The Last Stand (2013) – Blu-ray Disc

**½/****
Image A Sound A- Extras B-

starring
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Forest Whitaker, Johnny Knoxville, Rodrigo
Santoro

screenplay
by Andrew Knauer

directed
by Kim Jee-woon

by
Walter Chaw
I think, and I don't say this lightly, that
South Korean filmmaker Kim Jee-woon is a genius. His landmark A
Tale of Two
Sisters
is lush and at times unbearably frightening; his A
Bittersweet
Life
is an elegiac crime saga with the best, most
innovative knife-fight in
a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises;
his The
Good, the Bad, the Weird
(which his latest most resembles)
is a dizzy,
hilarious take on the Spaghetti Western; and his I Saw the
Devil
is the
slickest, and stickiest, exploitation serial-killer/torture flick I've
ever
seen. He's his country's Takashi Miike, its Quentin Tarantino. And his
American-made, English-language debut, unceremoniously dumped in the
middle of
the deadly first quarter of 2013, is, I guess you could say, at least
better
than John Woo's Hollywood baptism, Hard Target.
The tragedy of it all is
that the picture will be more ballyhooed not for the arrival of Kim on
our
shores, but for the return to the action genre of one Arnold
Schwarzenegger (Expendables
cameos notwithstanding), here cast as a soft-around-the-middle aging
lawman in the Stallone-in-Copland mold who stands
up against a cabal of
snarling baddies in defense of the AARP and the NRA in one fell,
sometimes
ironic, swoop. I've never not liked a Kim film, but he's testing me.
Ultimately, it's impossible to completely hate a movie that references,
in addition to all the pictures Schwarzenegger's made, one–Paul
Verhoeven's
forever-gestating Crusades epic–he never got to.

RUNNING TIME
107 minutes
MPAA
R
ASPECT
RATIO(S)

2.40:1 (1080p/MPEG-4)
LANGUAGES
English 7.1 DTS-HD MA
French DD 5.1
SUBTITLES
English

English SDH
French SDH
REGION
A
DISC
TYPE

BD-50
STUDIO
eOne (Canada)
Lionsgate (U.S.)

The Last Stand is really
just a by-the-numbers, late-'80s toss-off actioner salvaged to
watchability by
Kim's direction and the amusement factor of Ah-nuld playing his age and
declaring his "honour" after it's been horribly besmirched by his time
sitting at the head of a bankrupt California and cheating on Maria with
the
housekeeper. He's Sheriff Ray of Podunk, Arizona, with three deputies
and a
past in The Show (LA Narc) that's left him with scars and an
appreciation for
country living. His Barney Fife is "Figgy" (Luis Guzman), the cute
one is Deputy Sarah (Jaimie Alexander), the innocent one who talks
about his
dreams right before the big shootout is Jerry (Zach Gilford), and then
there's
Johnny Knoxville as a gun nut or something who does a Jackass™ stunt to
the
pleasure of everyone assembled who thinks they've figured out a clever
meta-reference. Oh, hell, maybe they have; I've lost track of what's
post-modern
anymore and what's the only way left that anyone can communicate.
Anyway, Ray is called back to action
after discovering the body of Farmer Grouchy (Harry Dean Stanton) and
figuring
out that it's all connected to the prison-break of drug kingpin Gabriel
Cortez
(Eduardo Noriega), aided by henchman Burrell (Peter Stormare, doing a
weird
hillbilly-cum-Swedish accent) and pursued by FBI stooge Bannister
(Forest
Whitaker). Does Ray have what it takes? Will the film honour its title
and leave
no room for a sequel?

Armed with nothing like innovation or
intelligence at the script level, Kim lards The Last Stand
with several inspired visual gags that culminate in a chase through a
cornfield and one frozen, bird's-eye shot that gifts the film with a
kind of wit it doesn't deserve. The picture's prologue,
meanwhile, is economical and tense, and various touch-points along the
way–including a sly indictment of the Amendment 2 whackos who
proclaim, as one
did at my screening, that the events depicted in the film are exactly
the reason
private citizens should own military weaponry–point to an accomplished
director slumming to get work in the United States. The hoots of
approval
attending the reveal of a highly-illegal 1939 Vickers Machine Gun and
some
sentiment expressed about how the government doesn't need to know it's
in civilian hands says a lot about the Red Dawn
wish-fulfillment that The
Last Stand
projects. It's sort of like a dream, isn't it,
for Grandma to
get the chance to shoot an Asian guy out of her crap shop and back into
the Old
West? I have a hard time believing that someone like Kim, who makes
films like A
Bittersweet Life
and I Saw the Devil,
films so eloquently about the
consequences of violence both real and cinematic, doesn't see the irony
in a
vintage gun-fetish shoot-'em-up starring the aging poster-child of
homoerotic manmeat wielding cold, hard, gunmetal dicks in defense of
his adopted land. What
I'm saying is that The Last Stand is a good
version of a bad
movie and that I hope Kim doesn't end up like John Woo did in
Hollywood–or if he does, that he has the sense to go home a couple
of movies sooner than Woo did.

THE BLU-RAY DISC
by Bill Chambers Released on Blu-ray by Lionsgate in the
U.S. and eOne in Canada, The Last Stand docks on
the format in a glossy
2.40:1, 1080p transfer. In the extras, director Kim Jee-woon says via translator that what
drew him
to the project was its analog (Ah-nuld and WWII-era weaponry) vs.
digital
(Cortez and his supercar) subtext, and that's reflected in a film that
looks at
once plastic and old-fashioned. Greenscreen dominates countless shots,
for
instance, but however much the technique has been refined over the
years, the
seams show here as if in some compositing homage to rear-projection.
Nevertheless, the Alexa-generated image is, however perfect, not
altogether
uncinematic, thanks to relatively diffused focus, saturation, and
contrast. The
7.1 DTS-HD MA track–which I listened to in a lossless 5.1 downmix–has
one
minor issue: the dialogue is balanced low against the robust music and
effects.
Forest Whitaker is practically inaudible at reference level, but raise
the volume at your peril, as gunshots can be sudden and piercing.
Perhaps full 7.1 would make all the difference in unpacking the centre
channel. For what it's worth, the ricochet
sounds that scatter across the room are some of the most convincing
I've ever
heard.

The four HiDef featurettes on board the
disc are snooze-worthy to varying degrees. "Not in My Town: The Making
of The
Last Stand
" (28 mins.) sends a lot of love both
Schwarzenegger's and
Kim's way; everybody's excited to work with everybody. The best part
breaks
down the zipline sequence, which took the action coordinators forever
to figure
out but is probably the kind of thing Kim could've knocked out in his
sleep in
Korea. We learn that downtown Albuquerque subbed for Las Vegas in a
jarring
reminder that Vegas has a government sector somewhere among the casinos
and
bordellos. "Cornfield Chaos: Scene Breakdown" (11 mins.) goes into
gratifying detail about the 1000-horsepower Corvette the baddie drives
in the
film, while "The Dinkum Firearm & Historic Weaponry Museum
Tour"
(11 mins.) interviews the geeks who stocked the production with
vintage
guns and ammo, including a Magnum that thoroughly emasculates Dirty
Harry's
.44. Lastly, "Actor-Cam Anarchy with Johnny Knoxville and Jaimie
Alexander" (11 mins.) intercuts P.O.V. footage captured by the two
eponymous stars as they give us an above-the-line talent's-eye view of
the set
that mostly entails hugging/embarrassing camera-shy crew members.

A 14-minute block of "Extended Scenes"
(HD) proved indistinguishable to me from anything in the finished
product, save for a gash on Schwarzenegger's forehead that was
subsequently
erased in post. The 8-minute block of "Deleted Scenes" (HD) is
slightly more interesting, revealing a greater emphasis on Ray's age
(he's
introduced applying Ben Gay to his legs) as well as the impetus for the Rodrigo Santoro character's
arrest, which, perhaps too depressingly for this film, suggests he is
in a
losing battle with addiction. The eOne platter we received for review does not come with any additional copies of The Last Stand.

Become a patron at Patreon!

57 Comments

  1. AtheistConservative

    Walter, you have issues. Serious ones.

  2. AtheistConservative

    Walter, you have issues. Serious ones.

  3. AtheistConservative

    Walter, you have issues. Serious ones.

  4. Plebontheweb

    Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be ‘dangerous’ in a review posted some time ago… of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were ‘dangerous’. Perhaps he’ll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.

  5. Plebontheweb

    Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be ‘dangerous’ in a review posted some time ago… of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were ‘dangerous’. Perhaps he’ll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.

  6. Plebontheweb

    Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be ‘dangerous’ in a review posted some time ago… of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were ‘dangerous’. Perhaps he’ll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.

  7. Slick McFavorite

    Big ‘if’.

  8. Slick McFavorite

    Big ‘if’.

  9. Slick McFavorite

    Big ‘if’.

  10. Plebontheweb

    Yeah, but why are they ‘dangerous’?

  11. Plebontheweb

    Yeah, but why are they ‘dangerous’?

  12. Plebontheweb

    Yeah, but why are they ‘dangerous’?

  13. Josh

    Isn’t any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year… It’s like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.

  14. Josh

    Isn’t any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year… It’s like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.

  15. Josh

    Isn’t any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year… It’s like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.

  16. Josh

    but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.

  17. Josh

    but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.

  18. Josh

    but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.

  19. Plebontheweb

    Ah, but the NRA doesn’t promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you’ll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.
    Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming ‘Mr & Mrs America’ would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call ‘trickle-down’ gun confiscation.
    You’ve failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don’t suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he’d have spoken up himself by now.

  20. Plebontheweb

    Ah, but the NRA doesn’t promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you’ll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.
    Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming ‘Mr & Mrs America’ would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call ‘trickle-down’ gun confiscation.
    You’ve failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don’t suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he’d have spoken up himself by now.

  21. Plebontheweb

    Ah, but the NRA doesn’t promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you’ll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.
    Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming ‘Mr & Mrs America’ would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call ‘trickle-down’ gun confiscation.
    You’ve failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don’t suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he’d have spoken up himself by now.

  22. Jonathan

    Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it’s the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don’t hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn’t matter that the NRA isn’t explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that’s just saying “well it’s not as bad as it could be.” Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that’s why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn’t illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won’t get off on a tangent addressing your other points.
    Now Walter, he won’t come in here and defend his comment because I don’t think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.
    One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim’s directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing “the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises.” While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer’s, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim’s best work justice.

  23. Jonathan

    Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it’s the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don’t hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn’t matter that the NRA isn’t explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that’s just saying “well it’s not as bad as it could be.” Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that’s why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn’t illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won’t get off on a tangent addressing your other points.
    Now Walter, he won’t come in here and defend his comment because I don’t think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.
    One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim’s directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing “the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises.” While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer’s, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim’s best work justice.

  24. Jonathan

    Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it’s the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don’t hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn’t matter that the NRA isn’t explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that’s just saying “well it’s not as bad as it could be.” Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that’s why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn’t illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won’t get off on a tangent addressing your other points.
    Now Walter, he won’t come in here and defend his comment because I don’t think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.
    One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim’s directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing “the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises.” While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer’s, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim’s best work justice.

  25. Plebontheweb

    That’s one tortured, reaching ‘explanation’ (actually non-explanation) for Walter’s contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more ‘dangerous’ than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?
    That’s also why I don’t have to agree that ‘more guns = more deaths from guns’ since you’re lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.

  26. Plebontheweb

    That’s one tortured, reaching ‘explanation’ (actually non-explanation) for Walter’s contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more ‘dangerous’ than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?
    That’s also why I don’t have to agree that ‘more guns = more deaths from guns’ since you’re lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.

  27. Plebontheweb

    That’s one tortured, reaching ‘explanation’ (actually non-explanation) for Walter’s contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more ‘dangerous’ than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?
    That’s also why I don’t have to agree that ‘more guns = more deaths from guns’ since you’re lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.

  28. Jonathan

    The explanation was only “tortured” after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.
    You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: “a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals” and “responsible for many more deaths in proportion.” This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.
    Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like “Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?” would indicate that you either aren’t serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.

  29. Jonathan

    The explanation was only “tortured” after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.
    You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: “a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals” and “responsible for many more deaths in proportion.” This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.
    Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like “Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?” would indicate that you either aren’t serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.

  30. Jonathan

    The explanation was only “tortured” after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.
    You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: “a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals” and “responsible for many more deaths in proportion.” This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.
    Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like “Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?” would indicate that you either aren’t serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.

  31. Jacob

    RE: Jonathan
    [I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]
    What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he’s ever been. He’s always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he’s starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn’t mean the site has changed. That’s classic internet narcissism.

  32. Jacob

    RE: Jonathan
    [I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]
    What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he’s ever been. He’s always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he’s starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn’t mean the site has changed. That’s classic internet narcissism.

  33. Jacob

    RE: Jonathan
    [I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]
    What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he’s ever been. He’s always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he’s starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn’t mean the site has changed. That’s classic internet narcissism.

  34. Plebontheweb

    @ Jonathan
    You say, ‘You appear to acknowledge’ –
    Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.
    I’d suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.

  35. Plebontheweb

    @ Jonathan
    You say, ‘You appear to acknowledge’ –
    Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.
    I’d suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.

  36. Plebontheweb

    @ Jonathan
    You say, ‘You appear to acknowledge’ –
    Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.
    I’d suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.

  37. Josh

    Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.
    That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by ‘gangbangers’ in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there’s a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.
    The idea that there’s any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb’s spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?

  38. Josh

    Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.
    That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by ‘gangbangers’ in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there’s a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.
    The idea that there’s any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb’s spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?

  39. Josh

    Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.
    That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by ‘gangbangers’ in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there’s a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.
    The idea that there’s any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb’s spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?

  40. Plebontheweb

    Um, my ‘fellow plebs’ aren’t ‘filling each other with bullets’. You know, since there’s at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.
    As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I’d better tell you that I’m not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the ‘agenda-driven’.
    For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI – so I suppose you’d better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You’d also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being ‘fed talking points by the NRA’ as you so condescendingly have it.

  41. Plebontheweb

    Um, my ‘fellow plebs’ aren’t ‘filling each other with bullets’. You know, since there’s at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.
    As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I’d better tell you that I’m not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the ‘agenda-driven’.
    For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI – so I suppose you’d better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You’d also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being ‘fed talking points by the NRA’ as you so condescendingly have it.

  42. Plebontheweb

    Um, my ‘fellow plebs’ aren’t ‘filling each other with bullets’. You know, since there’s at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.
    As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I’d better tell you that I’m not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the ‘agenda-driven’.
    For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI – so I suppose you’d better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You’d also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being ‘fed talking points by the NRA’ as you so condescendingly have it.

  43. Plebontheweb

    Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.
    Oh wait, no they’re not:-
    “Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status”
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759
    That’s just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there’s very, very few amongst the whole lot of ’em that’d have anything like a ‘crisis of conscience’ over the ‘victim disarmament’ aspect of gun control.

  44. Plebontheweb

    Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.
    Oh wait, no they’re not:-
    “Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status”
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759
    That’s just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there’s very, very few amongst the whole lot of ’em that’d have anything like a ‘crisis of conscience’ over the ‘victim disarmament’ aspect of gun control.

  45. Plebontheweb

    Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.
    Oh wait, no they’re not:-
    “Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status”
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759
    That’s just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there’s very, very few amongst the whole lot of ’em that’d have anything like a ‘crisis of conscience’ over the ‘victim disarmament’ aspect of gun control.

  46. Jacob

    ugh someone ban this doofus.

  47. Jacob

    ugh someone ban this doofus.

  48. Jacob

    ugh someone ban this doofus.

Comments are closed