I'm not forgetting it at all :)
Did Creasy ever tell AFI director he was going to torture them in the most horrific away imaginable and then murder them even if they gave him what
The only conversation Creasy
ever had with the AFI director, was at the animal hospital. He showed him mug shots of corrupt cops. He denied seeing any of them, but Creasy recognized the guy, that he cuts his fingers off later. That was the only conversation they had.
But do you really think, that the AFI director, not only assumed it, but was interiorly sure of it? It's like I said earlier; It's necessary to make use of torture, to get information from people, that under any other circumstances would refuse to give away?
torture them in the most horrific away imaginable
Oh, come on! He got about 4 fingers and an ear cut off.
But it was his own fault.
Creasy told him very clearly from the beginning;
"I'm gonna ask you questions. If you don't answer truthfully, you'll undergo more pain, than you actually has to". That wasn't a lie. He didn't answer the questions, and suffered more, by his own very choice. Also remember; This wasn't any guy. This guy was at the very same scene, when Pita got kidnapped. In all honesty, Creasy let him go off cheap.
But... Are you thinking that this movie should be marked as horror, because of the torture seen?
One more thing that should be taken into mind, is that Creasy
know, that Pita is actually dead. The reason that she should still be alive is unthinkable. The FBI rule, for kidnappings is 24 hours; Then there isn't much hope left.
Whenever we see him with a new bad guy;
Every single one of them says; "I'm just a professional, I'm just a professional". Pita is still the very center of his heart, but the deeper he gets in, the more he's thinking about the other children. It may not seem like it, but he is aware that many other children has been killed by this or if they're lucky, getting out, very traumatised.
This isn't just about avenging Pita anymore. Esp. when he find that child, Camille, at the night club, it takes him further.
Just take a few seconds and think about it. It's like I said; If he really wanted to go at it, he could make them suffer so much, that they'd imagine the most precious gift they could was; Death. They wouldn't beg for gods mercy; they'd beg to killed. Look, I'm no psycho, but I do think you know that. It's not imagining torture; It's just a quick look at the human body. All the part, that it consists off. It hurts just if you scratch your knee, right?
Creasy was totally honestly with the[/quote]permanent mutilation[/quote]I do clearly see your point, but he was gonna kill them anyway. He should just have broken every bone in his body, instead of cutting his fingers off, right?
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken a bit; These actions did not occur in that order.
He knew the house he invaded, would belong to either Daniel, (the very head of the entire
La Hermandad organisation), Daniels brother Aurelio (who can only be assumed to be 2nd in command) or Daniels wife.
If you breaks into a house belonging to the head of an organisation, that protects every corrupt cop and every corrupt politician?
threatens his wife (who didn't seem to be in on the criminal activity)
How could he not know, that if you're Daniels wife, it is literally impossible not to be involved in crimes.
Would you not point your gun at anyone, who might seem to take position, where a gun could very possible be? He never laid a finger on her, even though she was pretty hostile towards him. Of course, she was pregnant, but he wouldn't harm her even so. He would, but definitely only as a last resort. He simply pointed the gun at her, to make her sit down, so she couldn't make the possible move for a gun. That has nothing to do with actually firing the gun, does it?
Remember, at the club? He didn't kill the woman there either.
Would any police force, smashing a door in, not point their gun at any pregnant woman?
Aurelio, the 2nd in command of a major crime organisation, didn't actually get his fingers blown off, until Creasy talked with Daniel.
Creasy got furious, absolutely furious, when Daniel asked Creasy how much money he wanted, to just simply go away.
That was an "no need to clarify" statement; I have your brother and your pregnant wife; I don't want your money under any circumstances, I want you, Daniel!! I want you!!
That's the time, when Daniel told them, that Pita was alive. Creasy traded his life for hers.
And.... Yes, of course he would have killed his brother. The 2nd in command of La Hermandad, the organisation he's been tracking down during all of this.
But yes.. That C4 expolsive in Lieutenant Victor Fuentez ass is really, really wierd!
As a former CIA assassin, Creasy has seen a lot of things. But doing this don't fit his psychosocial profile. I do think this is more a question, that Tony Scott should answer.
Creasy isn't sadistic in the way. I do below you know. Honestly, really.
I'm not defending Creasy now, in terms of the movie.If he was sadistic in this way, why would he let any of these guys die so early?
In the car, at the cliff; He had a lot of time to go further with his torture. If he was sadistic like that, there is no possible chance, that he would let him go that easy. Would a sadistic killer let his victim go, who he has massive personal hate against, letting die with only 4 fingers and an ear cut off? He even got off with a peaceful death. He could have abandoned him, in the heat with no water and such.
That place was totally abandoned. No one would turn up there. Nobody in the world could hear him scream. If he was sadistic like that, do you suppose, that a nutjob like some mad serial killer, would let go of this victim, strapped to a seat, where he could toy with him as he wanted?
He ain't no Ted Bundy or someone, that just kills random people because he enjoys it.
Considering he was, he would have been killed by the CIA long ago anyway. An assassin is never supposed to be seen.
reply
share
Ohio9
8 years ago
I'm sorry, but "he could have tortured them worse" is hardly a defense of Creasy's conduct. Sure, there is always something that technically could be worse then what he's doing, but you could pretty much say that about anything anyone ever does. The torture he did inflict was pretty horrific, regardless of how much worse it could have been.
And like I said, it wasn't all just for information. He blew that one guy's hand off with a shotgun for pretty much no reason at all. There is also the case of him killing with victim with a bomb up his ass, even though a simple gunshot would have served the same purpose.
And then of course there is the issue of him still killing them after they give him what he wants.
So Creasy didn't actually tell the AFI director he was going horrifically torture his victims and then kill them even if he got what he wanted. That clears that up.
reply
share
theisrosenberg
8 years ago
So to you it, would make little difference if he cut off those 4 fingers and the ear or all 10 fingers and the ear? (Just for starters).
If you watch that particular scene, you'll see that it is to make a very clear statement, whatever you might think of Creasy, that money is none of his concern?
And then of course there is the issue of him still killing them after they give him what he wants.
What? No. After he shot his fingers off, Daniel suggested, if Creasy was willing to trade his life for his brother and Pita. Creasy accepted. They went to a bridge. Lisa hold Aurelio, until Pita was with her, and let him loose. Creasy was walking on the bridge. Unarmed. Creasy went with them.
The deal was kept.
For that matter, the 2nd in command of an extremely powerful mafia, who has kidnapped hundreds of children and committed thousands of horrible crimes, directly responsible for traumatizing many thousands of people for the rest of their life, of is simply a "victim"?
So Creasy didn't actually tell the AFI director he was going horrifically torture his victims and then kill them even if he got what he wanted.
No. Rayburn told the AFI what he was gonna do. The directer knew from the beginning, that this was by far their best chance, to clean up the streets. Of course he knew, that this would include torture. How could it not? Few things would be more predictable than that. Kinda like a proxy war on a small scale.
reply
share
Ohio9
8 years ago
Yeah there was one single case where Creasy didn't kill a guy that he captured and tortured (in this case tortured for no reason, he didn't need to blow his hand off), and that was only because he could use that person to make a deal.
That one case doesn't make up for all others where he killing people after he got what he wanted out of them.
Like I said, Creasy didn't say he was going to horribly mutilate his victims and then kill them even if they cooperated.
reply
share