So H kills the dudes wife.... - Unthinkable (2010) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wild_cobra427 15 years ago

Anyone coming to a movie site, then to the actual movie's page, then to the forums of said movie, prior to watching that movie, is more of an idiot than the person who doesn't write "Spoilers" in the header.

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

reply

[–] satanznitemare 15 years ago

If they had allowed H to have his way, he wouldn't have killed Jehan. She would only have lost a couple of fingers maybe. If just the thought of his kids being tortured could make Yousuf give up the 3 bombs, then actually making him watch his wife get her fingers cut off (for example) would have yielded the same results.
However, Brody and the rest were going to make sure she walks out of there unharmed. In that event, all further interrogation would have been useless. So in his desperation H slit her throat. I don't think he meant to kill her when he brought her in. Remember, he could have made Yousuf speak before he even had to start torturing her. They should have atleast let him try. That would make more sense then locking up the kids with H, which they eventually had to.

reply

[–] the-luftwaffe 15 years ago

yeah, except having a terrorist placing multiple nuclear devices in cities of million ain't exactly the average day of work. try again.

reply

[–] praito 15 years ago

The "happy" ending would be to comply to Younger's demands as soon as they found out his threats were real. Anything else isn't really a happy ending, not even if they found all the bombs.All in all a pretty good movie apart from your standard cliche evil-axis (muslims, russians, now iran).

PS: The amnerican audience should admit that Holywood does produce a great deal of propaganda (not so much this movie) and always hold a critical look on things instead of rush and call people conspirasy theorists etc etc, just saying.

reply

[–] dwerg85 15 years ago

Not so sure how this movie constitutes anti-muslim propaganda. The dude's demands where: "stop giving money to puppet islamic regimes" and "get out of islamic countries". Both those demands can be boiled down to 1 statement, stop financing and provoking terrorism.

reply

[–] winternight02 15 years ago

I found the acting, directing, and writing of this film to all have been phoned in.The motivations of the terrorist were never explained.None of the actions of the characters in the film were logical etc.

So if the government simply agrees to vaguely 'cooperate' with the terrorist then he will disclose the location of all of the bombs? Would such an easy solution to the threat not have been the first thing that they would have done?

The locating of the fourth bomb right next to one of the original three was ridiculous.

H murdering the wife was ridiculous and illogical.But the writer and director wanted to get to the moral question of torturing the terrorist's kids.So they have H do a totally illogical action because of their laziness.

Obviously, H would have had the wife strapped down, and began mutilating her, then chopping off digits.Probably with the kids in the room to watch and scream.
H would have promised the terrorist that the kids were next, every time he used the scalpel on the wife.

That would have been the only way to break the terrorist, not cutting off another digit when you have already cut nine of them off.

And what about water boarding and truth serums?

Film school kids could have done a better job writing and directing this film!

reply

[–] AnakinStarkiller 15 years ago

Wow, so many of you dont think at all.

First, H did NOT intend nor want to kill the wife. They gave him no choice as he could not convince Yusef that he would harm his children if they wouldnt even let him do anything to the wife. He intended to do torture methods to her and use the kids as the final bait to get the answers.

Second, it was either a few people or millions. The viewer can make his own moral call but the fact is you are either deciding it is ok to kill a small number of people to save many or allow the death of many to spare a few. That is the call and there is no other way to put it. You are either sacrificing a few or sacrificing many. Make your call.

I am so glad they had the fourth hidden bomb (although it was silly that it was RIGHT THERE next to another bomb). All these idiots worried about the lives of a couple kids allowed thousands upon thousands of children to die. Good job.

Now, this makes you think... could this be like propaganda to make people think it is ok to torture people? We maybe and I think you need to have your line. My line is when death is imminent, such as the case with bombs you know will go off. Suspected of possibly plotting something? No, torture should not be allowed in that case.

And finally, Islam is a religion NOT A RACE. Someone badmouthing Muslims, whether justified or not, is not a racist because of it! That's like saying you hate NRA members and someone called you a racist. Sounds silly, doesnt it?

reply

[–] exorcist1998-1 14 years ago

I thought this was a superb film that asked some really hard questions. Could you kill someone elses kids to save your own ?
Its a question that I doubt no one here could answer thank god but extreme situations create extreme actions.

I think H could have pretended to hurt the kids with maybe a blunt knife or even some movie props as I would think since Yousif was quite a distance away the illusion could have been maintained long enough to make him talk.

"when in doubt - kill !"
Richard Crenna , First Blood

reply

[–] piwara 15 years ago

I don't see how the authorities are any worse than Younger.

Younger wants the authorities to do something they don't want (meet his demands).
Authorities want Younger to do something he doesn't want (give them the bombs).

To get what he wants, Younger threatens the authorities to kill the people they care about (millions of civilians).
To get what they want, authorities threaten Younger to kill the people he cares about (his family).

Younger shows that he is serious by killing people authorities care about (50 civilians).
Authorities show that they are serious by killing people Younger cares about (his wife).

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 15 years ago

It would've been nice if you put spoiler tags on your titlehead as a courtesy to others who have yet to see the film. Plenty of people visit IMDB forums for various reasons, & a number of them are prewatchers.

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

[–] grendel824 14 years ago

Honestly, while there are a lot of posts here that show that the posters simply weren't paying attention to the movie, I'm not going to go too far in defending its quality. It was far better done than I expected, but my expectations were low. I was actually impressed at the ethical dilemmas posed and the "no easy answers" stance through much of the narrative. It also isn't dumb enough to try to say that there IS some easy ethical choice to make, so it's not exactly taking sides. Even the evil extremist is given some mitigating traits and isn't painted as stereotypically evil and uncaring.

reply

[–] MontgomeryBrogan 14 years ago

I'm sorry but that terrorist put 3 bombs under 3 cities... I say "do whatever it takes to stop him"!!!! whatever it takes! I completely understand Sam L Jackson's character. Rather 4 inncocent people (women, children...) dead than 10.000... Come on, if you think about it.. you know it makes sense!

reply

[–] rdbphhqeujum 14 years ago

I'm sorry but that terrorist put 3 bombs under 3 cities... I say "do whatever it takes to stop him"!!!! whatever it takes! I completely understand Sam L Jackson's character. Rather 4 inncocent people (women, children...) dead than 10.000... Come on, if you think about it.. you know it makes sense!

No, doesn't make sense to make. The more I think about it, the less sens it makes.

"Better 10.000 deaths of innocents caused by a criminal than 1 death of an innocent caused by the government" is what makes sense to me.

reply

[–] AlecMac 14 years ago

That's the point of the film. How far are you willing to go along with what's happening.

I guess if you ask most people who are taking their final breath if it bothers them more if the government or a criminal was taking their life they'd be equally p1553d off either way.

reply

[–] scrimmo 13 years ago

No, doesn't make sense to make. The more I think about it, the less sens it makes.

"Better 10.000 deaths of innocents caused by a criminal than 1 death of an innocent caused by the government" is what makes sense to me.

So you agree with the FBI agent. If Sam Jackson's character didn't disagree with what you said, there wouldn't be a movie and you wouldn't have to comment on it for us to make you realise you getting upset about a movie you chose to watch and didn't like the premise on which it was set.

Do you see your irrational comment here?

reply

[–] wiplock-12-309764 13 years ago

that's the point of this whole movie, it's to make you argue with yourself and others what you'd do in that situation.

reply

[–] ThatDoesntMatter 13 years ago

Thank you rdbphhqeujum, makes me feel less alone.

reply

[–] jsonting 13 years ago

I guess it's easier to ask this way. If you are among the 100,000 people who's about to die blown to ash by a nuclear bomb, and not even knowing what and why did all this happen, would you be willing to accept that to happened? Will you sacrifice your OWN life to save the wife of the guy who's going to bomb you? say yes to these questions before you say H actions doesn't make sense.

reply

[–] bigjohnnyhandsome 12 years ago

Yes, I would. If she's innocent, why does she have to suffer? From what you're saying, it's okay to kill people connected to a 'terrorist' even though they had nothing to do with it?

reply

[–] Lesley_P 12 years ago

So, you think it is ok to let millions of innocent people perish so that you can spare the life of an 'innocent' wife of a terrorist? If not, what is your recommendation to the scenario presented in the movie?

reply

[–] Davedaily725 11 years ago

We'll ur an idiot..if ur child was strapped to one of the bombs and u knew there was any chance at all that torturing him was ur only shot at saving ur child any human being worth a dam would do it!!..it's not a morality issue..it's human nature..you can throw all kinds if racist religious enuindos in the situation all u want but none of it effects the nature of ensuring ur survival and the ones u love and care for..I don't care if its a ten year old holding the trigger of a gun or bomb or what ever..if it threatens my child or a loved one I'll blow him away first givin the chance..

reply

[–] System_Of_A_Downey_Jr 14 years ago

So does killing 9,999 to save 10,000 make sense as well?
You're up one person!

I've put the IMDb administrators on ignore.

reply

[–] bing-57 13 years ago

> So does killing 9,999 to save 10,000 make sense as well?
You're up one person!

Yup. And for the reason you said.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

[–] bigjohnnyhandsome 12 years ago

Maybe for those countries that see us as the terrorists, maybe they would feel the same now about us. What if they choose to kill us to save themselves? Isn't that what we're doing, killing them to save ourselves?

reply

[–] m-a-ashraf71 12 years ago

As long as this type of things keep making sense to people our world is *beep*

reply

[–] SubZeroMK 14 years ago

Oh shut the *beep* up you *beep* pussy. It was actually extremely realistic. Why the *beep* would they kill the one man who has the skills to get the information out of him? I think it would be unrealistic to kill his character off without a proper trial in court. They beat him, they reacted realistic. Is that not good enough for you? *beep* off you *beep* hippie.

reply