1. C’mon Mass, jamie is an actress. A breed known for hypocrisy and shallow thinking. People who get paid big bucks to play make-believe and receive adoration for supporting “trending” advocacies.
    Her link to rational thought and viable ideas is largely non-existent. She does as she is told by her director and writers and her “real life” is a fantasy with a lot of material possessions.
    She used “old school guns” that work in exactly the same way as the “new” ones do, to the same effect.

  2. Sounds like some fun entertainment.. but be careful you don’t gag on the phoniness of the fantasy story line and/or the do as I say not as I do HollyWierd farce in the protagonist role.
    One more reason why I rarely spend the bux to see the Hollywood produced flicks.

  3. Very disappointed in her. The movie was okay but nothing like the original or some of the sequels. Who else remembers the stainless S&W snubbie she kept fully loaded and concealed under the pillow of her bed in her on school grounds residence in H20? Violation of the GFSZA?

  4. How about banning the big chef’s knife that Michael Myers (not the guy who played AUSTIN POWERS in the movies) used in HALLOWEEN? This killer would not exist in England where carrying large knives are prohibited.

    Maybe Jaime Lee Curtis should move there to get away from her nemesis, the evil racist Donald J. Trump? Hasn’t half of Follywood already relocated themselves to Canada and France after the 2016 election? What are they waiting for, a socialist revolution like the one in 1918 Russia?

  5. Oh Well, guess the Aging Star, long past the Hollywood age to be Offered Real Staring Roles, has gotten to the point where “She’ll do Anything to Make a Buck”!!


  6. I’ll give half-credit. Actors get paid to act. Unless someone comes out and states that they’re only going to take roles that reflect their beliefs, I’ll pass on the calls of “hypocrite” for the role alone.

    I’ll even give a pass that you can be for “gun control” without necessarily being “anti-gun” – even if the two do seem to run in parallel during most discussions.

    On the other hand, if you’re going to be an advocate for a cause, it would really be more meaningful if it was clear to the other side that you’ve done your research.

    For example: Using useless terms like “assault weapon” is unhelpful.

    For example: Speaking in terms of “military use” vs “personal safety” – the 1911 was the Army’s sidearm of choice for a very long time, and is a fairly consistent recommended sidearm for personal safety. Which would she classify it as? And why? Or the simple pump-action shotgun – used by soldiers, police, and others that would fall outside of her “personal safety” … and also one of the highly recommended firearms for home safety. Which is it? Why?

    And as Mas already pointed out, several features in the “carefully selected” arsenal also fall under the “assault weapon” definitions that lawmakers like to bandy about.

    (Small aside, when I was at Wal-mart grabbing a soft case for my new 12-gauge the checkout clerk asked me what season it was. I replied “home intruder”. The guy behind me busts out laughing, and after a minute’s consideration the clerk joins in. 🙂

    There’s other bits that could be called out, but they’ve already been run to death – unheard by the opposition, and so internalized as to be obvious to us.

  7. I’ve heard that in the sequel, Jamie’s family (who thought her mentally unstable in this movie) has her guns seized by the sheriff under the state’s new red flag law. In the chilling climax, Michael Myers approaches her house, but her murder is averted by his turning away when he sees the no-knife/machete/hammer/rope/garage-door sign she posted.

  8. The senseless violence endlessly glorified in Hollywood movies like Halloween, which film(s) I admit I have never cared to view, plays a much larger role in promoting real-life homicide by the impressionable deranged, than does ownership of state-of-the-art weapons by responsible citizens for the purpose of deterring violence.
    Jamie Lee would have done better to make a film that promotes earlier and more effective mental health care for the many who need it, but don’t get it.

  9. I think she’s come up with a very viable self-defense option here: no need to keep those dangerous guns around! All you need to do is wire your house to explode, allow the perp to get in, then blow him to smithereens when he does!

    I can’t see any flaw in that logic…

    Seriously though: it’s too bad she squandered the opportunity to demonstrate some real self-defense and security techniques, which would benefit the public to see. But then, I guess there would have been no movie….

  10. One author said this was the first movie attack done right. The good gal takes out the bad guy as she waits for the police.

  11. The fact is, fantasy is better than reality. In most movies, the good guys win, and the bad guys lose, but it is often the opposite in real life. This happens to be true for actors as well. We like them better when they are acting, not when they are being themselves.

    Remember how many of us thought Arnold Schwarzenegger would make a good governor? Instead, he governed like his European background, he couldn’t make the necessary tough decisions.

    Thankfully, there are exceptions to every rule.

  12. I did wonder if this was going to be about a kid who regularly denounces Halloween as pagan/Satanic/evil, but is always first in line for the free candy.

    Hmmm . . . Hollywood actress talks twaddle? Not really a surprise is it? And she has said she fully supports the Second Amendment, which is a surprise, even if she does support a ban on mean, scary looking guns.

    Hmmm . . . about AR-15s I’m wondering if the fact that some people want to see them banned . . .

    And, yes, a ban on AR-15s would be a ban on all and any semi-auto, centre-fire rifle with a detachable magazine.

    . . . has lead some other people to consider the AR-15 to be the most perfect choice for all your home and self-defence needs. And is it?

    Okay, armchair gunslinger sounding off, but in an urban or sub-urban environment, is a rifle intended to shoot through both sides of a steel helmet at 400 yards really the best choice, when the threat is a nut-job breaking in at 3am?

    And as Mas points out, when the cops show up, they would be carrying AR-15 style rifles – in the remake – back in 1978 they would have most likely been toting pump-action shotguns and have had a six-shooter on their hip. And, IMHO, even in this day-and-age, it’s not a bad choice for psycho stopping.