MovieChat Forums > TheMan18 > Replies
TheMan18's Replies
And who ultimately DECIDES which is which and which side is ULTIMATELY correct here?
But then why do so many people here, seemingly intelligent ones, actually state and argue that it is so, besides the fact that in both cases there is the removal of one's life?
But then why does this movie and many people speak against the death penalty even if the culprit was guilty, and how come in some cases (yes, I know they shouldn't do it anyways but still...) they may get life imprisonment and in others death penalty, and again, why do many people say it IS falling to their level and makes us monsters if it isn't so?
Although there are also debates if mistakes happen in such a system and it isn't perfect anyway.
P.S. The reason I DON'T murder others goes WAY beyond me wanting to avoid punishments of a legal variety INCLUDING in (some places and cases) death penalty as such. And others, well, including like shown here, they do it because (although many say disturbed individuals may not also think clearly INCLUDING legal consequences, also, he may or may not for instance have even known death penalty would come to him or even that it exists, internet for instance wasn't available in 1989 etc). Of course no excuses for it all, but you can see, capital punishment does come under fire even when guilty ones as such get executed, and people question if it really IS THE "right" thing to do, with many openly saying "its wrong" (even if you don't agree liscarat, just scroll through MANY of the comments here.)
"Empathy is our true salvation, not the sacraments."
Does it ALWAYS work though, and does it apply to say mass murderers? While it may be needed, does it really like that work in all cases though?
So in your opinion jameswball, even murderous evil psychopaths in general don't deserve to die and if we kill them, that alone in and of itself makes us as bad as them right, due to some kind of err universal principle even if it isn't always, for some or other reason, recognized even by what are meant to be professional legal establishments?
"100% wrong, 100% of the time"
Even if say someone being executed is a mass murderer or even say genocidal dictator? Even if life is taken in self defence, and what, like, all 100 percent, like that?
And if it really is as wrong as we say it is, why did the law still organize it? And would you say life imprisonment for someone like Poncelet would've been a more appropriate punishment?
"Lastly, this movie's message is neither for nor against the death penalty."
While we may see it this way in this movie, as an interesting slice of trivia, both the film's director Tim Robbins and actress Susan Sarandon in real life were and still are actually against the death penalty.
And the whole film sort of came across as action thriller meets attempts at social drama, imagine something like the later film "The Hunt" (2012) crossed over with "Lethal Weapon" (1987) or "The Last Boy Scout" (1991) (SPOILERS - they even went as far as to attempt to frame Denzel Washington's character of running a particularly horrid type of sexual offenders ring as well).
Did you like the movie, Fred?
I thought the kid was literally in the bad guy's hands and wasn't exactly wearing a seatbelt either.
Speaking of sad news, I can't believe I just found this out, but an actor from this movie also passed away this year at the age of 61, Steve Sweeney - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0842199/
My God.
To be perfectly fair, I only made such promise once or so, and even then, not for 2024. :)
Fair enough, but still mate... :) If that's alright, again. ) P.S. 2028 I won't be here on moviechat anymore, but NOT because I am personally "against" it, will be too BUSY with WORK, FAMILY MATTERS, FINANCE and HOLIDAYS, hope that makes sense, and NO offense to ANYONE. :)
P.S. No big deal and NO offense to anyone whatsoever (but that's alright, most people including my FAMILY members know I have become in a way SENSITIVE towards such subject beyond agreeing with all aspects of its legal principles and moral de-facto definitions as well as dictionary, or TEXT BOOK if you like, ones as such) but...
I actually when looking up this title and making a thread was very CAUTIOUS of scrolling down that "the subject" will be heavily discussed, and again, not that I am in principle like that against it, but just don't feel like being up to it. Hence I started a thread about this movie on this site's General board and made a few threads here and clicking "Start New Topic" in a limited way etc. Besides, subject matter or no subject matter, please also remember, it is indeed the FILM we are discussing here overall.
Well... If a science, spoiler, could turn a man against his will into a woman, why would it not be able to perform a reverse procedure?
Spoilers - In "Face/Off" (1997), at the end - they WERE able to perform a reverse procedure on Travolta's Sean Archer character after he defeated with his face and body the villain Castor Troy.
So why not necessarily here?
And I can MAYBE understand either of the employees not "refuting" such arguments if they for one either had something TO HIDE, or even ACTUALLY believed for example his words or were too (even before he started attacking the place with a fire extinguisher not to mention what happens later) afraid of him and probably didn't know what to really say in either moment, but at least one if not both of them to an extent actually believed they were doing a fully legitimate job and were in fact (unless I am missing something) tied to professional rules and laws set up country's state and police and more likely actually WERE legitimate even IF at least at times rather unpopular.
But why, besides a few words here and there and then silence, didn't either employee go FURTHER and state, "Well, sir..." among other things.
Or was that towing agency actually somehow CORRUPT and in the WRONG and set up in ways that are entirely or at least partially against the established laws and without proper legislation, although it wasn't really revealed to be as such at all. And were those employees not really fully professional then and not taught how to deal with potentially agitated customers?
Also, if either or both employees attempted to further refute Darin's arguments, would they have worked and even convince him to pay off the fine and just simply accept and learn rules about parking his vehicles even in areas that aren't properly painted? And if Darin say professionally complained to some other organization if he believed his vehicle was unfairly told or sued them in court or whatever, would he win or would they all tell him the exact same? Just wondering.
Also...
Although he may OR may NOT be "right" in his assumption or assertion towards those car towing employees that "those who work for criminals are also them"...
I wonder. Besides him maybe not being entirely in the right either or...
How can HE, for one, be "100% sure and certain" that in ALL of his life, Ricardo Darin's character himself has NEVER worked for anyone or any organization that may in actuality NOT have been 100% legitimate? And based off on THAT, does he REALLY have a right to openly make such statements even if he believes truly and dearly that what the car towing organization did and in fact constantly does is wrong, in a moral and, according to him, a "legal" sense?
I also wonder, even though its scripted that way and its a movie, but why did neither of the two employees of that company actually refuted that argument of his along his lines, and even so, did either of them particularly the first one at least thought that? And besides, his area of work, demolitionist engineer - never a negative bone in its body?
2 Theman - are you my new internet brother (lol)?
Maybe some other moderator(s) did - and let me guess, someone decided to bring my old provocative and controversial past back (even though one subject and its various variations were actually nowhere NEAR it - and no offense, again, to anyone) and folks decided its best to remove it, or someone accused me of being some kind of slob haha and maybe others went into argumentative modes - but again, nothing too majorly serious, and certainly not THIS time either, hope its alright and OK.
P.S. IN this life, I am willing to accept any if not all of my past and future err 'tellings off' IF need be but I also hope I am more content and easier with life and myself including understanding certain things from very direct points of view. And not indulge in questioning too much other aspects, in this life, we can only accept things as they are and cope with them on their main levels. But that's alright too. :)
Also, I don't mean to trouble anyone, but why was my recent thread about "balance" in life deleted, thanks.