1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Killing Emmett Young"...decent gunplay

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Harold Mayo, Sep 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Harold Mayo

    Harold Mayo Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Hutchinson, Kansas
    Watched a decent "B" movie last night with the wife. I was skeptical of it but it turned out OK.

    Stars Scott Wolf, Gabriel Byrne, and Tim Roth (also has the woman who played Nina in "24"). No really big deal about the movie...just average, overall, but the gunplay at the end was pretty realistic.

    This is a spoiler, but I don't care.

    Tim Roth is going to kill Scott Wolf. He rings the knocks on the door of the apartment or rings the bell, Scott Wolf goes to the door and is about to peer through the peephole when Roth empties a revolver through the door at him. There is a splash of blood and Wolf is hit and has some reaction but not much. He immediately vacates the area in front of the door and goes seeking a gun. Although you see that he has been hit two or three times, you notice almost no impairment (yet). There is blood loss occurring but he is functioning (relatively) well.

    He gets to his bedroom and finds that his revolver that he keeps in a box in a closet has no ammo (long story...see the movie). His duty weapon (a Glock of some sort...17 or 22, probably) is in a holster in a drawer in another room.

    Roth, meanwhile, has reloaded and used a key (also a long story) to get in. Wolf realizes that Roth is in his apartment and dives for the room in which he placed his Glock. Roth fires rapidly and without the sights a couple of times but misses (of course). Wolf is still functioning relatively well.

    Wolf manages to get his Glock out while Roth walks into the room. There is some hesitation and Wolf shoots Roth in the center of the chest (looks like it is actually a little below center...solar plexus or bottom of the sternum). Roth doesn't react immediately but ends up taking a couple of steps and falling near Wolf. Roth sits up, propped against a dresser, and is struggling to remain upright. He slumps but then pulls himself up with effort and hands Wolf a note (long story...see the movie). He ends up dying within a few seconds after that. Wolf, by this time, seems to have been impaired enough by his wounds that he can't stand up.

    Anyway, Wolf survives and lives happily ever after, I guess. Doesn't matter.

    The actual use of the guns wasn't anything thrilling as it was really quick and dirty and with no technique involved (again, probably realistic under the circumstances).

    What is nice is that a movie finally portrays something other than handgun rounds spinning people around, lifting them off the ground and hurling them, etc. There ARE other movies out there with decent realistic depictions, but this was a really good one. I was really struck by it...so much that I had to pause it and point it out to my wife.

    If a wound doesn't shut down the central nervous system or cause MASSIVE bloodloss quickly (with accompanying blood pressue drop), it's not likely to affect the fighting ability of the guy who's been shot in the timeframe in which the fight is going to occur, regardless of caliber.
  2. BluesBear

    BluesBear member

    Jul 25, 2003
    The Great Pacific NorthWet
    I often wonder where the folks in Hollyweird find the people listed in the credits as "technical consultants".
    Perhaps all of the ballistic distortion in movies and TV are what helps formulate so many of the antis twisted viewpoints?

    Such as when the bad guy gets shot center mass, flies back against the wall and slowly slides down the wall leaving several red smears. I watched a scene like this with a friend last year who knew nothing about guns (Yes he was Canadian) and he thought all handgun bullets would do this. He had never thought to wonder why there was no hole in the wall.


    I also hear the question, from many sheep, as to why you don't just shoot them in the hand/arm/leg? This question seems to come from people more in my generation (I am 48). I attribute this to the old western (Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry etc) movies where the hero was quick with a gun but never killed anyone, they only wounded them. I oftened wondered when Gene shot the gun out of someone's hand where the bullet went?


    I have always wanted to know why us regular folk were never told where we could purchase one of those never-needs-reloading guns that they use in the movies. I suspect it's a plot from the ammunition manufactures to make us pay over and over for more ammunition. Or else it's a plot by the government to make it too unafforable for us to be able to practice enough so we too can learn how to just graze the hand enough to make the bad guy drop his gun without leaving a mark.


    Just my tuppence.

    Hi Yo Silver Awaaaaaaay
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page