Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:20:39 AM EDT
Okay, it was suggested that the above movie had some AK porn and some good shoot em ups, so I rented the DVD and watched it last night. Initally, I was a little apprehensive when I saw that Ethan Hawk was in it. I thought, "oh well, Nicolas Cage is weird enough", to outweigh this little lefty light weight. As promised, there was some AK action, BUT, in Act IV, the whole message of the film is: ASSAULT RIFLE ARE THE TRUE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I was waiting for cameos of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Charles Shumer. I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:23:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
ASSAULT RIFLE ARE THE TRUE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.




Yes that is correct. Nobody ever claimed they weren't. Thats why I have a bunch

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:26:28 AM EDT
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:39:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO



I guess I just not as hip as you. Not everyone rushes out to the local cinemaplex to support Hollywood.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:46:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO

Just another smart ass from the other side.

DeltaDelta,I just saw it this past week myself,I felt they portrayed alot of real World events fairly accurately and,as ugly as it is,the AK was,and is, the tool of choice for genocide in many third World Countries.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:49:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 6:54:13 AM EDT by prone]

I guess I just not as hip as you. Not everyone rushes out to the local cinemaplex to support Hollywood



+1 I rarely go to the theatre to see anything. I'll save my 20.00 for ammo.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:55:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 6:55:51 AM EDT by Lightning_P38]
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:00:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO




Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:01:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 7:09:52 AM EDT by TheRedHorseman]
that movie could have been great, but instead was reduced to anti gun drivel

EDIT: did anyone else notice that the 7.62x39 shown in that movie was Wolf polymer coated ammo?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:24:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JOHNO:

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO

Just another smart ass from the other side.



+1 Dace is a JACK-ASS............just like he was 4 MONTHS AGO.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:36:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BiggerStick47:

Originally Posted By JOHNO:

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO

Just another smart ass from the other side.



+1 Dace is a JACK-ASS............just like he was 4 MONTHS AGO.



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:01:10 AM EDT
i bought the DVD and liked it, i think the introduction is shockingly interesting. the life cycle of a 7.62x39mm round.


although if you take a look at the bonus disc and in the weapons of the trade section. i believe they have the M16 listed as 7.62.... im sure i dont have to post what it really should be.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:02:17 AM EDT
Didn't watch the movie, but I already know they got it wrong. Communisum is the most dangerous "assault weapon."

The USSR & China handed out AK's, RPG's, etc. to every third world idiot in hopes that it would help bring down the USA. It's their fault, not the USA's. (or nick cage)

Scott
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:00:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:01:46 AM EDT by MST2]

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO



Brokeback mountain fan, huh???

<­BR>





­

<­BR>





­

Smartass.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:24:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
... I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.



you realize FMJ is blatently anti-war, right?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:31:32 AM EDT
I have mixed feelings about the movie. I personaly didnt feel like i was being pushed by the anti-gun lobby when i saw it, but i can see how the less educated man could get the wrong idea about guns.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:59:57 AM EDT
I realize you do, pilgrim.

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
... I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.



you realize FMJ is blatently anti-war, right?

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:28:17 AM EDT
Nicholas Cage sucks...he has aways sucked!!! I figured that out long before this movie came out!

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:37:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 11:41:38 AM EDT by MauserMark]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
that movie could have been great, but instead was reduced to anti gun drivel

EDIT: did anyone else notice that the 7.62x39 shown in that movie was Wolf polymer coated ammo?



it wasn't wolf ammo. A lot of Russian ammo looks identical to wolf ammo. I have some mid 90's Ukranian 5.45x39 that looks identical to the new wolf polymer. Wolf isn't the first manufacturer to use grey polymer cases.

It was an entertaining movie none the less. And I think people got out of the movie what they wanted to get out. If you went into it thinking, "I bet this will be some piece of shit anti-gun lib movie." Those people claim it was. I went into the movie trying to be unbiased and thought it was a decent flic. From what I remember, his last message is that as long as human beings need to kill each other guns will be supplied to them. That's not completely false.

and Delta, next time, do a quick search on the forums, and you would of found dozens of threads about LOW already. There was one going last week that is already a couple of pages in this forum.

-mark
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:50:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 11:50:43 AM EDT by TheRedHorseman]
I wasnt aware of other manufacturers going to poly. I figured they just grabbed whatever was cheap at the local shop
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:05:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
that movie could have been great, but instead was reduced to anti gun drivel

EDIT: did anyone else notice that the 7.62x39 shown in that movie was Wolf polymer coated ammo?



it wasn't wolf ammo. A lot of Russian ammo looks identical to wolf ammo. I have some mid 90's Ukranian 5.45x39 that looks identical to the new wolf polymer. Wolf isn't the first manufacturer to use grey polymer cases.

It was an entertaining movie none the less. And I think people got out of the movie what they wanted to get out. If you went into it thinking, "I bet this will be some piece of shit anti-gun lib movie." Those people claim it was. I went into the movie trying to be unbiased and thought it was a decent flic. From what I remember, his last message is that as long as human beings need to kill each other guns will be supplied to them. That's not completely false.

and Delta, next time, do a quick search on the forums, and you would of found dozens of threads about LOW already. There was one going last week that is already a couple of pages in this forum.

-mark


Mark,
Remeber the diatribe by Ethan Hawk that assault weapons are the "rael weapons of mass destruction"? I didn't loose any sleep over it, but if I were to opine I would say the MIND is the ultimate WMD. And as far as using the search function, I don't need to make a search to express my opinion. Delta
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:41:15 PM EDT
It's just a damn movie. Don't think too much into it.

I personally enjoyed the movie, and I am as pro-gun as a person can get. It's a work of fiction. Don't work yourself up into it too much.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By MauserMark:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
that movie could have been great, but instead was reduced to anti gun drivel

EDIT: did anyone else notice that the 7.62x39 shown in that movie was Wolf polymer coated ammo?



it wasn't wolf ammo. A lot of Russian ammo looks identical to wolf ammo. I have some mid 90's Ukranian 5.45x39 that looks identical to the new wolf polymer. Wolf isn't the first manufacturer to use grey polymer cases.

It was an entertaining movie none the less. And I think people got out of the movie what they wanted to get out. If you went into it thinking, "I bet this will be some piece of shit anti-gun lib movie." Those people claim it was. I went into the movie trying to be unbiased and thought it was a decent flic. From what I remember, his last message is that as long as human beings need to kill each other guns will be supplied to them. That's not completely false.

and Delta, next time, do a quick search on the forums, and you would of found dozens of threads about LOW already. There was one going last week that is already a couple of pages in this forum.

-mark


Mark,
Remeber the diatribe by Ethan Hawk that assault weapons are the "rael weapons of mass destruction"? I didn't loose any sleep over it, but if I were to opine I would say the MIND is the ultimate WMD. And as far as using the search function, I don't need to make a search to express my opinion. Delta



The AK is the real weapon of mass destruction. Thats why I Love them.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:44:34 PM EDT
Any movie is better than Bowling for Columbine. Also I still haven't seen Lord of War.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 12:48:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
... I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.



you realize FMJ is blatently anti-war, right?



What's wrong with being anti-war? I'm anti-war. I think it should be reserved for countries and groups that need asswhoopings and asswhoopings only. Unfortunately most anti-war people are anti-any war, which is suicidal in its nature.

Pacifism is stupid, but realizing that war sucks in general is just being realistic. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight of people that need their asses kicked and shit blown up. Oh well, might as well do it in the most efficient manner possible, I suppose.

Sorry, I'll get off my now.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:39:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 1:41:36 PM EDT by Darkest2000]

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
... I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.



you realize FMJ is blatently anti-war, right?



What's wrong with being anti-war? I'm anti-war. I think it should be reserved for countries and groups that need asswhoopings and asswhoopings only. Unfortunately most anti-war people are anti-any war, which is suicidal in its nature.

Pacifism is stupid, but realizing that war sucks in general is just being realistic. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight of people that need their asses kicked and shit blown up. Oh well, might as well do it in the most efficient manner possible, I suppose.

Sorry, I'll get off my now.



+1 Well said.

Just because we support certain "wars" doesn't mean we're "pro-war". No one in their right minds should be pro war.

This is what the anti war liberals use against us, making us look like we're a bunch of warheads that love to see death and destruction.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:15:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 2:16:07 PM EDT by MauserMark]
No Delta, you're not forced to do a search. It looks bad on your part though if you start another thread on the same topic that was discussed a few days ago. It gives the impression that one is just too lazy to see if it's already been discussed. Like every new member who every 2 days starts the exact same thread in this forum "What is the best AK for me?" It gets old after a while.

-mark
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:49:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By robpiat:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
ASSAULT RIFLE ARE THE TRUE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.




Yes that is correct. Nobody ever claimed they weren't. Thats why I have a bunch



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 3:03:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BiggerStick47:

Originally Posted By JOHNO:

Originally Posted By Dace:
WELCOME TO 4 MONTHS AGO

Just another smart ass from the other side.



+1 Dace is a JACK-ASS............just like he was 4 MONTHS AGO.



Thanks man, I needed that, funniest post on here tonight.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:37:35 AM EDT
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:48:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



I can enjoy a movie, gun errors or not, but I do notice these things.

I believe in the movie... Sahara(?) where the chick from the UN was studying this thing they thought was a disease and it ended up being waste dumped in the water... either way they had a bunch of rifles and combos from the middle east, including what looked like a G-3 retrofitted with a PSO-1 type of scope (keep in mind, this is somwhere in the middle east where PSO type scopes are abundant). Anyway, it showed him looking through the scope. At first I expected the usual cheapo crosshair... but instead saw the familiar PSO-1 type recticle! I wanted to give the director a huge pat on the back untill it showed him zooming in... even worse, it showed little clicks, not a smooth transition like most variable scopes.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:49:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



I hear you. But some of you folks here will forget in a day about guns, what some will learn in their entire lives. You are experts in that this isn't tough homework. You genuinely love guns. Therefore you retain insane amounts of knowledge of them.

Best to learn to watch flicks and let the "smaller" errors roll off.

I feel the same way about movies on the Marine Corps by-the-way.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 1:53:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



Why would errors influence your opinion of a movie? It's a fictional movie. A lot of you put too much thought in this.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 3:03:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 7:42:49 PM EDT by Hootbro]
I watch movies for entertainment value and not historical accuracy. Lord of War was entertaining to me and thought it was decent.

Hootbro
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 4:20:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hootbro:
I watch movies for entertainment value and not historical accuracy. Lord of War was entertaining to me and though it was decent.

Hootbro



I agree it is just a fucking movie...
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 5:05:10 PM EDT
I watach movies for entertainment, too. I don't mind overlooking the details if the movie doesn't attempt to send me a serious message, if you know what I mean. It would be like watching a WW2 movie and having them use AR-15s. It blows it for me.

But where the movie is fantasy, scifi, etc. and doesn't attempt to really "show it how it was", I can overlook the errors. I thought (maybe wrongly) that this movie was supposed to be based on the true story of a real gunrunner. It also attempts to send a serious message. So if purports to be true - and has to pontificate in the process - then it ought to get the details right. The devil is in the details.

Maybe I've been a gun nut for too long. hen
I guess I'm sick and tired of the Hollywood elitists sending us messages (they know what's best for us ), but not paying attention to the details - and assuming we are going to accept everything they dish out.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 5:10:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By theBUBBAMANcan:
Nicholas Cage sucks...he has aways sucked!!! I figured that out long before this movie came out!




A big +1 On of the worst actors out there.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 12:10:34 PM EDT
I just got the movy on the 1st and I have watched the opening (with the life of one bullet) about 20 times. I feel it was a very artistic thing. I was glad that they did not portrey the AKs on the streets of America and in the end it showed that he was only selling guns for Uncle Sugar. (uh oh, did I ruin the ending?)
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 12:27:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



Its a movie.. Entertainment...

You didnt get very far into Star Wars or Lord of the Rings did you?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 12:38:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 12:39:08 PM EDT by Punani]

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



Its a movie.. Entertainment...

You didnt get very far into Star Wars or Lord of the Rings did you?



When I saw that they didn't use the correct taze-setting selector knob on captain Kirk's tazer; I just couldn't watch it anymore.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 12:53:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Punani:

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By Newaza:
I made it about half-way through the movie and turned it off.

I hate it when I see errors. The first was early on, on the guy's first gun sale. It's supposed to be 1982 and he's selling the "new" UZI machine pistol. Well, the UZI machine pistol design did not come out until two years later, in 1984. The second was a little later when he sells the Glocks to the coke dealer. It's still in the 80's, and he was selling finger-grooved Glocks, which didn't come out until, what, about 6 or 7 years ago? Things like this bug me bigtime. I see errors like this and my interest turns off. The movie sucked.



Its a movie.. Entertainment...

You didnt get very far into Star Wars or Lord of the Rings did you?



When I saw that they didn't use the correct taze-setting selector knob on captain Kirk's tazer; I just couldn't watch it anymore.




captain kirk would be star TREK, nimrod.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 1:03:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 1:05:33 PM EDT by Cigolon]

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
Okay, it was suggested that the above movie had some AK porn and some good shoot em ups, so I rented the DVD and watched it last night. Initally, I was a little apprehensive when I saw that Ethan Hawk was in it. I thought, "oh well, Nicolas Cage is weird enough", to outweigh this little lefty light weight. As promised, there was some AK action, BUT, in Act IV, the whole message of the film is: ASSAULT RIFLE ARE THE TRUE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I was waiting for cameos of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Charles Shumer. I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.


quite to the opposite, i got the image that the point of the movie was that gun running is something that governments support and that the arms trade is alive and well; largely by the wish/whim of the 5 permenant members of the UNSC. perhaps i missed it, but from the end of the movie that was what i drew from it.

i really didn't see anything untrue or slanderous about the ak or assault weapons in general. like it or not, it is used in third world countries and that is how things are in a lot of places. *shrugs*

all in all, it was a fairly amusing movie.

that being said, i'm anti-war and live by the saying "there is no good war or bad peace". i understand and repsect it when it is needed but i wish more restraint was shown in virtually every instance.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 1:46:07 PM EDT
Yea, it really burned me when I saw how Captain Kirk died. He was supposed to die alone, for Chrissake. He always knew he would. Then they came out with that hybrid old Star Trek/new Star Trek movie, and he dies in the company of someone else. Man, that still bums me out today.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 1:58:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By avtomatwasr-10:
i bought the DVD and liked it, i think the introduction is shockingly interesting. the life cycle of a 7.62x39mm round.


although if you take a look at the bonus disc and in the weapons of the trade section. i believe they have the M16 listed as 7.62.... im sure i dont have to post what it really should be.



as 7.62 and belt-fed
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:24:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
... I think I will stick with Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.



you realize FMJ is blatently anti-war, right?



What's wrong with being anti-war? I'm anti-war. I think it should be reserved for countries and groups that need asswhoopings and asswhoopings only. Unfortunately most anti-war people are anti-any war, which is suicidal in its nature.

Pacifism is stupid, but realizing that war sucks in general is just being realistic. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight of people that need their asses kicked and shit blown up. Oh well, might as well do it in the most efficient manner possible, I suppose.

Sorry, I'll get off my now.



+1, that might have been the first time I have ever agreed with anything you have ever said.
Top Top