In the movie he doesn't defend himself, for a variety of reasons, so we only hear the wifes side of the argument...He fulfilled all three of his responsibilities - career, children, and new baby. She failed her only one, her children.
http://TheMovieGoer.com
I'm a woman and I don't think she is a "villain" as you put it but I do think his wife should have slept on it and he's obviously a good man, she should have given him the chance of a reconciliation, some Relate sessions maybe. One mistake is not the same as many mistakes, I thought hat was chilling and she was under the influence of a family member when she said that. I also think this wasn't the night to tell her about the accidental baby. Not while on the motorway. None of these conversations should ever take place when someone is driving at speed! For heaven's sake film people! Can you never just park a difficult conversation!
shareOh and by the way I have been married for longer than ANY OF YOU - but without transgressions so I bow to those who have been hurt in this way.
shareTHANK YOU!
A reasonable response by a woman.
Locke doesn't expect to be forgiven like all the other women in this thread seem to think, he just wants a discussion for the sake of the children.
OP, you're in the wrong. What you have said in this thread makes you sound like an idealistic teenager who thinks they have the answer to everything. You know how people know this? Because they (and I) were like you to some degree. But something happened...life teaches you there are rarely easy answers.
Fact is, people are people. To think that within an hour, an individual can come to terms and think and act rationale when information that is literally life-changing is given is extremely naive (as pointed out already). Think about this...Tom Hardy's character was able to deal with this information for many many weeks before he finally told his wife. He had far more time to come to terms with his own mistake; the wife just learned of this information and was obviously blind-sided by it given his character. They were clearly in a pretty happy relationship with a good family; he made the mistake.
So there you have it. I'm sure that in 10 or 20 years if you ever look back at this thread you'll chuckle to yourself at how immature you sounded. Cause it's true.
you're in the wrong.
I think I might have credited your level of intelligence more than I should have. You've been a member here for quite awhile and you choose this kind of discourse?
BTW, the characters presumably exist outside of the 2 hours you see them. The dialogue makes it clear that Tom Hardy knew of the woman's decision to have the baby for some time. The wife is just learning of this information. I thought I could provide a little clarity on this to you, but its clear that's of no interest to you.
Feel free to declare a meaningless victory out of this, but this will be my last response to you.
this will be my last response to you.
The OP might very well be young but the context of what he is saying is all too real.
For the record, think of how many husbands forgive their wives to keep the family together? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to marriage, not just the monogamy of the wife and husband:
Children, in this case 2
House, in this case arguably a high value one
Those are the big two that should be held above fidelity. As sad as it may sound, the act of adultery in cases like Locke's are extremely minimal in the grand scheme. This is why people get back together all the time. It may seem catastrophic in the moment, but to have that blip in 15 years, the wife will at least realize it doesn't change the fact he's raised children for 13? years and been with her all that time.
Now, should she forget and continue sleeping with him? That's up to her. The sexual aspect of their marriage could be over forever, but it doesn't mean you split the house and the children.
Destination: Rad-City
The sexual aspect of their marriage could be over forever, but it doesn't mean you split the house and the children.
This might be the dumbest observation ever.
share? Which part? Cause I see some valid points scattered within trolling. So I'll need you to be specific lol
Very interesting post and a very difficult situation to judge. Women and men should be prepared to face situations in their marriage that are extremely hurtfull but that they need to get over for the children's sake. Some people here are saying the wife was understandably upset but the fact is that if she was ready to always put her children first she wouldn't have reacted that way (she would still be mad but it would be different). She did because her marriage was about her and her husband. It shouldn't be. From the moment you have kids it's about the kids. It's no longer about love between spouses. If something goes wrong in most cases is not important enough to damage the kids the way a divorce will. The problem is that our culture is totally self centered. It's all about: "I don't feel good in this marriage" "I'm not appreciated" "There's a nice person where I work that pays more attention to me than my spouse" "My spouse made one mistake and I deserve to be with someone who is perfect despite the fact that I am not" Let's ruin the kids because of silly reasons. The fact is that this man was doing a good job raising his kids (that loved him) and being a good husband, he made a mistake and suddenly he's horrible. Typical. We don't appreciate people for their qualities but are always quick to criticize them for their shortcomings. She probably won't find a much better man than that one (how many men would be so determined to be a good man despite growing up with such a poor example?). It all comes down to the fact that people think divorce is ok and any reason justifies it. Divorce is for rare situations (for example when there is violence) but nowadays people see it as an easy way out and use it way too much. And there is always the theory that the children will be worse off being raised by an unhappy couple. Being a son of a divorced parents let me tell you this: it's all bs. Make an effort to stay together and put aside your ego and narcissistic views. Your kids will thank you.
shareUse paragraphs, friend.
shareIt wasn't about villains, something had happened that his wife wasn't going to accept, she knew fine well he would still provide material benefits to his children - it came across to me that his relationship with his wife was sadly already dead, and he was denying that to himself because of his love for his children.
His materialistic career driven life, where he justified absence by providing a high standard of living, was all due to his own selfishness, but as well as being selfish he was a man with an high sense of duty.
It wasn't about villains
the villain in this movie? wut.
share[deleted]