[deleted]
Not that hard, I was totally on his side.
He didn't kill him, just used his body after they did.
That was quite tragic, because not only do they riddle him with bullets to death and afterwards, but they also callously stamp on his squishy bloody chest as they chase Quaid.
Well, wrong place in the wrong time in the wrong movie. What's the bodycount on TR?
If you don't want to be involved in murders, don't be on Poirot.
LOL!
shareTo be fair he had already been shot several times & was already dead or dying. I suppose it could be argued that he might have pulled through with swift medical attention but then Quaid would have been dead if he hadn't shielded himself with the man's body. I actually liked how it depicted Quaid as someone pragmatic enough to skirt the lines of morality when necessary rather than a generic squeaky clean good guy.
shareIt's one of the things that makes the movie stand out, especially when compared to other action movies in that century.
shareIt was the best bit of otherwise quite mediocre and weak effort... sadly there wasn't enough similar Paul Verhoeven-moments to save this one. What a waste...
shareIf that's how you feel you probably shouldn't be watching most of Arnold's movies.
share