MovieChat Forums > MrAnonymous > Replies
MrAnonymous's Replies
I've always wondered that too. I didn't mind Tony killing him, but it drove me nuts that he went on about "I stayed loyal to you Frank" after having went after his wife right in front of him.
I'd say 99% Teasle. The law is supposed to protect the peace, and sometimes that means being willing to reason with people and de-escalate. In that regard, Teasle was 100% wrong. You cannot just run someone out of town just because their look says they 'might' cause trouble.
As for Rambo, he was morally justified, but this comes down to an issue of 'pick your battles'. Sure he was offended and he was right to be offended since teasle was being a jerk. Still, while most cops I've dealt with were great people, there will always be one or to jerks with a badge. Given that Rambo was heading somewhere else anyway and just wanted to get something to eat, he could have said "Hey, I'm not planning on sticking around your town, I'm going to Portland. Still, I'm hungry and I'd love to get some food. If you let me get a bite to eat here I'll be on my way and you'll never see me again". Let me be clear, he should not have to say this as he had every right to be there, but given that he had a destination beyond that town anyway, he may as well have saved himself some trouble. Granted, I'm not a veteran, so I cannot relate to that aspect of his frustration, so my answer is just speculation.
Did they actually jam it down his throat or merely put it in his mouth? I've always felt that the claim that they jammed it down his throat was just the prosecution exaggerating for dramatic effect. I cant see anyone jamming anything right down a persons throat without expecting fatal consequences.
Perhaps his words were not wrong, I honestly do not know, but he was a hypocrite by not adhering to this code he goes on at length about.
He says "We follow orders or people die", yet he disregarded an order not to do code reds and someone died.
He rants about "Honor, Code, Loyalty" yet immediately engineers a cover up of his actions and throws the two marines who followed his orders under a bus to save his own butt.
I hear you, but he had to know they might try to flank around him and get to her. Why not stay where he knew he could protect his family.
No. Because I would not EVER be in a ring with him regardless of how much money I was offered.
Maybe he felt that his responsibility as an officer was to approach the suspect after he was shot and see if he is still alive, in case he needs to render aid. Remember he does not know Michael is supernatural. To him Michael is an insane killer, but with the exception of Laurie, Loomis and the viewing audience, most rational people would assume he is critically injured, probably dead and no longer a threat.
I'd enjoy if they did a ret-con sequel and pretended all the other sequels didn't exist. If they did that, and convinced Spielberg to direct and brought back Dreyfus I'd be interested. Otherwise I'd say don't flog this dead horse any more.
Agreed. Truthfully I didn't even like the second one. A friend of mine rented the third and I only reluctantly watched it with him (I didn't realize she was in it at first), and when she walks into the hospital during her first scene my interest was piqued. Hers was the only horror movie death that ever saddened me. I read an article where a journalist recommended ret-conning it and pretending away all the other sequels (so she wouldn't be dead), and just treating it like Freddy has been away all this time since the first and I thought it was a great idea.
I fully agree
If they brought both her and Robert Englund back I'd definitely go see it. I'm not one for sequels but that would be good. I wonder if they would ret-con it and pretend that all the other sequels never happened. I read an article where that was suggested.
I always wondered if any of them thought "Oh $#it" the minute he pulled it out. Maybe holding their breath every time he was behind them.
That scene made me cringe, as son as he approached them. He should have locked down the house and protected his family.
Other than these two reviewers how many others complained?
The more someone wears their virtues on their sleeve, the more they signal those virtues......the less they live up to those virtues when people are not looking. Be they left wing or right wing this almost always proves true.
Jimmy Swaggart, and Elen Degeneres.....two people who preached until they were blue in the face yet both were wolves in sheeps clothing.
Sherriff's don't get to pick and chose who can be in their town based solely on how they look. Sure you can keep an eye on any newcomers who look sketchy but Rambo had the right to be there.
I never saw him being portrayed as a hero at all, but rather a redemption story. He was portrayed as a man who initially was a slimy opportunist who would ally with anyone if it served his interests, but who could not stomach the horrors of what he had involved himself in and chose to do what he needed to to try to save as many as he could from a situation he had initially been complicit in.
It let's Wild Bill off bit to easy but it was the only way to get rid of Percy
It's a hard call, but I'd say Percy. He just loved having power over people and using it as sadistically as possible. Hadley for all his brutality seemed to at least be a bit more predictable. While I don't agree with Hadley's over the top brutal responses to prisoner's who get out of line, at least with him I'd feel confident that I know how to avoid his wrath just by laying low and not attracting attention to myself.