Posted on 01/16/2014 9:04:08 AM PST by Impala64ssa
Big-time movie producer Harvey Weinstein revealed Wednesday that he is making an anti-gun movie with actress Meryl Streep that is going to make the National Rifle Association “wish they weren’t alive.”
During an interview with Howard Stern on his radio show, Weinstein said the new full feature drama will take the NRA “head on.” He also said he’s never owned a gun and never will.
“I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area,” Weinstein said.
After first telling Stern that he shouldn’t reveal too much about his secretive film, the producer spilled the beans.
“I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this issue head on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them,” he added, referring to the NRA.
Weinstein said the film is not a documentary and will be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’” The Hollywood heavyweight was clear that he wants to scare people enough so that they don’t want to be involved with guns.
When Stern challenged his anti-gun logic, Weinstein argued that he would “find a gun” if something like the Holocaust were to happen and his “people” were being marched into Auschwitz.
However, as the Washington Times’ Emily Miller points out: “Mr. Weinstein has been watching too many movies if he thinks the good guys find fully-loaded firearms in convenient locations to use only when necessary.”
Miller also notes that the chairman of the Weinstein Company is one of President Barack Obama’s biggest fundraisers.
Answer: Finally! The cops are here!
Question: Why do the cops carry more rolls of crime scene tape than handcuffs?
any relation to Mikey Weinstein ? Probably cousins . It wouldn’t surprise me . Whiners of a feather whine together .
Are you SURE he is ‘into’ women?
Harvey PantStain put the More in ON.
Then they came for the Jews, and there was nothing for me to defend myself with.
Think about it, Weinstein.
Probably the most he can hope for is people wishing they didn't waste $11 on the movie. That's doable. Probably inevitable in fact.
I’m totally in favor of banning guns — from Hollywood movie and TV productions. Weinstein wouldn’t have two nickels to rub together if he couldn’t exploit guns and gunplay in his very violent movies. That kind of hypocrisy is glaringly evident in most of the self-serving “crusades” mounted by low-information Hollywood fools.
Married twice to English beauties, and children. So I'm going to go with "corrosive low self-esteem" here, buffered by lotsa money.
Save your money—I have the movie plot figured out.
They’ll base the story off a real mass-shooting (”based on actual events”), with these major plot points:
1) The shooting will take place in a school or another location where there are a lot of children present. (They could go with an amusement park, until they realize that Tom Clancy did that in “Rainbow Six” and don’t want to be associated with a book that shows an effective military response.) They’ll show a lot of dead kids to really drive their point home.
2) The shooter is a lifetime NRA member and former member of the NRA national board. He’s a white man whose wife ran off with her female lover and took their kids—probably with a restraining order against him from a sympathetic judge because he’s so dangerous because he has guns, etc. In other words—the shooter will be unlike any actual mass murderer in history.
3) Meryl Streep is the unarmed person who talks the shooter into giving up his guns. She’ll probably be a teacher or principal, maybe the wife or the wife’s lover.
4) Armed civilians will be completely useless. They’ll be shown shooting each other and some of the children.
Michael Moore will love it.
Lawrence O’Donnell will love it because it supports his belief that people armed only with love in their hearts can stop psychos bent on killing a lot of people.
Critics in the media will love it.
The education establishment will show the film in all schools.
The movie won’t make back half its budget.
Permission to shamelessly use that line.
Aren’t the hollywood lefties insufferable?
Quite possible, but he wouldn’t be the first homosexual to be married.
What is your preoccupation with thinking he’s gay? He and his brother are business partners and strike me as fairly normal nice Jewish boys who made good when they grew up — then fame, money and stress started to distort their general values — but not to that extent. There are pictures of him online holding his new little daughter. Physically, he’s kind of like Gandolfini, just not as well groomed or muscular. Needs to lose weight and have a couple of facials and a good stylist.
I think there's an actor named Weinstein who is very gay. May be the hysterical one in Independence Day who got done in by a flying car.
Go right ahead. I stole it myself. I don’t remember who from, but I’m pretty sure it was someone here on FR.
I think you’re thinking of Harvey Fierstein.
What is your preoccupation with defending this guy?
Never mind. No need to answer.
Have a nice day.
Cheers.
This morning for the 30th or 40th straight year, Hollywood named its nominees for a bunch of movies I haven’t seen and actors I wouldn’t recognize if they walked in my front door.
Had to wath “Bless the Beasts...” in high school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.