This movie shed light on the lengths lobbiest go whether or not they belive in a particular view. It also shows how politicians can be pushed one direction vs another on support of a bill based on the blackmail and personal shots taken against them to pick a side. The movie was great and the female lead was almost a sociopath herself, it reminds me of the game as a child, mouse trap, or rat trap as they refer to it in the movie, must see
sharewhen did you watch the movie?
shareI agree, I thought it was a fantastic film. Chastain is amazing, she reminded me of Faye Dunaway in Network.
it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again
Well, that's not entirely accurate. By virtue of telling this story the way they did (a lead heroine championing a gun control measure), there's a message inherent in there, whether you saw it that way or not. I did, though I know the test audience seemed to largely disagree, saying that it was more about the lobbying "industry" than anything else. I don't disagree with that -- it certainly is VERY educational about the lengths lobbyists go to achieve whatever goals they've set out upon -- but the fact that the lead is entirely interested in passing a gun control measure methinks you can say this was pro-gun control as opposed to anti-gun control.
My two cents.
I haven't seen this movie yet, but from the descriptions it reminds me a lot of Thank You for Smoking. Although the protagonist, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart's character), is clearly presented in a way to make the audience sympathize with him I don't think it was meant to actually make them sympathize with the position he was representing. Granted, he stoped working for the tobaco industry at the end, but only because he found other, equally morally questionable, clients that hadn't tried to burn him.
So I think it is actually possible to make a political movie, especially about lobbying, without having to present the side the main character (even if presented in a sympathetic way) works for as the "right" one. If Miss Sloane actually succeeds in that or ends up preaching more gun control, I don't know.
That is absurd and you have it backwards, Bloomberg and his various gun control lobbies outspend NRA etc 8:1.
And cigarettes never saved anyone. Guns are used to prevent 500,000 to 3 million crimes per year.
the real issue is criminals on the streets. US violent crime moves up with more on the streets, and way way down with less on the streets (US murder fell by over 60% 1993-2104 as we locked up more criminals.
In my hometown of Baltimore 97% of murderers and 93% of murder victims are criminals. In fact if you at not a criminal you at much safer from murder risk in the US than in Canada or Australia.
Guns are not used to prevent 3 million crimes a year. You are pulling this out of your butt, Trump.
shareAny basic statistic would tell you that the murder rate is much higher in the US than Canada per person.
Got knows what right wing rag gives you your information.
There are also more things that some of us feel are morally reprehensible about guns. What about the 265 gun incidents a year involving toddlers?
Or the 20 thousand people who use guns for suicide?
Those are collateral damage?
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls063927046/
i see gunz as backdrop 4 story
shez focused in passin gun law bec movie wuz bout her and how she do anythin 2 win a case. she even mention at end dat she didnt care either way and only took on case 4 da challenge. chase makez her feel alive.
i dont think movie wuz political bec if it wuz, i say it really is pro-gunz bec da fugly gurl wudve been shot if happy trigger citizen didnt save her.
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka
It reminds me a lot of "Thank You for Smoking" though more serious.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.