MovieChat Forums > Ms .45 (1981) Discussion > Disappointed (*contains spoilers*)

Disappointed (contains spoilers)

posted 16 years ago by JhenStah
8 replies | jump to latest

Someone recommended this movie to me (and wanted me to see it so badly she burned me a copy). Finally got around to watching it (even giving it a second chance) and I really came away disappointed.

Yeah, Zoe Lund was pretty and did a good job using facial expressions instead of dialogue. And that's about it. Oh, and the random methods of disposing of body parts was kind of entertaining.

The film had too many plot holes, so many that it lost my interest fairly early-on.

So this girl gets raped not once, but twice, and during both entire attacks, she doesn't make a sound, not a scream, not a whimper, not a peep, she doesn't even cry. And we're supposed to believe that this is because she is INcapable of making a sound. Didn't stop her from making noise when she vomited. Didn't prevent her from screaming when she gets stabbed and whispers "sister". Once it's established that she IS, in fact, capable of speech and audible noise, her REFUSAL to do so makes the entire storyline a joke. And, presumably, the character has never spoken in her life. The fact that she doesn't ever attempt to communicate by sign-language (whether or not anyone can understand her, it would've been a habit) seems implausible, too. The fact that she makes a living working with her hands only makes it seem more fitting that she would use them to communicate.

The impossible number of shots during her attacks (and seemingly endless supply of ammo), as mentioned by someone else here, really annoyed me, too. Would it have been so difficult to add a quick scene of her buying some ammo just to make the film a tad more credible? And she never misses! How 'bout having a scene of her practicing at a shooting range or SOMETHING to make her perfect aim more believable? And the randomness of her attacks eventually made me lose all empathy for her. The second attacker, the guys circling her in the park, the sleazeball photographer, hey, even the pimp beating the hooker seemed justified. But when she started GETTING INTO CARS with strangers, just to kill them, and apparently looking for ANY male to kill, it just became ridiculous. And what was with the dog? Really, Phil was the only likable character in the whole movie and there was no point of her taking him out, leading us to believe that she killed him (for no reason) but then he shows up unharmed on his own doorstep at the end. WTF?

[–] tepista 16 years ago

"But when she started GETTING INTO CARS with strangers, just to kill them, and apparently looking for ANY male to kill, it just became ridiculous."

She lost her sanity. The scene where she went after the completely innocent Asian kid was the official switch from victim to villain.

[–] Zombie55 9 years ago

I think this is one of the more interesting points of the movie. It isn't as simple as these are the good people and those are the bad ones.

And just like in life by the way, a lot of people who have suffered violent abuse later become violent themselves and may even kill some people, one way or another.

Then again. Remember Martin Scorsese's "Taxi Driver" (1976) - which at one point is even referenced in "Ms .45"? In that film, it was long-time debated whether Travis Bickle was a hero or a villain.

On one hand, he saves Jodie Foster's character and kills some really nasty people, but on the other hand, it looks a lot like he kills them just for the sake of wanting to kill and enjoy killing, and possibly kills a few innocent bystanders in the process. (Not to mention how at one point, he even tries to kill the would-be senator.)

I have even read some reviews on films like "I Spit on Your Grave" - the original, for one, that suggests that even though the people Camille Keaton's character killed were bad and deserved to die for what they did to her, the actual act of killing them does not make her a "good person" for doing so or even doing that is not a good thing, overall, and that justice should've been left for the police to serve etc.

Even in the 2005 film "Hard Candy", where, SPOILERS ALERT the man tortured and later killed by that girl turned out to be bad, it was generally still believed that what the girl did was not a good thing, and besides being against the law, it wasn't very moral, one way or another, either.

Then again, in life, you often have many cases, especially in wars, where there are no purely right or wrong sides - depending on the circumstances, anyone is capable of committing something terrible and a criminal offense, even if, in theory, one's country may have a justification for going into war with another one after being attacked, it is never really a simple case of good guys on one fighting against bad guys on the other.

I think you could probably interpret Ms .45's later decisions after her ordeals to be a metaphor also along THOSE last lines.

[–] WebWalker2 16 years ago

Yes, me too.
5.0 is my cutoff. Anything below is garbage, and above starting to be watchable. So my 5.1 & IMDBs's is 6.7 doesn't make sense this time. What did I miss?
And that's when I try to verbalize.
Agree with your points like endless ammo & deadly marksman capabilities.
crap

[–] Howlin Wolf 15 years ago

And we're supposed to believe that this is because she is INcapable of making a sound.

Who said we're supposed to believe that? That's just what you assumed.

Once it's established that she IS, in fact, capable of speech and audible noise, her REFUSAL to do so makes the entire storyline a joke.

She feels oppressed by the society around her, and therefore doesn't believe anyone will come to her aid, even if she CAN speak. Later on, her escapades give her empowerment that she never felt when she was accosted, hence the surprised exclamation at the end.

Hey look; hate this film for whatever reasons you want, I'm just pointing out that there are possible explanations available, if you're willing to accept them.

I think that the point of the dog was to make the audience believe that Thana had some good in her, and that if you believe in something, it may come back to you in the end. Phil never betrayed his owner, even though everyone betrayed Thana, so one should never be so pessimistic as to assume that everything will end in a letdown.

Love United. Hate Glazers.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Don´t you have anything better to do than look for some "plot holes" in a bloody exploitation movie? I mean, seriously...

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] maz89 12 years ago

A scene of her practicing at a shooting range? A scene with her reloading her gun with ammo? A scene necessarily spelling out why she doesn't use sign language to communicate? Huh?

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] blairbitchproject 9 years ago

None of these are plot holes. You ruined a movie for yourself by overthinking details that don't really matter. Her buying ammo and communicating in sign language could've all happened off-screen, the audience doesn't need everything spelled out for them.