Is this a joke? - The Equalizer (2014) Discussion

[–] FieryMaid 8 years ago

Personally I've never used this site to get any idea from the rating about whether or not to see a movie. I usually look at the reviews or the message boards if I honestly can't make up my mind from the other information available (trailer, synopsis, actors/director, etc).

Did you see Man on Fire? This was basically Denzel doing the same type of thing.

Why do you think the people praising the movie are joking about their praise? As other people have said, people like different things for different reasons. This is a possible breakdown of who saw this movie and why, such as they loved the show, they love Denzel Washington, they love action/violence, etc. Do you fit any of these things? I personally fit all three.

I saw this when it came on tv. I thought it was ok overall. I enjoyed Denzel being a man living a simple, contented life trying to read classics and be a great friend and mentor wherever he was and especially at work. He isn't a man passively living but actively trying to be a positive influence in the world. I also enjoyed the part when he needs to return to old skills (Man on Fire, John Wick, Taken, etc) to right a great wrong -- after trying peaceful methods first. Was the violence over the top? For me, yes, but war is pretty violent and this was a war. Did it get really stupid at the end when the professionals pick home court advantage in favor of the good guy and it happens to be a hardware store? YEP. And that's where I have to say this movie is ok instead of good to great.

The themes and story of the movie and those like it appeal to me because I like the concept of tread softly, you don't know what hornet's nest you might kick. Someone is always better/stronger than you and you may not know who that is. And it wasn't just Denzel. He inspired a few others to stand up for what they thought was right. I also like the idea of things really being taken care of -- like cutting off the head of the snake -- which Denzel made sure happened. I personally hate the fact that so often that the snake loses a tail to just grow another one and it's satisfying to me to have a story when the snake finally loses the head and is gone. Of course another snake will take its place, but at least it's a different snake!

~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~

reply

[–] askebisgaard 8 years ago

I think you've written a very insightful review of how you see the movie. I really appreciate that, and I wish I could do the same. I'll try my best to respond.

I don't 'love' Denzel Washington, but I have enjoyed several movies where he was the lead. Ironically, I don't remember any specific ones on the top of my head. Besides, I don't expect any actors to always make the same movies. And I prefer to keep it fresh, sometimes watching movies that I wouldn't necessarily like. But I've come to expect a correlation between the strength of the message/moral and the effort into details, character traits, background information and so forth. I think what threw me off in this movie, is that I felt the message was very strong and extensive, but the details and persona were very weak and shallow.
In other words, if I'm watching a movie that attempts to touch strongly on my core emotions and morals, I expect it to include a well-researched insight into how it would affect the audience's world view. For instance, that the "bad guys" are based on real people - and not just stories of people. Because stories are filtered, superficial versions of the reality. If you've seen the episode 'Men Against Fire', of the TV-series 'Dark Mirror' (S03E05), that concept is somewhat similar to a fear I have. A fear of believable misinformation which creates unnecessary conflict among strangers.

I think I watched Man on Fire a decade ago, but I don't remember it too well.
I just watched the trailer, and read the summary of it, and I see that the similarities. But on the surface, it seems like the characters are more realistic. I'd have to watch it again to be sure how I feel about it, though. I might add it to my watchlist.

I haven't watched the show, nor did I know about it when I saw the movie. But I enjoy action movies, and also enjoy violence. Although not for its own sake. More like a concept, on par with e.g. covering drugs, poverty, wealth, law enforcement, depression, loss, injustice, vengeance, power, jealousy etc. etc. Or in a fictive world that has different rules than our own.
Like American Psycho, Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Gladiator, Memento, Inglorious Bastards, Battle Royale, Lord of the Rings, Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Scarface, Alien, Crank the James Bond movies, and many many more. I also enjoyed a lot of smaller films and European or local films (I'm from Denmark), but I don't remember titles very well, and the odds that someone knows them on an English speaking forum is low anyway.

reply

[–] FieryMaid 8 years ago

Wow. You write English very, very well. Better than some natives I know. I'm extremely impressed.

You are correct that I probably won't know any European films (aside from the UK and even THEN it's still limited) for the most part. Besides the fact that I'm kind of in an Asian mood lately, it is extremely difficult to find most foreign -- to my country -- films, and even harder as I INSIST they must be subtitled in English and not dubbed.

It pains me that is true in this digital age. I mean, come on! How hard would it be to have everything available to whoever wants to see it -- especially if they only want subtitles? Are people trying to insist on pirating? Especially if you want a legit copy and can actually find one and it's 4x the price of any other copy for any other movie? Ridiculous. Ok, rant over now.

Thank you for the compliment.

In other words, if I'm watching a movie that attempts to touch strongly on my core emotions and morals, I expect it to include a well-researched insight into how it would affect the audience's world view.

I am not trying to be rude or flippant, here, but you realize this movie was made by Hollywood, right? Well researched happens maybe once in a blue moon. No joke. Any time I see on screen "based on a true story" I usually laugh and think, so probably the names are the same, perhaps the setting, and maybe one or two concepts, the rest is Hollywood (read complete fiction). Add to that Hollywood's super skewed idea of life and the world and certain lifestyles and you'd have something just as laughable as it is sad. But I completely understand your fear, because there are idiots out there who buy it that life and people are just as Hollywood and anyone else says it is. Especially if it's not in your direct experience. It's why some non Americans think our life is Baywatch or that we all live with drive by shootings on a regular basis. Um, nope, thank goodness.

I wonder if perhaps this film may have struck more a sensitive core in you because the bad guys were European and therefore more known to you? I personally did not know the bad guys in this film were based on real people. I just saw them as Slavic gangsters/mobsters doing the same type of crimes that every other mobster/gangster does in prostitution, drugs, etc I wanted them dead so they couldn't hurt anyone else in those crimes -- because they were really bad men, not Slavic. I do recall, very strongly, that while Denzel is walking out of the snake's mansion I thought, well, that one's dead thankfully, but now there's a power vacuum and soon Denzel will be back to cut the head off yet another snake. It's unfortunately the way of the world.

The reason I think it has something to do with you being European and knowing of these people is because you don't exactly remember Man on Fire. That was set somewhere in Latin America (sorry, can't remember where) and probably not someplace you are very familiar with. Kidnapping and ransom is super big in many countries down there (I lived in El Salvador for a time and we were cautioned how to avoid being victims. It's one of the businesses of the mob/gangs/drug dealers there). I wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood derived the villain characters in Man On Fire from real people. Again, personally I just saw the universal gangsters/mobsters who happened to be Hispanic this time, but perhaps people actually from that country saw more, like you did with The Equalizer's bad guys.

If you get the chance to see the show The Equalizer, I'd recommend it. It's a whole lot less violent than this movie as it was made decades ago and for tv, but it's the same type of thing. People in need of help who don't have the wherewithal to take care of their problems call him and he helps them. He tries non violent methods first and escalates as the situation calls for it. I personally believe that message. People should help people, especially the strong to the weak. I believe the second message just as strongly, try diplomatic and non violent ways first but if the problem is not solved, then solve the problem. And really solve it, because if you don't, then the problem will be even worse the next time around (cut the head off the snake!).

But I enjoy action movies, and also enjoy violence. Although not for its own sake

Exactly. That's my thinking too, and that's why this movie spoke to me. He only used violence after trying alternative measures. And at several points in the war tried to stop it, tried to get the bad guy to walk away. To me, that completely justifies the death and violence as the bad guys completely chose the violent route.

~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~

reply

[–] askebisgaard 8 years ago

Thanks for your comments once again.

I am not trying to be rude or flippant, here, but you realize this movie was made by Hollywood, right? Well researched happens maybe once in a blue moon. No joke. Any time I see on screen "based on a true story" I usually laugh and think, so probably the names are the same, perhaps the setting, and maybe one or two concepts, the rest is Hollywood (read complete fiction). Add to that Hollywood's super skewed idea of life and the world and certain lifestyles and you'd have something just as laughable as it is sad.

I agree, but I think most Hollywood movies aren't very serious movies. They're just cash cows. Like your average CGI-heavy sci-fi flick (currently still superhero comics). So I don't expect much out of them. But a few of the serious movies are much more well-researched or attached to actual reality. Here the writer and actors do a lot of field research into the people that they are going to portray. Sure, no movie gets every detail correct (not even documentaries), but I think the best ones make a noticeable effort. And I really appreciate it when they do. "Based on a true story" doesn't mean much to me either. It's the details that tells you whether they made a good effort or not.
In general though, I agree. Hollywood offers a long range of easily forgettable movies. Forgettable, because they're not moving or fascinating. Simply "entertainment". Almost like a long advertisement.

I wonder if perhaps this film may have struck more a sensitive core in you because the bad guys were European and therefore more known to you? I personally did not know the bad guys in this film were based on real people.

I actually didn't remember they were European. Nationality doesn't carry a lot of weight to me. Besides clues of socioeconomic backgrounds and such, I guess.
It struck a sensitive nerve because I thought the core message could have been delivered in a much more interesting fashion. For example, if they had studied real corrupt cops (e.g. why they are corrupt), real mafias (and criminal environments in general) and real violent or otherwise "bad" people.
To me, "righting a wrong" is only interesting to see carried out, if the victims are helpless. That is, you get to see how the victim feels absolutely out of power to influence the outcome of the injustice. In all scenarios, however, I prefer to also see the side of the "bad guys". What made them this way, what are their lives truly like and so forth.

By the way, do you know that they're based on real people? Or are you saying that because of what I said? I would be surprised if they are. To me, they're very shallow and unrealistic characters, spiced with some Slavic accents. And I think it just bores me when "justice" and "unrealistic injustice" are paired concepts. In serious movies, that is.

It might also be worth mentioning that violent and/or criminal offenders and victims fascinate me. In general, human behavior interests me. Propensities, causal relationships, processes and so forth. Actually, I think I had recently finished courses on human behavioral biology, criminology, sociology and criminal psychiatry, at the time I watched this movie. That might well have been the main reason it threw me off.

The reason I think it has something to do with you being European and knowing of these people is because you don't exactly remember Man on Fire. That was set somewhere in Latin America (sorry, can't remember where) and probably not someplace you are very familiar with.

I don't remember The Equalizer very well either. I think the two most dominant factors that I remember it better than Man on Fire, is that 1) I saw this movie much more recently, and 2) I discussed this movie here.
In between getting replies to this thread, I don't think I have given this movie a single thought since maybe a week after seeing it. But I don't think this fact is a statement that I disliked Man on Fire. Because I forget a lot of movies that I enjoyed as well. I often just need to rewatch some of the clips that make me recall the full movie, and the experience I had.

When you describe Man on Fire, it sounds like a movie I could have watched. Since a lot of movies are based on a similar setting.

If you get the chance to see the show The Equalizer, I'd recommend it. It's a whole lot less violent than this movie as it was made decades ago and for tv, but it's the same type of thing. People in need of help who don't have the wherewithal to take care of their problems call him and he helps them. He tries non violent methods first and escalates as the situation calls for it.

Thanks for your recommendation. It sounds like something I could enjoy.

reply

[–] FieryMaid 8 years ago

You are welcome. I enjoy discussions and different viewpoints and I sincerely appreciate people who can accomplish communicating those respectfully and intelligently.

By the way, do you know that they're based on real people? Or are you saying that because of what I said?

I misunderstood what you had said. Going back and reading your first response I thought you knew they were based on real people and had a problem with the facts not being correct or just generalizations. I realize my mistake. Sorry. Forget everything I wrote about that under the wrong impression. Even though there will be cultural and language differences between mafias, the same crimes and motivations are always the same. There's not going to be too much depth to people who are greedy and lack the morals telling them human trafficking and other horrible crimes are wrong. Oftentimes the soldiers in such organizations are victims themselves, not knowing any other way of life and being "retired" when they are no longer useful.

I'm not suggesting you watch The Equalizer again by any means, but I do wonder if you had been in a bad mood when you saw it? That happens to me sometimes. Because I'm looking at your complaints and, while I did see the movie about three months ago and I know you saw it years ago, I don't understand why you have those complaints? While the movie is more about the hero saving the victims than the bad guy, I felt the characters were decently developed for this type of film.

"righting a wrong" is only interesting to see carried out, if the victims are helpless. That is, you get to see how the victim feels absolutely out of power to influence the outcome of the injustice.

The prostitute McCall spoke with at the diner at the beginning of the film (and a few other times) and checks up on at the end of the movie was completely helpless. She tried to leave the life when McCall finally convinced her to and got beat up for it and wasn't allowed to leave the life. Then she was afraid for McCall's safety for getting involved. Never at any time does she even ask McCall to help her, and she is still mostly clueless about what happened at the end of the movie. McCall felt even more responsible to help her than the "I see a damsel in distress" because he had told her she could do anything she wanted and here she wasn't able to and being punished brutally for it. In fact, another prostitute who protected her is killed in this movie. Not all the helpless victims are saved in this movie. I find that's realistic. I'm trying to remember how exactly, they became prostitutes, but they were from the Slavic country (I think it was Russia, can't remember because I didn't really care) and I'm sure they were promised a better life in America. Perhaps in some ways it was actually better, but clearly their freedom was non existent.

In all scenarios, however, I prefer to also see the side of the "bad guys". What made them this way, what are their lives truly like and so forth.

While this movie is certainly about McCall and the people he saves so in depth character development isn't really going to be in favor of the bad guys, the first bad guys he takes out were just lower level. And the only real research McCall really does right there is as a predator stalking prey because of it. He tried to buy the prostitute off them, but they couldn't explain that to the boss or the other girls who would get ideas in their heads. The bad guy rattled off several excuses why McCall couldn't just get the prostitute free.

The main bad guy, or the fixer sent in after McCall attacks the bad guys at the restaurant, is who gets the character development/explanation. We see he travels a lot, and he's used to getting his way. Through him we get a few introductions to the corrupt cops and side business partners of the mafia that he works for. Most of them are just interested in profit. Many of them look the other way in regards to the specifics of where the profits come from. Others are just small time crooks who are with the mafia as a protection and sanction of their activities. When the main bad guy pushes them, they get upset and irritated and get killed/beat up for it. The corrupt cops, especially the one main one, were interested in profits initially and didn't think much of it, until they realized they were just as much a prisoner forced to do what they are told just like the prostitute McCall is trying to save. Sticking with the cop's development, when McCall questions him for information to help shut down the drug business aspect of the mafia he's fighting, he's torn with doing the right thing, which will land him in prison (never a safe place for a once cop) or murdered by the mafia for the betrayal.

Back to the main mafia guy fixer character, and this is where McCall has done his research and proves it as the two of them sit down and talk in a restaurant. He had a hard, terrible life as an orphan, until a good man brought him into his home. The boy was a punk and the man was patient and loving and forgiving. Then one day, the parents were murdered in a theft. A theft of small little things that perhaps only a child would steal. And this good man's children were farmed out to other family and the adopted boy went back into the system -- leaving a good and loving home to return to hell again. The newspapers talked about the tragedy of this poor boy, and the murders were never solved, but McCall states he's pretty sure the boy did it. Why? Because the boy didn't believe the man truly loved him and would one day reject him, so he killed this man and his wife before that could happen. Then McCall looks intently at the bad guy and basically says, that's you.

Clearly that boy was either so damaged from being in the system or already had a mental/emotional tendency to violence and murder.

I think it just bores me when "justice" and "unrealistic injustice" are paired concepts.

What would have been justice? The cops couldn't have taken care of this, especially as several of them were bad cops and while they handled the cleanup of the drugs and money and stuff, the professional killers McCall takes out would have massacred the police officers. And there are mafias and gangs taking their own justice -- that's why there are so many unsolved murders.

If you took all those classes and then saw this movie as being "serious," then I can see how you wouldn't have liked it. But for me, the unrealistic part really was in the home improvement store. That was dumb and I mentioned that in my first post.

Human behavior doesn't really fascinate me. Most of the time I find humans to be very disappointing and close minded. I'm probably spending too much time on this board ;)

I also was finally able to look up the tv show you mentioned. It's Black Mirror, not Dark Mirror -- and while I have access to it thanks to Netflix, I won't be checking it out. I'm pretty sensitive to profanity and the Brits just love the F bomb (among other profanities). Whenever something I want to watch is heavily into the language I wait for it to air on network tv for that very reason. But if it didn't have the language, I'd probably be very interested in that show. It seems like an Outer Limits/Twilight Zone type of show that encourages people to look at themselves and their ideas and world. It's very hard for people to see themselves as perhaps actually being the villain. Like all the trolls on this board so quick to call others trolls -- never seeing it in themselves.

~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~

reply

[–] askebisgaard 8 years ago

There's not going to be too much depth to people who are greedy and lack the morals telling them human trafficking and other horrible crimes are wrong. Oftentimes the soldiers in such organizations are victims themselves, not knowing any other way of life and being "retired" when they are no longer useful.

I beg to differ. I think their depth is pretty interesting. Which is perhaps just one of the things I miss about movies like this.

I do wonder if you had been in a bad mood when you saw it. Because I'm looking at your complaints and, while I did see the movie about three months ago and I know you saw it years ago, I don't understand why you have those complaints

As you said it was years ago, so I don't recall. It could be I was in a bad mood. I very much doubt I'd give it a 7/10 if I rewatched it though. At best, I imagine I'll just turn my brain off and find it slightly boring.

The prostitute McCall spoke with at the diner at the beginning of the film (and a few other times) and checks up on at the end of the movie was completely helpless.

Yes I know. I realize I explained myself badly again. What I think I really meant, was that I didn't find them deep and interesting. Not necessarily in a philosophical or intellectual way, but just that we got to know them better, so more real things were at stake. But now that I'm typing this, I think, for injustice movies, the victims aren't too important for me. It's easy for me to relate/imagine helplessness, oppression and such. It's much more interesting for me, if we get to know the offenders before righting the wrong.
I come to think of the victim-offender system we have in Denmark. Where victims and offenders meet. For them both to talk about how they felt about what happened: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justitsministeriet.dk%2Farbejdsomraader%2Fpoliti-og-straf%2Fkonfliktraad&act=url.
And hearing the sincere thoughts and feelings behind offenders, is always the most interesting part. Especially because in almost all of the cases I've studied, there's either understandable reasons to the logic of the offender (that they're victims of even worse crimes) or you get to see how they realize that other people are affected by their actions, and want to feel regret, if they get help to live with the guilt, and move on. As far as I've seen, the more clueless criminals are almost always financial criminals (robbery, fraud and such).
Whatever the case is, I find it interesting to know the offenders. Cannon fodder isn't to me - especially not if it's about feeling justice.

Hopefully that explains it better.

Back to the main mafia guy fixer character, and this is where McCall has done his research and proves it as the two of them sit down and talk in a restaurant.

Yeah I remember that scene. To me the scene was mostly just McCall bragging about his research and deduction skills, while "exposing" the bad guy as a terrible person. And I recall the bad guy's reactions as rather weird and distracting.

What would have been justice?

I recall a justice movie I saw when I was a teenager. I looked it up and it's called "Just Ask My Children". For its time, and its moderate seriousness, it came off as a moving story to me. There's no violence involved in that one though.

As for the world that McCall lives in, I'm not sure I know how I'd prefer justice had been served. I agree that it wouldn't make sense that the cops would do anything, as they are always either incompetent, or omnipotent, in movies - depending on whether they're the heroes or not. Come to think of it, I find it more interesting to touch on the issue that cops don't have time and resources to solve some cases. Or touch on the stories behind cops that become corrupt - (like Mike in Better Call Saul). But I don't recall much about the characters of the cops in this movie anymore. I mostly recall that my impression of almost all characters, except McCall, is that we didn't really get to know them very well.

Human behavior doesn't really fascinate me. Most of the time I find humans to be very disappointing and close minded. I'm probably spending too much time on this board ;)

I'm guessing you mean in a moral sense, when you say "disappointing". I find "disappointing" behavior fascinating as well. Anything that helps me understand how people behave in all the various ways we're able to behave. Propensities, causal relationships, thought patterns, coping mechanisms etc. Very fascinating to me.
My studies have ruined a lot of movies though, unfortunately. I guess I should've expected that.

I also was finally able to look up the tv show you mentioned. It's Black Mirror, not Dark Mirror -- and while I have access to it thanks to Netflix, I won't be checking it out. I'm pretty sensitive to profanity and the Brits just love the F bomb (among other profanities). Whenever something I want to watch is heavily into the language I wait for it to air on network tv for that very reason. But if it didn't have the language, I'd probably be very interested in that show. It seems like an Outer Limits/Twilight Zone type of show that encourages people to look at themselves and their ideas and world. It's very hard for people to see themselves as perhaps actually being the villain. Like all the trolls on this board so quick to call others trolls -- never seeing it in themselves.

Yeah, I can't believe I called it Dark Mirror. It must have been a brain fart or something. I've been quite into that show. Too bad you have a profanity sensitivity. It is a pretty amazing show, if I might say so. I don't really recall if there is any profanity in them, but you've probably looked it up. Some of the episodes are rather appalling, so it wouldn't surprise me.
What I love is that all episodes are completely unique stories, all with the main theme of reflecting upon dark aspects of society. Often projecting them into a "what if" future. And on very different subjects.

If you can find a profanity-censored version, I'd definitely recommend it. I think you'd like it.

reply

[–] FieryMaid 8 years ago

I beg to differ. I think their depth is pretty interesting. Which is perhaps just one of the things I miss about movies like this.

You think the upper crust of crime have depth? I'm sorry -- I think of them as truly shallow people incapable of real thought and/or seriously in denial. Kind of like the aristocracy of the American South before and after the Civil War in regards to slavery. We are "helping" these slaves and other such nonsense. How can you talk and reason with people who are in denial and obviously can't reason? Hitler was insane -- there is no reasoning with that. The new President of my country is so blinded by his ego that reasoning with him is impossible, especially as he surrounds himself with people who will attempt to alter reality for him. "Alternative facts" indeed. How is any of that interesting?

Now the lessor peons, who in a lot of ways are victims themselves, they might be interesting, however they are usually just soldiers and usually going to die way before they are enlightened. Such is the way of the world.

Yeah I remember that scene. To me the scene was mostly just McCall bragging about his research and deduction skills, while "exposing" the bad guy as a terrible person. And I recall the bad guy's reactions as rather weird and distracting.

I think the bad guy was supposed to be a sociopath -- lacking the ability to feel or feel others' pain -- hence the weird reaction. I thought McCall was more trying to say -- I know who you are and what you did, and you really can just walk away. Perhaps it was bragging, but what I liked was McCall's dilemma about what he started in trying to be a good person, the promise he made to his wife, and the fact that, in a way, he was a mirror image of the bad guy. He has the same sociopathic tendencies. It's why he's also cold and calculated. Why he times how fast he kills these people. I wonder if, besides the obvious reasons, his wife made him promise not to ever be that again because she knew he was a sociopath and wanted to protect him delving deeper into that. I find the good guys, and the dilemma of what it means to be a good guy more fascinating than the bad. I'm also interested in what Hollywood keeps trying to tell us is "good" and "bad." A favorite thing now is no good person can kill a bad person or they won't be good anymore. Wait, what? So, the hero can fight all these soldiers (killing them) and get to the bad guy and then...not kill him because then he wouldn't be good anymore? Um, if it's ok to kill the soldiers -- who are probably just following orders and really know nothing of what is going on -- but not ok to kill the real bad guy, you know, the one responsible for everything, then I think the idea of right and wrong has been seriously twisted here. Either murder is bad, but killing (like self defense or in protection of someone else) is not; or ANY killing of any kind is bad. Moral codes and laws really need to be looked at and studied to see if they make any sense. Like the poor judges in Egypt who have an infant to sentence because his father was carrying him during a riot. The poor judge has to follow the law, that's his job, but he has a brain and sees that the 4 month old could not choose to be there and obviously was not participating in the riot. It's getting better, but still not finished yet, but children born out of wedlock still have a bit of a stigma. Like they had any say in what two people did to conceive them?

I think criminals have rights and attempts should be made to understand them and treat them (some are mentally ill and need medication) or help them (are starving and so found less than legal ways to simply fill their bellies), but I do not think they should ever take precedence over victims -- and I think many "justice" systems are starting to lean that way.

I come to think of the victim-offender system we have in Denmark. Where victims and offenders meet.

I think that is a good thing, most of the time and depending on the crime. Does this system still apply in cases of rape? I would love a system, kind of like the Old Testament system where emphasis was put on restitution. People only remember the eye for an eye and the tooth for a tooth, but that was the MAXIMUM punishment allowed for the victim who was only interested in vengeance. The actual law was about repentance and forgiveness. Recognizing the mistake/crime, wanting to fix it as much as possible, doing that, and the victim forgiving the mistake/crime.

There is a wonderful movie out there called The Railway Man. It's everything Unbroken should have been and wasn't. I'm super angry at Angelina Jolie for screwing up Unbroken. She missed the point even as she was saying she knew Unbroken wasn't about the torture (oh yes it was -- if you saw the movie you couldn't help but get that point). The Railway Man is about communication, understanding, and forgiveness and is remarkable. I love how the story is told, the performances are top notch, and it's "based" on a real story.

I mostly recall that my impression of almost all characters, except McCall, is that we didn't really get to know them very well

.

Well it IS McCall's movie so that makes sense. And in regards to the cops, they clearly had no jurisdiction or control to get to the head bad guy in his mansion somewhere in Europe.

I'll have to get around to watching Just Ask My Children. It looks good. And yes, there is a lot of injustice in the world -- much of it perpetrated by our supposed "justice system." My favorite is that abortion is ok but a pregnant woman who is terminally ill MUST have a C-section to save the baby's life and kill the mother NOW. Wait, what? Huge disconnect here!

I'm guessing you mean in a moral sense, when you say "disappointing". I find "disappointing" behavior fascinating as well. Anything that helps me understand how people behave in all the various ways we're able to behave. Propensities, causal relationships, thought patterns, coping mechanisms etc. Very fascinating to me.

Nope. Not in a moral sense. More in a logical sense (and yes, I know, I'm talking about humans here. Logic and humans don't mix). I understand that individuals, regardless of similarities in creed or culture or whatever, have their own sense of right and wrong, justice and vengeance, what is good entertainment and what is bad entertainment. What is appropriate for children and what is not, etc. What disappoints me is when people are incapable of talking with each other and just attempting to understand the others' point of view and reasoning. I say attempting, because I believe that is it probably impossible for an individual to 100% understand another's point of view not being that person, but I would hope, that before reaching for insults, before reaching for hate, before reaching for a "you're too stupid to communicate with" that at least an attempt be made. Many times on this board (and in life) I will think, this person is probably a troll but I'm going to actually see. So many times I have found that no, this person really isn't a troll. English isn't their native language, or there's a misunderstanding here or something. Then there's the times I think a person is smart and has a unique/enlightened point of view only to find s/he is a troll. When people stop or just flat out REFUSE to look outside their own life experience, or just accept things at face value without any questions or thought process, or have no ability to actually communicate with others, it makes me just sad and disappointed.

My studies have ruined a lot of movies though, unfortunately. I guess I should've expected that.

Haha! Yes, you really should have. We both agree that Hollywood is mostly wrong when it's not fake.

I will see if I can find an edited version of Black Mirror -- I agree with you that I think I'd like it too. And yes, I did look it up. I love the parental guidance on IMDB -- I like to know what I'm getting myself in to. Besides some pornographic content in some episodes (not a fan either. I feel that stuff should be private and if I want to see a naked body I know where the mirror is, thanks), the F bomb is prevalent in most episodes. While I can avert my eyes with visual content, it's impossible to plug my ears at the appropriate times for profanities.

~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~

reply

[–] WillJ22 8 years ago

I agree with your opinion of the film it is rubbish. I found this on Netflix and decided to watch it as it had a 5 out of 5 rating. Really surprised that its IMDB rating is 7.0. Personally i thought the film just got quite silly and ridiculous in the end. I will be giving it a 1 out of five star rating on Netflix.

reply

[–] FieryMaid 8 years ago

Is it rubbish just for the silly and ridiculous ending (because yeah, I agree with you it got pretty stupid at the end)?

~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~

reply

[–] mathmaniac 8 years ago

I really enjoyed this movie and I'll probably watch it again.

It reminds me of a certain kind of action movie ('Jack Reacher,' for example - which I have watched half a dozen times) which moves at a steady pace and is edited to seem just like a comic book. This is not meant to be a negative comment at all. It's refreshing. I wouldn't want EVERY action movie to have this style, but when it is well done, it works. It just works!

There are many action movies that I think try to attain this but it's not easy. They either move too fast, try to pump up dialogue to be more thought-provoking than is necessary, or they clutter the screen with the violence equivalent of glitz.

This movie is pretty simple. You don't need to learn a lot about the hero. You don't have to have every attribute of the hero spelled out for you and dramatized. You don't have to make him ponder decisions. You don't have to throw in ambiguity and have characters turn on him. You just have to have him 'be himself.' That self may be one-dimensional but it works in a comic-book and it can work on the screen. Sometimes. I think it works well here.

reply