacked her and killed her fiancee. By that time, she had received some evidence she could have turned over to the police and let justice take its course. Instead, she acts on pure revenge. Perhaps not believing the justice system will work as it should, or be unable to deal the full measure of justice she feels is warranted.
Again, this movie seems to me to be more about what violence and the need to exact revenge does to the individual, how it changes them, rather than any overt message about guns or self-defense. An anti might try to make hay out of the fact that it was the gun that empowered Erica to start down the path that eventually led to the destructive acts of revenge.
Anyway, that's my additional 2 cents.
K
I think viewers will tend to create the "message" of the movie based on their own biases. In that way, both a pro-RKBA person and an anti-RKBA person can leave the movie feeling their view is vindicated.
A pro, will point to the vicious attack on the loving couple as an indictment of the anti-gun laws that prevented them from having an effective defense. By contrast, they will point to the shooting by Erica of the assailant in the market as vindication of RKBA. After all, had Erica not had the "illegally" obtained gun, she would have yet again become a victim. BTW, when she tries to buy a gun at a gun store, she is told it will take 30 days, to which she replies, "I won't survive 30 days." The killing of the two thugs in the subway is another example of self-defense, even though Erica has second thoughts later and wonders if it was necessary--she could have shown the gun and they would have left, maybe.
An anti will also find some material to bolster their arguments. Bloomberg could use the ease with which Erica got the black market gun as support for his anti "illegal" gun crusade. Also, and anti might concede Erica defended herself in the market, but might point out that the enraged husband used a gun to kill the clerk, his estranged wife.
The killing of the mob guy, while motivated by good intentions, shows that Erica has crossed from self-defense to vigilantism. It's interesting to note that she didn't use a gun as the weapon. No points to either side there.
The final killings are the most controversial, in my opinion, and might be debated among the pro crowd. Yes, the guys she kills are the ones who savagely attacked her and killed her fiancee. By that time, she had received some evidence she could have turned over to the police and let justice take its course. Instead, she acts on pure revenge. Perhaps not believing the justice system will work as it should, or be unable to deal the full measure of justice she feels is warranted.
Again, this movie seems to me to be more about what violence and the need to exact revenge does to the individual, how it changes them, rather than any overt message about guns or self-defense. An anti might try to make hay out of the fact that it was the gun that empowered Erica to start down the path that eventually led to the destructive acts of revenge.
Anyway, that's my additional 2 cents.
K
Mannlicher
Member
I see it as just another gun movie acted out by anti gun hollywood types. The conclusions are anti gun in this case. what a surprise.
I saw this movie this weekend. It was an entertaining movie... I can't recall when I have been in a movie before where I heard applause for smoking the baddies. I have a feeling the pistol Foster used might garner some increased sales, my ex-gf, who was with me, wants one now
(I should check the CA DOJ list to see)
Anyhow, I enjoyed it.
(I should check the CA DOJ list to see) Anyhow, I enjoyed it.
I just saw it this weekend, horrible movie. Don't bother watching it.
Jodie Foster was unbelievable, there was no depth to her charachter and no chemistry to believe that she cared for her fiance.
Used every stereotype in the book, bad guys were gangster Puerto Ricans, go to Chinatown for a back-alley gun purchase, liberal NYC boss, Immigrant 7-11 clerk, rich businessman secretly abusive husband, sympathetic cop...
This movie is definitely not pro-gun. It is everything that the liberal left uses against responsible gun-ownership and right to SD.
Jodie Foster was unbelievable, there was no depth to her charachter and no chemistry to believe that she cared for her fiance.
Used every stereotype in the book, bad guys were gangster Puerto Ricans, go to Chinatown for a back-alley gun purchase, liberal NYC boss, Immigrant 7-11 clerk, rich businessman secretly abusive husband, sympathetic cop...
This movie is definitely not pro-gun. It is everything that the liberal left uses against responsible gun-ownership and right to SD.
Lucky
Member
John, I think the main main message of the movie is that if Foster had been 1/10th as tough at the beginning of the movie as she was at the end, then there would have been no movie. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what I think many people got as a general message. Sort of,
"Hey, maybe being a total pussy isn't a good thing, and maybe having even a passing interest in self-defence and moderate violence isn't such a bad thing. Wow I said the word 'violence' and didn't burst into flames, or turn to salt."
"Hey, maybe being a total pussy isn't a good thing, and maybe having even a passing interest in self-defence and moderate violence isn't such a bad thing. Wow I said the word 'violence' and didn't burst into flames, or turn to salt."
Kentak said:
Actually, she refuses to identify the bad guy in a police lineup after the police have found and have hard evidence about the bad guy. She lies and said she doesn't recognize the bad guy when she does.
Kentak said:
I could not agree more.
Mannlicher said:
What did you see in the movie that made it anti? I couldn't see anything in the movie that was pro or anti. I'm not arguing, I just wonder if you saw something I didn't see. Was there something I didn't see?
Mike
Stevie-Ray
Member
Oh my, that doesn't really reflect reality now does it?
Lucky
Member
Seriously Kentak half the entertainment of the movie is that it's a female equivalent of Death Wish xx with an actress that abhors violence in it. If you don't take it so seriously it's humourous, if you do take it seriously it's still a well-made movie, and does not have anti-gun stereotypes at all. I was very very impressed that the gun-shop was not portrayed in any negative light at all, at all.
A lot of people have compared it to Death Wish - but I remember the Death Wish not portraying any change in Bronson's character. It's been a long time, but it seems to me that the point of those movies is that Bronson character was always prepared to do what he needed to do.
I think the point of this one was that Jody Foster's character was not at all prepared.
I think he also had cooler guns. Doesn't she only get 1 Kahr, and 1 box of bullets?
Mike
MachIVshooter
Member
Intended? Probably not. But anyone who watches it can imagine what would have happened to her in the market or on the subway had she not been armed. I thought that put a rather positive spin on carrying. But no, I don't think there really was any agenda with this film.
I'd have to agree. Jodi Foster is seriously anti-gun as far as I can tell (nice of her to compromise her principles to fatten her wallet though) but I didn't see a lot of bias in the film. It seemed to be trying hard to build some moral ambiguity about the actions the main character was taking, but to my eye they didn't fit. Examples:
- Guy kills his wife over a domestic dispute, discovers there's a witness, hunts her down at gunpoint, and she pops him. Pretty clear case of self defense.
- A couple of aggressive youths in a subway steal an iPod from one guy, threaten two more, watch the car empty, then approach a lone woman, run a knife down her breastbone and ask her if she's ever been "f***ed with a knife." Clear case of self defense.
- You find a guy driving a car that contains a battered prostitute who hasn't been allowed to leave the car in 6 days or so (she's from Vegas, and is now in NY, apparently against her will). Driver makes it clear he's going to take give the new passenger less chance to leave, then once a gun has been pulled and freedom has been gained he uses the car as a weapon. Pretty clear case of self defense.
- Woman and her betrothed are beaten near death (or to death in his case) by a couple of dudes who film seemed to have no motivation other than boredom and the desire to make a video tape. Survivor finds them later. Pretty clear case of "justice" being served, though it's not through the normal (and preferred channels). Probably not legal, but there's no real moral argument to be made there.
- Mobster guy gets targeted by the main character because her cop friend tells her how bad the guy is? That one's less clear to me, but the argument wasn't that the world was worse off after the execution happened (and it least it happened after the protagonist had been struck by the "victim" who swung a tire iron at her).
Mannlicher
Member
Mike
what I see as anti gun is the aggrandizement of the vigilante mind set. What I see as anti gun, is the total abandonment of the law in her zeal to commit murder. What I see as anti gun is framing all aspects of the so called plot, with stereotypes that are guaranteed to stir up discontent.
Other reasons as well, but those are a start.
Sam
what I see as anti gun is the aggrandizement of the vigilante mind set. What I see as anti gun, is the total abandonment of the law in her zeal to commit murder. What I see as anti gun is framing all aspects of the so called plot, with stereotypes that are guaranteed to stir up discontent.
Other reasons as well, but those are a start.
Sam
Okay, I'm completely confused. I haven't seen the movie but after reading the preceding posts I can't seem to fathom the purpose of this picture. Some of you are saying that the movie is "anti" yet it is entitled "The Brave One". Did the title mean to imply that bravery is a desirable attribute of someone seeking real justice or was it just a covert attempt to suck money out of the pockets of the "unsophisticated" movie goers???
damien
Member
When you get the DVD, listen more closely. Actually, what she says is "the safest large city in the world". She says it twice in the movie. This is incorrect. Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong are safer by far. London, Paris, and Berlin have lower murder rates, other crime rates I do not know. NYC has been called the "the safest large city in the United States". I am not sure what they think counts as large. According to 2005 data (2006 is not fully available yet), San Diego has a rate of 4.0 and it is over 1,000,000 people, a threshold I would consider large. That is a great rate, better than most states. NYC's rate at 6.6 is actually admirable, given that it is better than several states and far lower than, for example, Chicago and Philadelphia.
Cities Over 1,000,000 People:
Code:
[SIZE="3"]1 New York New York 8,214,426 6.6
2 Los Angeles California 3,849,378 12.6
3 Chicago Illinois 2,833,321 15.6
4 Houston Texas 2,144,491 16.3
5 Phoenix Arizona 1,512,986 15.0
6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,448,394 25.6
7 San Antonio Texas 1,296,682 6.8
8 San Diego California 1,256,951 4.0
9 Dallas Texas 1,232,940 16.4[/SIZE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Stevie-Ray
Member
Bronson's character goes through a transformation of sorts in the first movie. Remember the "change in a sock" he used for a sap? When he used it he was sickened by the action. Then he started becoming empowered by the act as was shown in the scene where he was swinging it at everything until it broke.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
