At first I thought there would be one, but I just ended up getting confused. Was Woodcock evil or not? Or was the extent of his "evilness" just a figment of John's imagination? Was the moral about forgiveness or was there really nothing to forgive in the first place?
well... as i see it, it's about embracing a**holes, how sensitivity is a bad thing and how great porking skills are more important than personality. oh - and of course being sadistic and tough is sexy and thus preferable to being nice.
but yes, i think in the core of it, it is supposed to be about forgiveness. at least if you're a sensitive wimp. because if you're a sadistic a**hole you don't have to change... after all, you're a nice person deep down and it's alright to use those wimps for your personal amusement.
a great testament to how primitive humans still are. as george carlin once put it - "we're barely out of the caves".
You said it the best shadow. Your comment here should just be the poster for this movie, and when people come to this page for info on Mr. Woodcock, your comment should be in every section.
People who are tough on us and make us work or think beyond what we imagine are our own capablities may be jerks, but they aren't entirely screwing us over either. And that when we look back on things with out adult perspective, we see it differently.
No. It's about bullies who justify their sadistic behaviors by manipulating their victims into thinking they're trying to help them. Sure, not all movies are required to have morals, or depth. Just the good ones. This movie was not good.
I think the movie was just kind of a dud and didn't really go anywhere. Had a few good moments but mostly was kind of disappointing. I don't think there was much moral to this story, some maybe, but not much.