It's pretty clear which side of the political spectrum this film is geared towards. Despite being a deeply political film with a controversial message, "Is that a Gun in Your Pocket" does manage to get some things right. At times, the movie is genuinely funny. It does manage to capture the big personalities of Texans and seems to understand where Texan stubbornness comes from. But beyond this, there are many flaws in the film that simply leave for wanting. This is the story about Jenna Keely, a debutante housewife from the town of Rockford, Texas. After a school-shooting incident involving her young son, Keely gives her husband an ultimatum: she won't sleep with him until he gives up all of his guns. This protest spreads to the rest of the women in town and eventually resolves itself with, as one can guess, the men in the town giving up their guns.
The lack of diversity in the cast is the most striking feature of such a politically-charged film. It is possible to perceive the inclusion of a single Hispanic couple as an open-minded gesture. Because otherwise, every single character in the film would have been white. This is a huge failure on the part of the filmmakers given the political message of the film. Where are the black voices? What about the Asian voices? Considering the recent public attention diverted to diversity in Hollywood and police shootings, the inclusion of African American voices can't be considered out of place. The lack of diversity in the cast stands in stark contrast to the film's adopted liberal values. It raises the question: did the filmmakers actually ever visit any of the small towns in the southwest before trying to portray one on film? Most small towns in Texas are a lot more diverse.
"Is That a Gun in Your Pocket" is too political at certain times and overly crass at other times. But some parts are enjoyable. A lot of the jokes are actually rather amusing. At the end of the film, one might find themselves disagreeing with the political message but still enjoying the film. So there is some merit. But the writers could have easily written better dialogues than, "Every avalanche starts with a single snowflake". Did the writers purposefully appropriate that particular double entendre? In the film, the law enforcement in the small town of Rockford don't treat the gun incident at the local school very seriously. This is hard to believe, since conservative towns tend to be big supporters of strict law enforcement and gun safety. The recklessness that leads to the main character's son being involved in a school shooting would have resulted in some criminal charges at the very least. Gun safety is generally taken very seriously in pro- second amendment states.
The lack of diversity is one thing, but the racially charged humor was downright outrageous. Mr. Rockford, the reclusive billionaire whom the small town is named after, makes one particularly gross remark about avoiding "blue- balled" monks at the end of the film. At the beginning, he advises the lead's husband to avoid India for the best. His exact words were, "you probably saved yourself from some vicious fudgy squirts". The same thing can probably be said for avoiding this movie. It's hard not to expect a little bit more forethought from such an intentionally political film.
The lack of diversity in the cast is the most striking feature of such a politically-charged film. It is possible to perceive the inclusion of a single Hispanic couple as an open-minded gesture. Because otherwise, every single character in the film would have been white. This is a huge failure on the part of the filmmakers given the political message of the film. Where are the black voices? What about the Asian voices? Considering the recent public attention diverted to diversity in Hollywood and police shootings, the inclusion of African American voices can't be considered out of place. The lack of diversity in the cast stands in stark contrast to the film's adopted liberal values. It raises the question: did the filmmakers actually ever visit any of the small towns in the southwest before trying to portray one on film? Most small towns in Texas are a lot more diverse.
"Is That a Gun in Your Pocket" is too political at certain times and overly crass at other times. But some parts are enjoyable. A lot of the jokes are actually rather amusing. At the end of the film, one might find themselves disagreeing with the political message but still enjoying the film. So there is some merit. But the writers could have easily written better dialogues than, "Every avalanche starts with a single snowflake". Did the writers purposefully appropriate that particular double entendre? In the film, the law enforcement in the small town of Rockford don't treat the gun incident at the local school very seriously. This is hard to believe, since conservative towns tend to be big supporters of strict law enforcement and gun safety. The recklessness that leads to the main character's son being involved in a school shooting would have resulted in some criminal charges at the very least. Gun safety is generally taken very seriously in pro- second amendment states.
The lack of diversity is one thing, but the racially charged humor was downright outrageous. Mr. Rockford, the reclusive billionaire whom the small town is named after, makes one particularly gross remark about avoiding "blue- balled" monks at the end of the film. At the beginning, he advises the lead's husband to avoid India for the best. His exact words were, "you probably saved yourself from some vicious fudgy squirts". The same thing can probably be said for avoiding this movie. It's hard not to expect a little bit more forethought from such an intentionally political film.