MovieChat Forums > Wisdom (1987) Discussion > a few stupid things uve probably noticed...

a few stupid things uve probably noticed...

posted 17 years ago by queenalyset
16 replies | jump to latest

well for one thing, i have never seen this before. i am watching it 25 mins in and have seen Wisdoms first robbery attempt. it was poorly done. first off, if he was smarter, he would have worn a ski mask to hide his face. the camera would have gotten him before he shot it. second, he was waving a gun in the streets like he didnt know what he was doing. anyone could ID him. and last he had no gloves on, he would have left finger prints on the cash register. lots of mistakes here...

[–] FilmJerk-2 17 years ago

It's not a mistake, since John isn't robbing the banks. He is bombing the bank documents to make a statement, and as it is seen throughout the film, his celebrity due to his actions helps him, for some people appreciate what he is doing. I'd just like to know how, even in 1986 dollars, two people were able to do all that traveling they were doing on a mere $700.

[–] jguz58 17 years ago

This movie is a lot smarter than you are, miss royalty. You obviously weren't paying enough attention to what the character was trying to accomplish. So shut up and learn a little more about movies, and the proper use of english, before you jump on one of my favorites with a Miss-Know-It-All statement.

[–] reservoirfrog2003 17 years ago

I love this movie and believe that it is kind of stupid.

[–] dhjenkins72 17 years ago

Here's another really stupid line:
While Wisdom is watching TV in the airport (bus station?) the newscaster describes a wave of foreclosures due to rampant outsourcing of jobs.
Newscaster: "Norman Larson was born and raised in this house, which has been in his family for more than 100 years. Today he's moving out his last posessions before the bank takes over."

HUH? What family still owes money on a house that is over 100 years old?!? The bank wouldn't take it over unless the mortgage was in arrears. Anyone ever heard of a 100+ year mortgage? Come on Emilio...put a little thought into this stuff!

BTW, this movie totally blows, but man is it fun!

[–] hippotie79 17 years ago

The family must have put the house up as colateral for some sort of business loan or something. Business prolly went belly up and bank is taking the house as payment.

[–] leone_corbucci_solli-1 17 years ago

snap. Yeah that kind of *beep* tends to happen and I thought the idea of this film was very interesting . Great movie

[–] snowleopard 17 years ago

Ever hear of a reverse mortgage?

[–] madjono 16 years ago

[–] crockett_john 11 years ago

I don't think that's what a reverse mortgage is.

You can take a mortgate out on your house and even a second mortgage.

[–] tazguys 16 years ago

Wow - you guys know little about home ownership. There are all sorts of ways to still owe money on a house after 100 years, including one family member purchasing it from another family member, who purchased it from another family member. Tada - still a mortgage. Or, could be a home equity loan. Or behind in taxes. Etc.

[–] crockett_john 11 years ago

Or, the simplest one is just taking out a mortgate (borrowing money against the property you already own). You don't even have to own it completely to take out a second mortgate. This has been a trend in the last 15 or so years where people buy a house, don't even make payments for very long and the value of the house goes up, so they borrow money on top of that in a process that's known as "caching out."

[–] stevenackerman69 15 years ago

It might've been mortgaged during the time he was living there, but not at the beginning. Maybe it was mortgaged only recently. The point was that the house had been in his family for several generations but the bank didn't give a damn and foreclosed. It makes the bank look like Bush A-holes.

[–] wulfgyr 11 years ago

The movie takes place during the 80's it was a time when a lot of small farms where going under. When times were tough farmers would have to take out loans on their farms to get by and then had trouble paying the loans. Farm Aid started around this time as a way to help farmers. John Cougar Mellencamp's song "Rain on the Scarecrow" was about this topic. The news article in the movie wasn't far off from what was happening in the times.

[–] ericwalker88 7 years ago

you're a *beep* idiot.

[–] stevenackerman69 15 years ago

I think he didn't care about that. He wasn't trying to rob the bank, as you sort've put it. He wanted to destroy the mortgage documents that the bank had so this way people could benefit from the system being temporarily screwed up. He felt he was making a statement on the way the system was working and he felt he could help them out. He wanted people to know who he was and not be a masked man like the Lone Ranger.

[–] crypticanomaly73 8 years ago

For me it is how much noise he makes with the explosions and all and yet no one seems to hear from the street?

Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.