Liberty Stands Still Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Liberty Wallace, who lives in Los Angeles, isn't at all uncomfortable about her links to the weapons business. Liberty is a key player for McCloud Industries, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the United States. She's the Vice President of Marketing, she's the daughter of the company's founder, and her husband is the company's ruthless CEO, America's premier arms merchant, Victor Wallace. While former war hero Victor is busy trafficking in international armaments, Liberty uses her business breaks to conduct an affair with actor Russell Williams. The balance of their marriage shifts when a sniper named Joe trains his rifle on Liberty as she walks through a busy Los Angeles park on her way to meet with Russell. Joe calls Liberty on her cell phone, and orders Liberty to handcuff herself to a nearby hot dog vendor's cart — the cuffs are already there. Liberty has no intention of submitting to Joe's wishes — until Joe begins firing shots. Quickly convinced, Liberty locks herself to the stand, only to learn that it is loaded with enough explosives to take out a city block. If she calls for help, hangs up the phone, mutes the phone, or fails to cooperate, the bomb will go off. Joe has also attached a bomb to Russell, who's now trapped in his dressing room at a local theater. Liberty realizes she can't buy her way out of this situation, and she is forced to consider Joe's demand for an anti-gun forum. The reason why Joe is doing this is because his daughter was fatally shot by a school classmate who used a gun that was manufactured by McCloud Industries. The death of a child can break a parent's mental balance. Now, Joe is demonstrating to Liberty what it's like to be on the other end of the weapon, and show Liberty the horrors of what she has had a blind hand in for years. Victor has apparently bartered illegal deals without Liberty's knowledge, ones that have resulted in easier access to weapons for street dealers — the ones who sold the weapon that killed Joe's daughter. As a result of his daughter's death, Joe wants Liberty to use her political connections and this incident to spark a public debate on the Second Amendment. Despite his past as a CIA agent, Joe no longer supports the unequivocal right to bear arms. Joe lets Liberty know that she's going to die, but that she can die a hero if she exposes the company's shady business dealings and political connections before she's killed. As Joe monitors and records her every move, Liberty reveals secrets about her own past, and her business dealings. When Victor, who is also having an affair, finds out that Liberty has been taken hostage, he's torn between following company protocol — protecting himself and allowing Liberty to be killed — and trying to help her.
| Wesley Snipes | Joe |
| Linda Fiorentino | Liberty Wallace |
| Oliver Platt | Victor Wallace |
| Martin Cummins | Russell Williams |
| Jonathan Scarfe | Bill Tollman |
| Ian Tracey | Mac Munro |
| Brian Markinson | Rex Perry |
| Jeff Seymour | Officer Pritchard |
| Roger R. Cross | Officer Miller |
| Hart Bochner | Hank Wilford |
| Tanya Allen | May |
| Ed Anders | SWAT Officer #1 |
| Brett Armstrong | SWAT Officer #2 |
| Scott J. Ateah | Police Officer |
| Fulvio Cecere | Burt McGovern |
| Kari Skogland |
5.70 out of 10 (2768 votes)
Visitor Reviews
I hated this movie
posted on 19 Dec 2008**********Spoiler Warning*************I'll never look at Wesley Snipes or Linda Fiorentino the same way again.
This is little more than some of the same liberal garbage we get from Hollywood, and it's no surprise it didn't get a wide theatrical release as it would have bombed.Wesley stars as a disgruntled father who's daughter was killed in a school shooting, (even using one of the famous quotes from Columbine) and so Wesley decides that the best way to vent his anger is to become a sniper and hold hostage the wife of a gun manufacturer.This movie tries to be tense but falls flat in every part. Reality gets bent when the gun manufacturers are *of course* all involved in illegal arms deals, and anti-gun Snipes is *naturally* a CIA trained sniper.The premise is tawdry, Snipes wants to start a "public debate" on the second amendment, but trouble is I don't think Wesley would be open to any opposing views.I dunno, I remember movies starting in the seventies reflecting on how the violence in our society was a symptom of larger things. In an earlier era Wesley might have wondered why the kid wanted to shoot his daughter, what was going wrong in our society, etc. Now it seems with movies like this the fixation seems to be that by removing firearms and the people that make them all of our problems will be solved, and don't you dare think otherwise. This was a very poor movie that tried to be gripping but ended up ripping off trendy headlines.
snipes is tripe is this pointless piece of crap.
posted on 15 Dec 2008i'm sorry, i'm not usually so critical of feature films; the fact that they've even been made and put into circulation is a feat that's not too shabby. This film, however, was - plain and simple - CRAP. It seems that many other reviewers agree with me.i understand that the filmmakers were attempting to convey a strong message about gun control in both the united states and the rest of the world. While the core of the message was understood, it was very very VERY badly presented and subsequently caused 5 of the 7 viewers in the room with me at the time to fall asleep at one point or another during the film.the film lacked depth, excitement, action or any kind of entertainment. i honestly believed that the climax of the story would be truly memorable and the filmmakers emerge victorious in their convincing of audiences and gun distributers around the world. the climax, unfortunately, never came. much like the accolades for this film never will.
One Limey's perspective
posted on 11 Nov 2008This film may not be perfect, but it certainly deserves praise for trying to make a statement that all the gun strokers will loudly object to. There should be more responsibility on the part of both Gun manufacturers and Gun owners.Full marks for Wes putting his career on the line to make such an unpopular statement.One accusation that many Gun owners make about such films is that they are typical Hollywood propaganda. Sorry - the sort of films Hollywood likes to make are films such as Red Dawn, The Green Berets, Commando, Independance day ect. where they can make a buck by glorifying firearms and having lots of colourful explosions accompanied by corny one-liners.Gun ownership is not the only cause for the murder rate in the states as Bowling for Columbine points out. Canadians do not shoot each other with anywhere near the same regularity as Americans do, despite having a similar rate of gun ownership. The Swiss don't kill each other either.Oh, and Datroy. Those 9,974 incidents include imitation firearms and only need be reported, not even verified. So if someone thinks they saw a gun and reports it, that's an incident. There were under 70 gun related murders for a population of over 50 million. In comparison, the US of A had over 10,000 murders. That's a per capita ratio of 25:1, well done.Lastly, I believe the "hate america" website you allude to is the FBI website. I've also yet to see a drive-by baseball batting.
A "Phone Booth" Ripoff
posted on 07 Nov 2008Liberty Stands Still, even though it wields considerable talent due to having starts such as Linda Fiorentino and Wesley Snipes, is one of those kinds of projects that happens too frequently in Hollywood. The storyline is a blatant ripoff of the plot of the movie Phone Booth. It is very common, given the lack of secrecy and discretion in Tinseltown, and the necessity of promoting and publicizing scripts, for there to be competing projects with the same or very similar plots. The plot for Phone Booth had been much publicized, especially since Will Smith was originally pegged to star in the movie. Even with Smith not making the movie, and Colin Farrell becoming the lead, the plot was novel and well known enough for someone to write something very, very similar.Both movies involve a lead character who spends nearly the entire film stuck on the telephone as a prisoner to a sniper who threatens to shoot the lead if they move. In Phone Booth, Farrell plays a PR guy who is as cuddly as a piranha. His caller is obviously seeking revenge against him personally. In Liberty Stands Still, Fiorentino plays Liberty, the wife of a notorious arms dealer. Her tormentor, played by Snipes, is seeking revenge for the loss of a child killed by one of Liberty's husbands' guns. The only major differences are 1) we see Snipes throughout the movie, while Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the corresponding character in Phone Booth, is unseen, and 2) Snipes is using Fiorentino's character to get back at her husband, not seeking revenge against her personally.Phone Booth is a much better movie, although on its own, Liberty Stands Still has some merit. But if you have to choose, see Phone Booth first or only.
What`s With The Second Amendment ?
posted on 30 Sep 2008I had absolutely no idea what LIBERTY STILL STANDS was going to be about before I saw it on Sky movies ( Hardly surprising since it went straight to video in so many countries including Britain ), so as the title sequence started there`s qoutes from the American second amendment cut into the graphics including the qoute about " A well regulated militia " so right away I was expecting a thriller featuring right wing racist nutters and some heavy handed criticism of American gun laws , but within seconds I discovered the bad guy was played by Wesley Snipes so out went my theory this was going to be about muderous " patriots " needing guns to fight against international conspiracies led by communists and ZOG so what`s all this got to do with the second amendment ?!!!!! MILD SPOILER !!!!!It is revealed later on how the second amendment and gun control ties in with this movie , however it`s done in such a laughable and unconvincing manner it doesn`t hold up , but that`s not the reason I disliked LIBERTY STILL STANDS , I disliked it simply because it`s a bad movie . Director Kari Skogland uses far too many close ups , so many in fact that it`s often impossible to understand what`s going because much of the running time is composed of either Linda Fiorentino or Wesley Snipes face filling the screen. The script ( Also by Skogland ) is very poor and plot wise resembles a cross between PHONE BOOTH and BLOWN AWAY . Amazingly the plot isn`t the worst aspect of the script it`s the dialogue which at times is so esoteric I didn`t have a clue what they were talking about half the time . The dialogue also seems devoid of characterisation and fails to convince , and that`s before it`s revealed what the snipers motives are - Which as I mentioned before is unconvincing I`ve not seen PHONE BOOTH but I can`t believe it could be worse than LIBERTY STILL STRANDS
"Stands Still" says a lot
posted on 14 Sep 2008This movie is a total waste of time. It is a commercial for the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. A gunman starts killing people with a gun because his daughter was killed by some nut with a gun. Two wrongs make a right, I guess. Of course, the people responsible are the people who own the gun manufacturer. Right!And the heir of the gun company founder and wife of the current CEO finally decides, after chaining herself to a hot dog stand at the gunman's command, that her family's business has done irreparable harm to society. She weeps and tells about all the congressmen they have bought off.What a bunch of crap. Linda Fiorentino and Wesley Snipes deserve better than this.1/10
A good thriller with an interesting basis. Well acted but missing an edge.
posted on 10 Sep 2008A low-key and seemingly missed thriller. Wesley Snipes provides a slow and unusually underplayed performance, with no physical fighting or glib one liners. In fact it's an extremely mature performance that shows what an overlooked actor he really is. An interesting and original storyline keeps you engaged and the continually moving camera, quick editing and fast paced story, heightens the tension as the pressures build. One of the surprising things about this film is the extremely small scale on which the movie is based, the focus switches between one room and a hotdog stand, with cuts to locations to bring in incidental characters. A thriller based around a clever idea, filled with tension, but just lacking an edge.
If you dont like movies that make you think... avoid.
posted on 12 Jul 2008This is a movie I would never rent, but was fortunate enough to come across by chance.Despite the negative reviews from those that equate Wesley Snipes + Guns=Action movie, this one is an enjoyable suspense drama for those who like to think.Wesley does Snipe in this movie, and as a man with a message, he delivers it well. I can't fault the acting, the cinematogry (if perhaps a tad overly stylish for my tastes) or the delivery of the films message. When you take an ex-CIA agent, who's trade was death, and visit upon him the loss of his daughter to a senseless gun-related death, then place the heiress of a gun company in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle that company produces, you have an interesting plot. Couple that with some very strong performances, you have Liberty stands still.Phone Booth was very forgettable in my opinion, yet Liberty manages to convey its very heavy message eloquently, and succinctly.. a mere 95 odd minutes.Its not an action movie however, and I believe that is what explains the majority of the reviews from other viewers.I enjoyed this movie, and was challenged by the position it took... if you make an arms dealer confront the reality by what they perceive as business as usual... what would happen?The pro-gun lobby will denounce it, the anti-gun lobby will support it. But if you are on the fence, it will make you evaluate both sides, and think further... if thinking isn't your cup of tea... definitely avoid this one.All in all, great acting, good plot... nice suspence drama. And as far as political statements go, much better than any other 2nd Ammendment movie to date. See it if you like a solid suspense movie.
Eh - it was okay for a rental
posted on 29 Apr 2008While this movie was mildly entertaining, there is a reason it went straight to video. Like phonebooth (but without the Colin Farrel nametag), it really lacked a strong plot. Depending on which way you saw each character, the movie could be pro or anti gun control - if you really look deep. You have a woman who runs a gun company and a psycho with a gun (obtained illegally as he has a criminal record) further gun control would not keep him from obtaining a gun.The movie, while running the same "plot line" as Phonebooth, was not a ripoff of the movie, considering both came out the same year and, in fact, the production of Liberty started before Phonebooth was even cast.
An utterly vile, loathsome movie
posted on 27 Apr 2008This is an utterly vile, loathsome movie. I would never advocate censorship, but I do feel that those responsible for producing this movie deserve to be spat upon in the street by everyone they meet. There was a case recently in the city where I live (Toronto, Canada) where two young art students tortured a cat and made a video of the process, claiming this was a valid artistic exercise (they were prosecuted). This film, Liberty Stands Still, is in many ways equivalent to the product of those students. Oh, it's doubtless massively more technically accomplished, and I'm sure no animals were actually harmed in its production (which is a large distinction) - but the artistic sensibility behind it and the effect of the product on the audience seem to me to be very similar... the entire focus is on torturing and killing the helpless, and this is supposedly justified by vapid artistic and political pretensions. Absolutely not recommended to anyone. And if you meet the producer, writer or director, spit on them for me and tell them why.
Come Back, Linda, We Miss You!
posted on 13 Apr 2008Linda Fiorentino really steals the screen in this film. She holds her own with Wesley Snipes. The film has political message about guns, gun control, and violence. Of course, it must be written from a leftist liberal point of view. Wesley Snipes' character has a grudge against guns. Along the film, we learn his motives and why he is so angry and vengeful but we never really know the whole story. There are lot more questions that go unanswered. I found the ending scene to be more confusing. I get the message that guns are bad. For the beginning part of the film until the television stations begin with K that I knew it was West Coast. I thought it was set in New York City but it turns out to be in Los Angeles and I later learned that the film was filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada which is often substituted for other cities. Anyway, Oliver Platt has a supporting role as Liberty's husband. Although we rarely see Liberty interact physically with Snipes or Platt's characters except on cell phones. This film was probably in production long before the events on September 11, 2001 and I can see why it was not promoted. Anyway, I wish Linda Fiorentino would come back to acting. She can hold her own against anybody.
Screw personal responsibility
posted on 05 Apr 2008It's not hard to believe why `Liberty Stands Still' flopped on the big screen. The techno music soundtrack was painful to listen to, the plot was excessively boring, and the anti-2nd Amendment message that the movie attempted to convey was downright nauseating. I will disregard the tedium of the film and the truly annoying techno music and focus on the film's ludicrous message.SPOILERS: Snipes's character Joe had a daughter who was killed by a fellow classmate with a gun. Instead of going after the boy who killed his daughter, Joe is able to forgive him and go after the `real' villains: the `evil' gun manufacturer, who, in this movie, is a mega-corporation that has every politician in the USA in its pocket. Joe terrorizes Liberty, the wife of the president of the evil gun manufacturer, with a military issued sniper rifle. All Joe really wants is a national debate on the 2nd Amendment (something that he and the director of this film clearly do not understand), but he ends up murdering Liberty's husband, a police officer, and a reporter before killing himself.There were some truly laughable lines though. After the media arrives, Liberty tells Joe, `You know the NRA is going to spin this and say 'it's because people like you that justifies in the rest of us in needing guns.' Joe replies, `I was a law abiding citizen. By their definition, I have a right to own a gun. I'm choosing to exercise that right.' I honestly have to say that this is the stupidest and most pathetic argument against the 2nd Amendment. Sure, as a law abiding citizen, and I have the right to own a gun, knife, golf club and utilize such tools in a LAWFUL MANNER. However, once I start shooting/stabbing/beating people to death, I cease to be a `law abiding citizen' and turn into a CRIMINAL. I guess the director of this film fails to understand this most obvious point. In addition, it's not the knife, club, or gun OR THEIR MANUFACTURERS that commits the crime: It's the person who wielded these weapons. The objects mentioned above are not capable of committing a crime, inasmuch as they are inanimate. The manufactures certainly should not be held responsible for crimes committed with tools that they created, because doing so would impugn the whole concept of individual responsibility. If I trip over my own untied shoe laces and crack my head open on a tiled floor, it is certainly not the manufacturer of the shoes or the contractor who installed the tiles who is to blame. Still, the film completely ignores these most elementary facts and equates the gun manufactures as responsible for the death of Joe's daughter. Sadly, such demented logic is all too prevalent in today's society (smokers suing cigarette companies for getting lung cancer, fat people suing fast food restaurants for getting obesity-related health problems, etc) and this film just coaxes such idiocy.Pitifully, it is an all too common theme among radical left-wingers to attack the 2nd amendment. Movies like this demonstrate the unintelligent logic of such anti-gun's rights arguments, and the fact that this movie did so poorly in the box office sheds some light that the general public isn't dumb enough to buy into such nonsense.
Preachy, slightly boring, yet still a bit interesting
posted on 26 Mar 2008I watched this on video last night. It wasn't even a blip in the movie schedule in Japan, although "Bowling for Columbine" was in most theaters when it came out. There are obvious reasons for the lack of attention "Liberty Stands Still" received.Some spoilers follow.First, it was tedious. The drawn out disclosure of why Joe is doing this is supposed to be intriguing, but there is no tension to sustain the intrigue. Ironically, the realism of the offhand way he kills a few of the victims works against the drama of the movie by releasing some of the tension without a buildup to that release. There is another source of tension in the bombs, but since we never actually get to know Russel that well, we don't really care too much about him. He's been committing adultery with someone else's wife, so most people wouldn't have that much sympathy with him from a moral standpoint anyway. The other potential victims of the bombs are either people Skogland portrays unsympathetically or a faceless crowd. It makes it hard to care about whether the bombs go off or not.That leads to another problem with the plot: there are no sympathetic characters. Again, this complexity is one of the things that works against it as a movie. Even Liberty, who is in the role of Joe's main victim, is shown to be unsympathetic at the beginning (she's cheating on her husband, she's indirectly responsible for gun running and so is supposedly aiding and abetting wars at home and abroad) yet we are somehow supposed to grow to like her at least a little bit by the end of the film. The only admirable things about her were that she tried to find a way out of her predicament, and kept trying to help others even if she was putting herself in danger.A final major flaw was that the ending was anti-climactic. Obviously Kari Skogland could not make her villain into a demon without undermining her message, so some of Joe's threats are bluffs. He is made to appear serious by killing people earlier in the film, but the people he kills are people that no one could really care about--in many cases we don't know them well enough--or could not support without some ambiguity.This movie's blatantly obvious message is anti-gun. Unfortunately Skogland displays a very poor understanding of the complexities involved in the question of gun-control. Joe states that the gun industry is huge, while in reality most manufacturers function barely in the black. Profits for the entire firearms industry in 1999 amounted to about $200 million. The CEO of a major corporation makes a median salary of $13 to $14 million and the highest paid make around $180 to $190 million. That's the amount that a single employee of the company makes versus the profits of an entire industry. Making guns is hardly the most profitable of businesses.The line of reasoning that Joe follows is tenuous at best. By his logic, car manufacturers should be held responsible for the accidents they cause, drug manufacturers responsible for deaths from side effects, accidental overdoses, and suicides; and the power company for deaths through electrocution. I fully agree with one of Joe's statements, that Americans have forgotten about responsibility. Where he and I disagree is that I would not hold the manufacturer of a hammer responsible for a murder committed using the hammer; I would blame the murderer. In addition, we never find out for sure if the death of a loved one which he lays at Liberty's feet was intentional or accidental. He seems to think that issue is not worth considering and this allows him to skirt the issue of personal responsibility in his quest for "justice." While his blindness to the complexities of the situation could be seen as Skogland's presentation of a flawed narrator, given the overall treatment of the film it is likely that the overt message and tortured logic are the writer's own, not just the character's.While this movie had some potential, it falls flat in many areas. The logic of the plot is forced, the characters are not developed to their full potential, and some of the virtues it does have are undermined by mistakes in pacing. If the promised complexity and ambiguity of the characters had been more fully developed, if the logic and facts of the plot had been more believable, if Skogland had built the dramatic tension in a more adept way, this could have been a better than average movie.If you want to watch good movie about the issue of gun control, rent "Bowling for Columbine." You may not agree with Moore's message, but if you actually think about what he is saying, you have to admit that he raises some legitimate points. His approach is to ask questions to find the root causes of the problem. Moore raises more questions than he answers and by doing so invites the viewer to help find a solution for the very real problems to which he draws attention. It's not drama, but it is a decent treatment of the central issue in "Liberty Stands Still."
Suprisingly good film
posted on 26 Mar 2008Projects like this will never do well in the US, because a lot of people there will hear a message that they don't want to hear and will be upset by.Well boo-hoo. Last year was a "good one" apparently for the US re murders and a bad one for the UK.Gun related homicides:UK: 97US: just below 16,000This film may not manage to get its message over as well as Bowling for Columbine but it - and Wes Snipes - deserves the credit for at least trying!
The hot dog stand in the park
posted on 28 Jan 2008Kari Skogland's "Liberty Stands Still" kept reminding us of a similar film, Joel Schumacher's "Phone Booth". The clue for understanding what the director's message seems to be, is seen in the opening credits. We are shown part of the US Constitution. Ms. Skogland is preparing us for what will follow.The only thing that doesn't make the film as suspenseful, as it could be, is the fact we know from the start who is behind the power rifle in a building overlooking the square where much of the action will take place. We don't believe, for one second, that Joe, could have prepared this caper that has placed two exploding devices in the theater, as well as in the hot dog stand. Wesley Snipes is only seen in closeups.The other thing that doesn't make sense is to watch a cool Liberty Wallace, a woman who can die at any moment if Joe decides to put a bullet right smack in the red spot over her heart. The way Ms. Fiorentino plays this woman doesn't seem to add anything to the tense situation Ms. Skogland has prepared for us to see.It's clear to see why this film went to video without showing in theaters, or if it did, it might have lasted a week, the most. As a video, or in cable, one is willing to take the chance. The film is not horrible, by any means, it shows a director who will do better in the future.
I hate fake reviews
posted on 09 Dec 2007You can always tell who gives fake reviews around here. First, look at the reviewer's location. For some reason fake reviewers love to place themselves somewhere in California. Secondly, if it sounds like a commercial for the film, it probably is. Thirdly, click on the reviewer's name and see if they have actually reviewed anything else. If they have not, it is likely that they just registered to give props to one of their buds. So, just letting you know that you can go ahead and disregard the reviews by laresistenz and rapierdagger. Now, on to the film: The film did have some funny moments toward the beginning. I loved it when Liberty gets naked to draw attention to herself, but when the cop asks her why, she says "it's hot." There was another funny moment too but I can't remember what it was. However, the director created this film to make us think, and in that, it failed miserably. I would love to go back to medieval times and see a farm cart with a bumper sticker on it that says, "Swords don't kill people, people kill people". In fact, if you are in favor of gun control, this movie will probably do more to swing you against it. Why is this? Well, hello, screenwriter: Most people do not want to associate themselves politically with complete lunatics with guns! Therefore, the very premise of the movie-, which is vehemently anti-gun, actually succeeds in doing the opposite of what it intended. In other words, I ended up feeling sorry for the gun company lady and can't stand Joe/Alex, the crazy gun-hating guy.
The film did have a lot of dialogue, which is refreshing if you are into that sort of thing, and I really like Fiorentino. Other than that, though, the political message is so dully and unintelligently delivered that it doesn't go beyond a high school class discussion, so therefore could only provoke intelligent debate with the equivalent of high-schoolers. Not thought provoking at all, at least concerning gun control. However, you will do a lot of thinking as to whether or not all the director's movies are so politically slanted, and if they are, you have to wonder how long they are going to survive in the entertainment industry.
Would it be better Joe's daughter was stabbed to death with a pencil?
posted on 26 Sep 2007It's not hard to believe why `Liberty Stands Still' flopped on the big screen. The techno music soundtrack was painful to listen to, the plot was excessively boring, and the anti-2nd Amendment message that the movie attempted to convey was downright nauseating. I will disregard the tedium of the film and the truly annoying techno music and focus on the film's ludicrous message.SPOILERS: Snipes's character Joe had a daughter who was killed by a fellow classmate with a gun. Instead of going after the boy who killed his daughter, Joe is able to forgive him and go after the `real' villains: the `evil' gun manufacturer, who, in this movie, is a mega-corporation that has every politician in the USA in its pocket. Joe terrorizes Liberty, the wife of the president of the evil gun manufacturer, with a military issued sniper rifle. All Joe really wants is a national debate on the 2nd Amendment (something that he and the director of this film clearly do not understand), but he ends up murdering Liberty's husband, a police officer, and a reporter before killing himself.There were some truly laughable lines though. After the media arrives, Liberty tells Joe, `You know the NRA is going to spin this and say 'it's because people like you that justifies the rest of us in needing guns.' Joe replies, `I was a law abiding citizen. By their definition, I have a right to own a gun. I'm choosing to exercise that right.' I honestly have to say that this is the stupidest and most pathetic argument against the 2nd Amendment. Sure, as a law abiding citizen, and I have the right to own a gun, knife, golf club and utilize such tools in a LAWFUL MANNER. However, once I start shooting/stabbing/beating people to death, I cease to be a `law abiding citizen' and turn into a CRIMINAL. I guess the director of this film fails to understand this most obvious point. In addition, it's not the knife, club, or gun OR THEIR MANUFACTURERS that commits the crime: It's the person who wielded these weapons. The objects mentioned above are not capable of committing a crime, inasmuch as they are inanimate. The manufactures certainly should not be held responsible for crimes committed with tools that they created, because doing so would impugn the whole concept of individual responsibility. If I trip over my own untied shoe laces and crack my head open on a tiled floor, it is certainly not the manufacturer of the shoes or the contractor who installed the tiles who is to blame. Still, the film completely ignores these most elementary facts and equates the gun manufactures as responsible for the death of Joe's daughter. Sadly, such demented logic is all too present in today's society (smokers suing cigarette companies for getting lung cancer, fat people suing fast food restaurants for getting obesity-related health problems, etc) and this film just coaxes such idiocy.Pitifully, it is an all too common theme among radical left-wingers to attack the 2nd amendment. Movies like this demonstrate the unintelligent logic of such anti-gun's rights arguments, and the fact that this movie did so poorly in the box office sheds some light that the public is not dumb enough to buy into such nonsense.
Liberty really needed to move around.
posted on 27 Aug 2007Some direct-to-video movies are a chromosome away from being acceptable popcorn fare in U.S. theaters. So out of the thousands in this category of movies, why did I begin my comment with the previous sentence for this particular one? Two reasons: Wesley Snipes and Linda Fiorentino. A couple of Hollywood's finest are not on the silver screen. They should fire their agents.Contrary to what most IMDb'ers said, Snipes the sniper isn't all bad. I'd rather see him as Blade, but whatever, he's fine. And the divine Ms. Fiorentino, well she isn't bad either, and I rather liked her sniveling in the face of death. The Liberty Wallace character is a direct opposite of her Wendy Kroy character from "The Last Seduction". It's a damn shame that these two never once share a camera shot. It made me pine for a "Bad Company"(1995) type movie, starring these two. Imagine how cool *that* would be!!!Anyway, the biggest problem with this cat and mouse movie is that there isn't a real chase. Just a bunch of redundant questions and talking that becomes kinda boring. What should have been done, and what may have ensured a theatrical release, are couple o' things. If it were something like "The Most Dangerous Game" or "Die Hard with A Vengeance", but still keep the political, 2nd Amendment spin. Even better, as I said, put these lead actors in the same room. Joe kidnaps Liberty and then the resulting "TNT We Know Drama" probably would have changed everything bad that looms in this movie. Too late, we got Six Degrees of Joe the Sniper; that is, a movie with too many ridiculous connections among the main characters. In the end, however, it's not god-awful. It does however, have the look and feel of something that goes directly-to-video. Oh...yeah...right, well there you go, then.
Intelligence Stands Still
posted on 13 Aug 2007This movie is like a theater play. There's only one location and no action. This can make good movies. Tape (www.imdb.com/title/tt0275719/) for example is an excellent movie in my opinion. Baring entirely on dialog and acting. Liberty stands still lacks these qualities and is neither entertaining nor involving. It is however very annoying from start to finish because the premise is totally unrealistic and lacks any intelligence. I don't like movies where a bad guy (or eventually not just bad Wesley the sniper) has godlike control over his victims. Judging by the presence of a lot of comments with pro firearms opinions some people tend to think this movie tries to make a political statement against firearms. That is just foolish. Of course godlike control handed by a gun is THE ultimate way to market guns. Therefor rather than being an -though original- but failed attempt at an action movie without action, or a thriller without thrills this is a far far far to long commercial for guns, I say. Mabey there is some cleverness in this crap movie for passing as the opposite.It gets two stars because just one star is reserved for ultimate crap.
Typical Hollywood Propoganda
posted on 17 Jul 2009This film tried to do two things. 1) Provide a gripping drama and 2) Push across a message about the issue of guns in society. It failed on both counts. The script was awful, full of shadowy CIA types with extremely ambiguous roles. It even made the police look like a bunch of bumbling idiots tripping over their own feet. Fiorentino and Snipes were both disappointingly wooden and the ending fell flat on its face. If you want a gripping drama along the same lines (minus the leftist political rant), look no further than Phone Booth: Colin Farell and Forrest Whittaker...you can ask for no more. Next, the point of the "message" is to say that guns are bad, evil things that are only ever used for awful, awful things. Even hunting is bad and anyone with a gun is going to hell. They don't even want limited gun control, because even parents who taught their children strict gun safety are ridiculed. This is a no holes barred attack in what I'm sure is the spirit of Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine. (However, I can't be sure of that as I have yet to see Moore's latest piece of fiction.) And, of course, the NRA is attacked to no end. Snipes has a line where he says "The one thing, that guarantees our freedom and independence, is responsibility. We lost that somewhere between Vietnam and presidential blowjobs." He's more right than he knows. Only he's talking about some unknown responsibility that gunmakers have that supercedes a parent's responsibility for their kid. (Remember, the parent who taught gun safety was a BAD man). It's merely another case of liberal hollywonks trying to shove their liberal propoganda down our throats much in the spirit of The Life of David Gale.--------------------------------------------While we're throwing out statistics on a movie review board, for the Limey who pointed out that the US has more gun fatalities than England, take a closer look at your statistics (not the ones provided for you by your favorite "hate america" organization.)According to your own BBC as of Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 11:02 GMTGun crime soars by 35% in a year. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.RECORDED CRIME RISES Overall crime: 9.3%; Gun crime: 35%; Robbery: 14.5%; Domestic burglary: 7.9% (the UK has now surpassed the US in robbery and domestic burglary, congratulations); Drug offences: 12.3%; Sexual offences: 18.2%Source: Home OfficeBoy, those gun controls sure work wonders. Bottom line is, they will always find a way to do it. In England it just happens to be knives, baseball bats and other tools (in addition to the increase in gun incidents). The statistics for Australia are even uglier. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, where all members of the large reserve militia are required to keep guns and ammunition in their house, and where shooting is a national sport and shooting ranges are seemingly everywhere, the homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, closer to what England's was in 1900 when they had no gun control laws. The Democrats' answer to this wrench thrown in the rabid campaign for gun control, as voiced by Bill Bradley: "The Swiss are pretty dull".Avoid this movie. If you're thinking straight, it will only make you mad. Only Life of David Gale was worse.