Jane Got A Gun Control


Ms. Portman is a rabid pro-gun control, anti-gun progressive who decided to make a movie in which the heroine, without the use of a gun, would not achieve the film's soppy happy ending. From what I see on IMDB, this cost about $25m to make and returned less than $2m, and she was an investor, too. Bwa-ha-ha! According to Women's Wear Daily, "Despite the film’s shoot-outs, both Portman and Edgerton stressed their pro-gun control stance. 'As a very laconic Australian comedian Jim Jefferies points out, it’s called an amendment, so why the f–k can’t it be amended?' Edgerton said, then paused. “Hopefully someone isn’t going to shoot me for my opinion.' No, Mr. Edgerton, nobody's going to shoot you with a movie camera, either, if you keep on making films nobody wants to see. You might try taking on roles that aren't the antithesis of your real-life attitudes, for a starter.

reply

[deleted]

Think twice.
Your comments are violating IMDb board policy.

reply

There's a lot to be said about why the public won't see a movie.
That said, I tend to agree that a lot of the public won't see a movie for the politics of the lead actors or the theme of the movie being against their personal principles.
I, for one; most of the time.
But I saw this one against my principles of not liking actors who spout their anti-gun beliefs, regardless of them wanting to 'make a buck' making a good movie (and it was).
With its poor box-office, I'd say I'm at least partly right (and so too, are you).

reply

Congrats on being a knee jerk.

People getting shot can be fun on film and in computer games, not so much in real life.

reply