MovieChat Forums > Iconoclast321 > Replies
Iconoclast321's Replies
Not going to address your second point - that's your opinion, you are welcome to it.
As to your first point - anything is possible. But my judgment is that a white person (especially at that time, and in the South) would have gotten off. You can disagree if you want, but I stand by the point.
Nono. I'm not saying it was okay at all - my point clearly said he was guilty and not insane. The point was that SLJ needed to get off b/c a white person would have. Under the same circumstances, with the same factors in play. Not talking about what is 'legal' or not. Certainly not saying it was okay beforehand, or even okay at all. Just talking about reality.
Against it. A) It is not a deterrent - see the research, B) No matter how you spin it, it's state-sanctioned murder, C) Innocent people do get executed.
There is a difference between excusing something beforehand (something that MM felt guilty of doing, since he didn't call the sheriff) and exercising mercy afterwards.
Agreed, and my (other) post said the same.
I just posted on this very point. Here's my post:
https://moviechat.org/tt0117913/A-Time-to-Kill/6104837459e5cd52d81f0b32/In-my-eyes
I teared up at the very last scene.
I think she was the daughter. But I have my own questions:
Why didn't GS want to show her the Mother Goose bedspread? She was willing to test her on all the other things. Also why didn't the police want to let her lawyer see the fingerprints? And how does a 7 year old run away?
For anyone interested, the episode can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi8GGsEeR50 (more episodes posted on that channel as well).
I think that was one of the subtle signs that she was, in fact, the daughter.
I am so sorry for your loss.
Here is a very good discussion on the topic with some likely possibilities (contract issue, billing issue, etc) mentioned: https://filmboards.com/board/p/1374459/
Four years later - fie on IMDB! We have not forgotten!
Thank goodness for MovieChat!
Hence my philosophy that one should always watch a movie first, then read the book. This way you get to enjoy the movie on its own terms, without comparison. Then you get to enjoy the book for all of its details and depth - and all the ways that it is different. If you read the book first and then watch the movie, the movie will never stand up by comparison.
Agreed. Plus the plot-hole where Trygve casually mentions that he was found, but nothing about that. And the Australia thing was never fully explained. Poor writing. I'll bet the book was better.
Looking into the plot before watching a movie is a great way to ruin it.
I took that as a (dark) joke on his part.
Agreed.
I disagree. Lazy writing, plot holes...
Still entertaining.
Yes, and big plot-hole regarding Trygve being found... Found how? By who? With what clues? Not reported?
Poor writing.
I took it to mean that he realizes that we need to value precious things and precious moments, even though the world can be so ugly. That perhaps those moments of joy are all we have (because hope is deceptive, and god may not exist, and life often sucks), but that doesn't mean that they should not be fully lived and appreciated while they last, and for what they are.