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

movie,lord of war

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by guitarhero323, Jul 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. guitarhero323

    guitarhero323 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    27
    Location:
    ohio
    Just got done watching and i wanted to know what people here think about it
    like is it antigun or not.

    so for those who have not seen
    it it is about an arms dealer. it is also based on a true story.

    the story takes place from the 80's and the cold war up to the year 2001
    in the moviehe sells to all sorts of governments and is able to make it look legal.then whenever interpole finds him he can get out of it.wile others acuse him of provideing the means of death and being resposible for the violence
    he argues that bad people will kill anyway with or without him and says he gives people the means to defend themselves.

    to make your own decision you would have to watch it but people try to pressure him into guilt and in the end his brother is shot because he threw a grenade into the guns he was trying to sell ,is parents disowned him and his wife and son left, but he still kept selling.

    so to me it comes across as antigun because of all the bad things that happened to him as a result like that is the lesson they are trying to show.
     
  2. atblis

    atblis Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,531
    Location:
    Neither here nor there
    Yeah well

    I suggest you search for previous threads.

    I thought it was rather boring myself.
     
  3. pharmer

    pharmer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    811
    Location:
    Santo las Nubes, Fl
    Viktor Bout was popped in Thailand a couple months ago. Big splash in the paper for a couple days. Nothing since. A very useful tool of the trade on all sides. That was the point of the movie, IMHO. Joe
     
  4. RancidSumo

    RancidSumo Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,168
    Location:
    Green River, WY
    ^^ don't know what you mean by popped but he is still alive, they arrested him. Anyway, I thought it was a good movie and have been trying to get a copy of the book about him. I think the movie didn't have an pro or anti gun message.
     
  5. evan price

    evan price Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,476
    Location:
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    It wasn't anti gun per se, it was more along the lines of exposing the hypocrisy of the world.

    Not a bad movie, not very fast paced. Worth a watch.
     
  6. Vegaslaith

    Vegaslaith Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    I thought it was good. I don't think it was necessarily pro or anti gun, just told it like it is, really. The US sells a lot of guns internationally and AK47s are the most widely used guns of all time. True.
     
  7. Hoplophile

    Hoplophile Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    238
    Probably one of my favorite movies. I see it as neither pro nor anti. For example, the people in the village at the end...they were dead either way, guns or machetes. I think it was more pointing out that the presence of guns didn't really matter. The guns didn't really do anything, nihilism seems to be a theme of the movie.

    Excellent movie.
     
  8. alex_trebek

    alex_trebek Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Indiana
    Exactly. I was watching this movie with a fence-sitter liberal type, and I found myself surprise by his comment at this scene. It was something along the lines of "what difference does it make if the BG's use ak-47's or machete's? They're dead either way."

    Now he wants to get a pistol, for self-defense, but doesn't have much money or knowledge on the subject. We (me and other gunnie friends) are trying to help him out in that area.

    When movies are relatively unbiased, the tend to appeal to logic. Logic is our side's best friend in the on-going 2nd amendment debate.
     
  9. XDKingslayer

    XDKingslayer member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    Port Charlotte, Fl.
    I have to disagree.

    They had ample oppertunity to kill everyone in the village with machettes but they didn't. They only killed a woman and child who ran away from the rest.

    They're cowards at heart, that's why they wanted the guns. They didn't kill anyone in the village until they had the guns.

    They already had machettes but did nothing because they would have been outnumbered.

    His line in the scene was to sooth his own soul, not make a point.
     
  10. strat81

    strat81 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,912
    Location:
    Nebraska
    I also considered it neutral. Much like Scarface, the moral seems to be "Don't be greedy."
     
  11. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    I think it was slightly anti-gun. Overall it was more anti-war, but at the end when the brother is pleading with Uri not to sell the arms to the Sierra Leone general, he seemed to be implying that if we don't sell them arms the refugees won't die. As if they wouldn't be killed with machetes for a lack of guns.

    Maybe they made that weak argument so the audience would see that the people are going to die anyway, because it's war that kills. The guns are just the best tool for it.
     
  12. blackcash88

    blackcash88 member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    886
    I liked the opening scene which showed the "life" of a round.
     
  13. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Generally neutral, more an observation that reality is thus.
    The market exists; the bad abuse the tools, the good are free to (or to not) use them as well.
    Surely the intent was to be "anti", yet the issue was addressed rather factually.
     
  14. JesseL

    JesseL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,492
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    I take it you haven't heard much about the Rwandan genocide?

    As many as 1,000,000 people killed by a militia numbering around 30,000 and armed mostly with machetes.
     
  15. brighamr

    brighamr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Location:
    somewhere between utah and canada
    OP - I opened my own thread regarding this movie quite some time ago. I like the movie, for the sheer pleasure of seeing full automatics. OTOH, I see plenty of anti comments/scenes which were strategically placed. It's up to me to ignore the anti parts.

    If you replaced all of the guns in the entire movie with automobiles... it would have the same effect. At least that's my take on it.

    Side note: the ammunition factory scene should be re-shot, and at the end have the bullet go through a target at the range. I LOVE the factory scene, but hate the anti (bullets are only made to kill teen kids in africa) ending.
     
  16. XDKingslayer

    XDKingslayer member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    Port Charlotte, Fl.
    Which has zero to do with that particular scene in the movie...
     
  17. Gator

    Gator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,231
    Location:
    Stuck in Crook Co., IL
    I thought it was very anti gun, but an enjoyable movie nevertheless. You can watch the extras for even more anti gun propaganda! :rolleyes:
     
  18. neviander

    neviander Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    547
    Location:
    Kilgore, TX
    Yeah, this is one of those rare, take it as you see it movies. Anti's will see it as a grand expose of the "evils" of guns; gun nuts will see it as an expose of large piles of rifles that they want :D
    But really, I would say it's neutral.
     
  19. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Which has everything to do with that particular scene in the movie.
    The allegation is that failing to acquire the firearms, the client would not have wiped out the village with machetes.
    In the real world, lack of firearms has NOT stopped those from murderous intent from slaughtering upwards of a million people at a time via mere machetes.
    The client presumably preferred to use certain tools, and was intending to acquire them, but failing that he surely would not have merely shrugged and gone home.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page