MovieChat Forums > Serpico (1973) Discussion > He should have taken the money

He should have taken the money


Sorry Serpico. You should have taken the money. Hundreds of tax free dollars every month in the 1970s. Back when that basement apartment in SoHo was probably $200 a month. With a hot blond girlfriend. And a job where you get to smoke pot? Go with the flow, my man. Now, I'm not sayin' let the rapists go free. But gambling money? I mean, why not? Flash forward to 2013. Gambling is sanctioned by government all the time (casinos, lotteries). And as for criminality ... well lets just say the criminals who almost destroyed America are all still waking up in their Park Ave. condos every day and going to work at Goldman Sachs.

reply

I agree. It's commendable that he was standing up for corruption and all that, but it seemed like EVERYONE took money -- or at least knew about it -- and like that one cop said, Serpico could have donated it to charity if he didn't want to keep it..

It wouldn't have made him a bad cop to take the money. I get that these people were paying the cops off to not be hassled and so on, but Serpico was a big whiney baby about it.

-
Shuji Terayama forever.

reply

I have served in a thoroughly corrupt govt. dept. in my country for 2 (two) decades. I never accepted a single penny of bribe for following 2 (two) reasons:
1. I was paid a very good salary for my work.
2. I always thought that I will never be able to have any kind of self respect if I accepted money. In the eyes of my self and the people who knew that I was corrupt, I will fall down for ever.



This may sound foolish to many but I'm very pleased at the thought of remaining non-corrupt, not accepting bribes during those 20 years.

reply

Ridiculous.

reply

You could probably argue that Serpico should have accepted a token payment offered him by his fellow officers in the park (with old Yankee Stadium in the background), and then either give the $$ to charity or keep it and not spend any of it. That might have mollified his fellow officers and not entirely tainted Serpico's reputation.

But then you could also argue that once Serpico accepted a payoff, no matter how small and no matter how "clean" the graft, that Serpico was now on the take and a crooked officer.



reply

I might have taken the money myself but I have nothing but respect for a man who chooses not to whatever the reason, there should be more honorable people in the world like Frank Serpico.Great movie by the way!








Jim Carroll: Time sure flies when you're young and jerking off.

reply

He should have wrote down the when and where and amounts of the money so it can b used in a later investigation, the way he did it, made him a marked man walking around with a 14 shot gun. Yep yep

reply

I'm pretty sure that the whole point of the film and, indeed the person it's based on is that he's an honest cop through and through. How was he to know gambling would be legalized later down the line? As soon as a cop takes just ONE briber, no matter how small or what for, they cease to be an honest, they're on the take and more crooked than a cane, had Frank took that money it would be EXPECTED of him to skim some off the top for various things like drugs and arms, he'd be a hypocrite for turning that down.

"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl"

reply

I think it's commendable that Frank stayed true to himself and wouldn't accept dirty money.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

reply

Of course he shouldn't have taken the money! Is this really a question?? Lol!

reply

Of course he shouldn't have taken the money! Is this really a question?? Lol!

Unfortunately.


"That's what a gym teacher once told me."

reply

Some of it involved victimless crimes so yes.

reply

Skimming money off the top from drug busts, in the course of your duty, is one thing, but these cops weren't even doing their jobs. All day long it was just collecting, collaring the minimum number of small fries and hookers just to make quota. That's nonsense and they should have all been thrown in jail. And maybe if people didn't have to worry about the petty crime in their neighborhoods they could pay more attention to criminal government and banking practices. There, I threw ya a bone.

______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

reply

7 years late but this sums it up. In fact, one of my favourite lines in the film is when he comes back from the "park meeting" and says to his girlfriend something to the effect that if these officers put the same kind of effort, organisation, dedication, teamwork etc into actually doing their jobs, they'd have the city cleaned up in no time.

reply

I agree he should have taken the money, but for different reasons. If he had taken the money, then there would have been nothing remarkable about him and nobody would have known about him. Therefore, nobody would have bothered to make such a disastrous snoozefest of a film about him. Seriously, Serpico is one terrible movie. Highly, highly overrated. An evening watching Serpico is an evening wasted that you'll never get back.

reply

ken_ramsey....you're a dickbag.

reply

Thank You! Serpico did suck. Al was a whiny bitch and set himself up to get shot.

reply

Whatever,troll. The movie may have sucked a little, but read the book about the real Serpico and the actual case----you couldn't be a whiny anything and survive as a police officer back then. And he didn't have to take jack----at least he's been able to live with himself and say that he stuck to his principles,plain and simple.

reply

He should have taken the payments and handed it over as evidence (have a plain clothes cop watching the payoff handed to him as a witness)or at least reported it to the people who were doing the investigation. It would have kept the other guys off guard and let him get deeper into their circle. He could have worn a wire if the other guys weren't wise to it. Can't show your hand so blatantly.

reply


Are you really THAT lacking in morals, or just trolling?


The Doctor is out. Far out.

reply