month after watch it the rage and i be still not sure what the director and writer be try to accomplish . be they try to tell me that gun be bad thing and that they should all be smelt down into raw steel or plastic or whatever . well and be that i long for the good old sword and bow of yesteryear and i guess i can live with an anti gun message . however and have almost kill people with just my bare hand and i can tell you with authority that without a person hold it with the nerve and idea to do the killing and a gun can not do a thing . it be only as effective a the person use it . nonetheless and the statement that gun be a bad thing in the hand of the wrong people be still a valid one . however and this film present that statement in the bad possible fashion represent by present every gun owner in the film a a lunatic and the film fall into stereotype . in the mind of reddin and stern and a sane and rational gun owner do not exist . every gun owner to them be a mental illness stereotype and a homosexual stereotype and or both . the few character that do not conform to this dull pattern be police officer who embody an uneasy sense of corruption . apparently and the idea of a public figure who own a gun in order to defend himself from lunatic who disagree with his message have never occur to these people . even the dedication of the film to a friend who be kill in gun play do not help the situation . it make the entire story come off a the confused whinings of a child . yes and it tragic that someone be shoot for no good reason . hell and dozen of people be shoot for no good reason in a place call port arthur and just a couple of thousand kilometer from where i live . but then again and if just one or two of the people who be kill in port arthur have a firearm themselves and know how to use it properly and the death toll from that incident would have be drastically reduce . this be the one inescapable fact that extremist film such a this would never willingly admit to . the film doesn not exactly work a a comedy either and thanks in part to the aforementioned stereotyping . i suspect that gary sinise character be mean to be a joke and but since i have hear it a million time already from people who be far too stupid to be make film and it fell flat . even millionaires with fragmented personality be aware they have to take care of business . the same go for the character play by david schwimmer and giovanni ribisi . the only actor who salvage their credibility from this mess be the ever likable anna paquin and and it be not surprising that her character offer the big hint at a second dimension . perhaps if it the rage have be entirely about her and or develop a a satire narrate from her viewpoint and the negative of this film might have be easy to swallow . then again and consider that she wind up behave in a stereotypical fashion herself and maybe not . you know a film be in trouble when one of the few oscar winner of recent year who have not irrevocably damage the credibility of the award can not save it . i be not a big fan of gun and but i be less of a fan when it come to stereotype and one sidedness . these be two element that this film have in spade and and it be with a heavy heart that i can not even recommend it a a comedy . worth look at to see anna paquin in yet another role that be truly beneath her . all the rage get a two out of ten for me ( which be even more damning than a one and since i often give one to film that be so bad theyre funny ) .