MovieChat Forums > Reasonable Doubt (2014) Discussion > I lost all respect for Mitch...

I lost all respect for Mitch...

posted 11 years ago by Philo89
15 replies | jump to latest

...when he tossed the gun to SLJ. The move was totally contrived as "now let's crank up the tension." I kept waiting for something like the gun being empty, or Mitch having a bulletproof vest on (though then the question is - where did he get it). But "a homicidal lunatic has a knife to your wife's throat so you toss him the gun"? Uh, no.

We can talk about the risk of SLJ slashing her throat if you shoot him, or even accidentally shooting her. But how a reasonably intelligent guy who's been advertised as being able to read people thinks that handing SLJ the gun is a good idea just fails to be convincing.

I would've been much happier with either Mitch shooting SLJ, or them at a standoff until the detective shot him from behind.

[–] RedHotz 11 years ago

I *hated* that scene.

Whenever a character does that in a movie it really irks me. Its as if the director, etc thinks we are so ditzy that we would suddenly not like the good guy if he shot the serial killer.

[–] Philo89 11 years ago

Exactly. I far prefer scenes like Jack Reacher where the bad guy is getting all full of himself with "Ha - now I have you... you can't shoot me because" and our protagonist shoots him.

Bonus points if the good guy shoots the bad guy *through* the human shield: "You shot me! I can't believe you shot me!"

I'll also note that my money is on Mitch's wife leaving him, because who wants to stay with a pansy-ass attorney who won't even defend his family?

[–] TallPaulus 11 years ago

The character Jack Reacher has a military background and has, therefore probably been trained to shoot. The Mitch character is a lawyer and, as far as we are aware, has had no gun training. Handing the gun over was the true reaction of a man who was fearful of shooting his wife rather than the bad guy. It was nothing to do with him being a "pansy-ass". Occasionally, films do not veer off into total fantasy, unlike some viewers...

[–] philoj 11 years ago

Especially since Reacher does it *twice* - shoots the cop in mid-sentence, then shoots the Zek in cold blood while he's all "Your justice system doesn't scare me"

[–] Jedi510 9 years ago

When people such as yourself for some reason expect that a DA with probably no weapon training at all would even be able to make that shot without killing his wife. Are you that dense?

[–] philoj 8 years ago

Try to shoot the killer, risk hitting the wife.

Give the gun to the killer, guarantee getting shot and god knows what he's gonna do to your wife.

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] love_me_black_and_white 11 years ago

I actually found the scene pretty believable. I mean yeah, sure he could have kept the gun and tried to shoot Davis (SLJ), but he was probably afraid Davis might shoot Rachel if he hadn't done what Davis told him to. And what someone else has pointed out, it's unlikely he knew how to use a gun, so there were bigger chances he would accidentally shoot his wife rather than Davis. Not to mention that he was faced with the possibility of seeing his wife tortured before his eyes and also his own death, so he was obviously not thinking like he would in a normal situation.

[–] DarkRealityX 11 years ago

My take on this is, SLJ already had two advantages: a hostage, and experience. DC had a gun, but no training with it and I'm betting SLJ knew that.

When somebody coerces another to give up their gun, the person giving up the gun is always conceding advantage. If they're acting in good faith, that's one thing, but SLJ had no good faith to assume.

You never know what you're gonna do until you're actually doing it, but I would like to think that I wouldn't give up the gun. I would take the shot regardless of training. In this case, SLJ was going to hurt the wife and the baby, and draw it out, and then he was going to kill or maim DC. His best bet would have been to shoot.

Every good guy gives up the gun. Or at least 99% of the time, that's how that trope plays out. And the reason for that is, if the hero just shoots the bad guy, that's too easy and it's a cheap win. If he gives up the gun, he's willing to take the bad guy alive or take more abuse before somehow turning the tide or having a third party intervene somehow. It would be a good element, if it weren't used so damn always.

- Dark Reality

[–] dreez-vector 11 years ago

I lost all respect for Mitch when he realized SLJ was a vigilante, and set of to put him in jail.. you don't touch vigilantes, you support them.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over a vigilante killing a rapist or childmolester who's out on parole.

[–] lisasetser0409 10 years ago

I think he was mostly interested in saving himself against being incriminated by SLJ.

[–] RootCookie 11 years ago

I lost all respect for Mitch...
When I found out at the start of the film he is a drink driver. There's no excuse.

I’ve just started the film and I'm so close to just switching it off.
So what’s the real point here? 'cus it ain’t about corrupt, lying, drink driving attorneys?

[–] lisasetser0409 10 years ago

He wasn't that drunk. And it's "DRUNK drivers" not "DRINK drivers". Ugh!! Haven't you ever had a couple drinks out and been "technically" over the limit, but really fine to drive? A person can't have 2 beers without being over the limit. Don't focus on minor points like that when watching a movie, dooley head. The real focal point of that scene is why the guy ran out in front of his SUV. Of course he'd have hit him even if he were stone sober. The "drink driver" is not the focus of this film.

[–] jonnypenn84 9 years ago

Plus, there were some shady characters that looked like they would have stolen his car if he left it unattended.

[–] chilone (18333) 7 years ago

Well you just go ahead and drive when you're "technically" over the limit but are really fine to drive but know this: If you kill or seriously hurt someone and you have ANY alcohol in your system, you will be going to prison even if it isn't your fault. Moron.

[–] clivescarff 8 years ago

I agree with much of what is being said here (and thought the first half of the movie was almost flawless) but I think the BIGGEST weakness in the scene being discussed here is that Clinton Davis was a vigilante... trying to stop bad guys. No way in hell would he hurt an innocent woman (and baby) - that wasn't his thing. My money says the original script was completely different when it came to this scene, and there were unwanted (by the writer) changes made to this scene for whatever (nonsensical) reason.