I also agree with you that he was a good guy and wanted the best for everybody. I thought about this too however I think he was right to keep the gun.
1. He may know that people are going to be rowdy eventually and he needed a way to keep them under control. (one way to think about this is that....not all dictators are bad dictators - he did a pretty good job imo as a "leader"). If someone had no morals and wanted the money they would need to be controlled.
2. There were way too many unknowns...for all he knew somebody could bust in through a trapdoor somewhere and attack them. Having a gun would be handy.
****Semi-spoiler****
3. As evidenced by the latter half of the movie, there are other lethal weapons used besides the gun - so getting rid of the gun doesn't necessarily make everybody feel safer.
4. If the gun was gone, that'd just mean the MMA fighter or Kung Fu master would have been the lethal weapon ;) Cause you know - that french guy looked like one helluva boxer.
I thought this was a great movie. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he wasn't killed by the black guy.
The one thing that would also make this movie more interesting is if everybody had morals like the cop, kelly brook, priest man, french man's wife. It was pretty obvious the french guy had flexible morals for the money, black dude was rage-killer, and tennis player and max were willing to kill. There was degradation in the party only because some had lower morals than others.
If the movie ended with priest, cop, and kelly brook almost starving to death and then the camera guy coming in and congratulating them, I would have enjoyed the movie just as much.
reply
share