Answer to: Why didn't they hire some hit-man to do the job?
I want to answer those posters who ask and raised the question and possibility, which in their opinion is the BETTER WAY to assassinate the governor.
As jv-181-346883 (France) wrote in his review titled "very bad" that:
So the question is: "Why didn't they hire some hit-man to do the job????"
and someone raised the question here in the board that why wouldn't they poison the governor?
I was so shocked to read these and I seriously start thinking whether they actually raised some possible events that the film maker couldn't think or they are just seeking words just to spit their hatred.
Now to answer them, it is really simple thing. The wanted to make it like this:
A mad man just so angry that he started shooting in public, killed the governor and the security persons killed him in retaliation. This is the way most political assassinations take place so that no deep investigation starts. If they poison or manage to kill her by a professional killer, it might come out as a deep rooted plan and then federal investigation would have been started, and that they wanted to avoid.
jv-181-346883 also wrote:
...wants to kill the governor of California (we'll never know why)
The answer is simply given in the film itself when some guys were in hot conversation publically about the new governor's policy to kick out old personalities and to replace them with young and new ones.
I wonder whether the posters like jv-181-346883 did actually watch the movie or just keep pressed the fast forward button at their homes stopping by randomly?
This movies, though not a master piece, yet provided sufficient thrill and fun to avoid you leaving the edge of your chair.
7/10 in my opinion. share