movie,lord of war

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

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.
 
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
 
^^ 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
he people in the village at the end...they were dead either way, guns or machetes
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
XDKingslayer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Which has zero to do with that particular scene in the movie...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top