MovieChat Forums > To Live and Die in L.A. (1985) Discussion > Main character is such a piece of shit

Main character is such a piece of shit

posted 2 years ago by kameeleoned_out (59)
10 replies | jump to latest

Throughout the movie there were no redeeming moments for him, absolutely none. He treated the blonde girl like shit constantly, repeatedly abusing her in various imaginative ways, he disrespected all of his superiors, steamrolled his partner, got suckered by different characters, made wrong decisions all the time and was a general asshole wherever he went. Then he got shot in the face and actually deserved it for being a non-stop idiot. It was such an odd and unrelatable character, and William Petersen’s (in my opinion) strange acting choices didn’t help at all.

[–] Redsfan001 (6007) 2 years ago

Agreed.

It's such a interesting movie with one of the most unusual plot twists, that most people can overlook the unappealing nature of the peacock like lead character.

[–] kameeleoned_out (59) 2 years ago

‘Peacock’ is a a very accurate descriptor. Also, happy to see this board alive, I didn’t expect to get a reply ever, nevermind half an hour.

[–] pjl69 (2435) 2 years ago

Yeah, I know and that's one of the reasons why this movie is so great!

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Friedkin likes to fuck with the audience. This time he made the hero a belligerent asshole who gets his face blown off 🤣

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 2 years ago

Another thing I found off about Petersen's performance: His bizarre, Peter Pan-like dance moves whenever he's clearing a room. All his leaping about, bobbing and kneeling and show-off flailing around with his revolver looked parodic and reminded me of Martin Short's "Ed Grimley" character. I can picture cops on a comedy skit moving like Petersen did in TLADILA. I'd like to hear some real cops or agents give their opinion of his "fancy moves".

[–] kameeleoned_out (59) 2 years ago

Haha, I distinctly noticed that. And I'd very much describe it as 'fancy', yeah. I kept wondering what he was thinking as he was doing it. An odd choice. But maybe it wasn't a choice, but simply who he was, and he kept it under control in later parts?

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 2 years ago

I kind of think Petersen felt that kind of movement went with the bravado and egotistical nature of the character. You kind of get the sense that those moves are being made to show off, very self-consciously and deliberately, like the character probably practices them in front of his mirror when he's at home alone. Or maybe Petersen just thought it would look cool on film, or maybe, as you say, that was just his natural instinct as to how it should have been done.

[–] yatzo376 (7462) 2 years ago

Agreed, a cocky alpha hotshot with pointy little brown boots

[–] Tabbycat (748) a year ago

Yes.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16200) 2 years ago

Probably but it's refreshing.