This, I think, is more a continuation of what we saw from Frank Castle as previously played by Tom Jane- still with some semblance of a human being under all the armor. He knows what he needs to do, but the conversation with Ron Perlman's character sets the tone for the internal monologue he was no doubt having at the laundromat: "If I kill these guys, there will just be more taking their place tomorrow." This is Frank Castle, weary of his war, not sure of whether to keep fighting it; he started out just to avenge his family, but for every one scumbag he takes down, two or three more show up in their place. He knows it's a losing battle, and anyone- anyone- would wrestle with that fact and whether it was something he could keep doing.
I can agree that the pacing feels off for what we know about the character from the comics; the situation never would have gotten half as far as it did- but that's the departure between a serialized print like a comic book versus a short film. With this, we had to see him wrestle with that decision, we had to see what his target was capable of to give us the kind of catharsis necessary to make a vigilante story feel good. It wouldn't have been as dramatically satisfying to have him debate the same line of reasoning with himself, then go out and bash their heads in; we had to feel, in no uncertain terms, that his methods are not just effective, but deserved.
Let me ask you this: did we need all the exposition in The Slavers?
Si vis Pacem, Parabellum.
reply
share