Surely there were more people to kill, why waste so much time waiting outside a house for a machine to turn up when you could just carry on and find someone else to kill? Even if they killed the homeless guy and the family that would still only be 5 people. Maybe they killed plenty before hand but seems a lot of time to waste.
shareHaha I know what you mean. I'd like to know how this douchebag got a gang of people to follow him in order to kill a single homeless man and waste their entire purge night on him swinging and pretending to kill each other in front of a camera. And then when he kills one of his gang members just to seem creepy they just pull the body away and still follow him like he is their amazing leader. It seriously is insulting to the viewers' intelligence. The writer obviously assumes that we will believe that a bad guy just magically has followers because they are all bad guys. No sorry, the world doesn't work that way, people need incentive to follow someone blindly.
So... they are killing a random man without any profit or reward when they could be out looting. They are following a random "leader" who is clearly mentally challenged and will kill them without thinking twice about it even though they are his "friends". And they are wasting their entire purge night with this dumbass. The way he kept trying to sound like Alex from a Clockwork Orange kept bugging me. His stupid ****ing smile and saying "thee" and "thy".. killing his "friend" just to be creepy but supposedly because he was yelling at the family which was "rude", yet 20 minutes later he is screaming at the family because the time is up? He is the worst villian I have ever seen.
They didn't like that he put up a fight and killed one of their members in the process. I believe he explains this to Ethan Hawke.
shareI don't think the man was actually homeless, the freaky leader of the purgers talked a lot of racist trash. Who knows though, just a thought...
I also think he was in the next movie, when the anarchists break into the country club setting and rescue the ones that were rounded up and sold.
Beginnings are always messy.
It's not meant to be a realistic story. It's supposed to be a metaphor for rich *beep* who are heartless and regard the poor as trash. The family aspire to become part of that rich class but they aren't there yet - they still have feelings (especially the kid).
It's pretty heavy-handed, but clearly it needs to be even more heavy-handed for people to get it...
So you are saying a film can't deliver a message without a massive plot hole?
Just saying, its not meant to be realistic is a pretty poor excuse.
I agree. The only reason I can think of them spending so much time trying to get that particular homeless man is because he killed one of the Freaks when they were trying to kill him. In addition to being lunatics, those Freaks were very arrogant and felt that the homeless had no right lo live, let alone to fight back....and have the nerve to succeed on top of that.
shareThis is the real answer.
You actually got the movie.
it makes no sense at all, even if he did kill one of their people, as the charles manson wannabe ivy league freak shot his own friend. they didn't care about vengeance, it was just a silly hunt and their new mission. even more stupid that they had people to call to bring the trucks and chains......"yeah hey Pete, could i borrow your truck? one of my killings got a little out of hand, we gotta break into a mansion. i'm on 676 sedgewick street.. yeah 30 min is cool, just finish ur dinner it's all good. yeah tammy is here, she's swinging on a swing. no she didn't ask about you.. just get over here, if i don't kill again soon i'm gonna go nuts. ok, later."
shareThere was more to the plot they didnt mention too much. Hence the sequels.
share