Weapon of Choice (2018) User Reviews

Carrying

[kosmasp · 5/10 · 23 July 2019]

You can clearly say that this is one sided. It's obvious that the filmmakers had an agenda. And in general not being pro gun I get the sentiment overall. But there seems to be no other goal than just demonizing Glock and their product. Now if that sounds like your kind of documentary you will probably love this way more than the general audience.

The other things is by focusing on the Glock but throwing in so many other things ... it loses its overall focus too. Does it matter what individuals used a Glock? This almost works as a movie for pro gun activists, because they can say: see how crazy anti gun people are? They think they can change something with this ... and maybe that wasn't the aim or goal, but that is just it: we don't really know what this was aiming at (no pun intended)

Misdirected and Misunderstood Blame

[egould2011 · 4/10 · 26 September 2022]

As a documentary about guns, I already knew it would delve into anti-gun territory. This one has all the hallmarks of a manipulative piece of anti-gun work. Grieving inner-city families? Check. Pro-gun people depicted as "Pro-Constitution Extremists?" Check. Conspiracy related to the profitability of the arms trade? Check.

There are two parts that really bother me, and that's the exploitation of dangerous and poverty-stricken communities in America. One area the documentary focuses on is Chicago, which is located in Illinois, which has some of the most extreme gun laws in the nation. Does this help keep the streets of Chicago safe? Nope. What about interviewing those on the "gangster tour" in Compton? Compton is located in California, another state with highly restrictive gun laws. Are the streets of Compton a gleaming example of a modern and safe city? Nope. It's funny that these documentaries never show neighborhoods which have a high rate of firearm ownership (legal). They never interview those who have used their guns in a self-defense capacity. They touch upon Glock's prevalence in rap music, but not once did anyone ever connect the irony that blaming guns for violence is like blaming rap music for violence.

The next problematic area of this documentary acts as the bookends of the film. That is, the ISIS situation. Somehow, Glock is depicted as absolutely evil for shipping weapons to a warzone despite being a neutral country (Austria). What the braindead producers of this documentary don't connect is that refusal to ship guns to a warzone as neutral country no longer makes you neutral. It takes a side.

The one thing I'm actually glad they didn't really touch on is the mass shootings that unfortunately do occur in the U. S. They touched upon the Libby's Diner massacre, but it's a relatively short part of the film.

Honestly if you're looking at an even-sided debate on guns, or interesting perspective on the history of one of the most iconic gun brands, keep looking. This film is basically your standard "Oh look they make guns and refused to let us interview them for our hit-piece, therefore they are evil."

A moronic attempt at an anti-gun documentary?

[SteffenN · 1/10 · 12 March 2019]

I am not particularly pro or anti guns. I do, however, live in Chicago and can assure you that the Glock company is not the problem here. If Glocks did not exist, or just decided to shut down production tomorrow, Smith & Wesson or some other manufacturer would take their place.

This "documentary" attempts to convince you that Glock is an evil company and is responsible for all kinds of horrible things. Once you weed your way through all the nonsense and political tripe you are left with the only thing that might be factual in this abomination; Glock seems like a great product.

They really do a great job selling you a Glock in this thing. I am not in the market for a gun, but if I were, they make some good points for buying Glock. It has a reputation for being reliable under the worst of conditions. Police, military, gun store owners and gun sales people seem to covet this gun. Even the poor people on the South Side of Chicago pay out the extra cash for the Glock. I found myself surfing the Glock website while this was playing on my TV (I was bored). I like the subcompacts personally. Maybe a G26 or G27? Apparently every criminal and every cop in the city of Chicago seems to have one. I guess I need one too?

Long winded, misguided, Glock commercial.

Gets a Bad Wrap

[andrewwilton7 · 7/10 · 26 March 2019]

It seems like a lot of other reviews think this documentary was biased, had incessant rap music, had interviews with rappers and other killers, but I just finished it on Netflix and I believe each of those things were brought up for a relevant reason, and the filmmaker/filmmakers do a pretty good job of talking about the Glock company from a neutral standpoint so that the viewer can derive whatever political stance on firearms anf guns that they wish. I also enjoyed some of the history of the company that the film went into, especially showing it's manufacturing plant in Austria. Aside from that, I think it's an interesting, well shot and competently made movie, and I recommend it. For its downsides, I wish some of the scene transitions and pacing could be a bit better, but it doesn't overly detract from the film. And although I enjoy the narration from the filmmaker, and English dub would be appreciated.

Not even a documentary

[sean_colclough · 1/10 · 11 March 2019]

20 minutes in..I cant even finish it! If you want to watch interviews with rappers, and middle eastern men and continuous rap music in the background then this is for you!

This film has nothing to do with GLOCK and sports shooters, military or law enforcement. History of glock etc.

I repeat all this talks about is glock, and how its the the number one used firearm in the "streets".

Hey film maker, and future film makers! Please interview people who know the difference between a clip and a magazine next time!

Anti/pro gun does not matter, it's just bad.

[basil-hermann · 1/10 · 4 March 2019]

Whether you're anti-gun or pro gun does not matter, this movie is just done badly! The filmmakers have copied their metods directly from Nazi propaganda movies from the past. The film is about as factual as an ISIS recruiting movie.

Absolutely terrible

[koningszoon · 1/10 · 14 March 2019]

In this "documentary" several convicted criminals, gang members and weapon fanatics are interviewed in a useless attempt to blame the Glock weapon company for everything that is seemingly wrong in this world.

Yes even Sadam Hoessein carried a Glock; so what???

What does that has to do with the Glock company? He probably drove a Mercedes-Benz as well??

Totally worthless crap documentary which touches several subjects (poverty, gang violence, 2nd amendment) without coming to any conclusions whatsoever except for the fact that Glock is a bad bad company.

If only the fuhrer knew

[denzil-09434 · 1/10 · 8 March 2019]

An Austrian argues against 2a. Evidently he has no idea why the populace might need to defend itself against tyranny. An Austrian!

I suppose that from a Germanic point of view, the defence against tyranny is an enigma (pun intended). "If only the fuhrer knew! "

This kid even flew to Iraq for one shot out of his hotel window because someone erroneously informed him that Chicago is known as Chiraq. It's more commonly called Chicongo. Neither Iraqi nor Congolese citizens have 2a rights to protect them from tyranny. They have tyranny instead. That's what you get without either 2a or Germanic obsequience to authority.

The fuhrer was Austrian. He knew. He also knew his subjects would think the best of him because, hey, why would the citizenry believe their masters would practice tyranny?

On the positive side, this guy is less of a one eyed polemicist than the odious Michael Moore. That's the best that I can say for this. It's naive rather than cynical communist propaganda.

Very puzzling

[feuchtoriginals · 1/10 · 31 December 2019]

Took the time to watch the entire film and I have to say I'm disappointed.Things learned from your documentary,1 There is no objective view,2 I counted two times in the film where the translation was incorrect which seemed deliberate to fit the directors narrative, 3 Never interview criminals that have been found guilty in court,they tend to lie,4 The contempt the director has for the United States would be easier to pick up on if he just spoke it instead of dancing around it,5 The fact the director found a man carrying a glock in one of the most dangerous parts of the world and arranged a interview without fear of harm is puzzling,6 This "documentary "in all,is so full of holes it would make for a great cheese plate,7 Equating a evil person(Saddam) and minority's to a specific gun maker is redundant and lazy, 8 There is one goal I will say the director achieved,if you want a reliable hand gun that doesn't jam or rust?Buy a Glock.

Yes, I watched the entire thing...

[hartstephen-14597 · 1/10 · 18 November 2023]

I obviously had my bias going in. My fork doesn't make me fat, any more than a Glock shoots people without someone holding it.

So while I had my bias, this "documentary" certainly did as well. The "they messed up a Jewish cemetery" segment, from one of the residents of the nearby town was a nice touch. Way to use the misfortunes of a previous generation, murdered by a genocidal maniac, as a means to discredit a gun manufacturer.

To say this movie was anything but a political hit piece is a discredit to filmmakers everywhere. You highlight people that obviously were, in a previous life, part of a major crime ring and they are the poster children for why guns should be banned? C'mon. You can do better. If you had focused on things like wait periods, registration of weapons, etc., I could have tolerated it better. At least that would have been something people on both sides of this topic could have potentially come together on.