Why in the world would anybody want to see a positive ending for Samuel L. Jackson's character? He is an *beep* and a criminal. He attacks numerous people, destroys other people's property, sabotages a car that could have led to the deaths of numerous people. F him! That is why I did not like this movie, because they work out an ending that benefits Jackson's character, as if to imply he is a protagonist or something.
Salvation is free
Granted, Jackson's character did do numerous things he shouldn't have particularly destroying afflecks car stood out. however i think the message that was trying to get across here was that he loved his children so much that he doesn't think straight and does things he shouldn't. i think because he loves his children shows he has some redeeming qualities and perhaps this is why the movie ended like it did.
you talkin' to me?
He doesn't do wild things because he loves his kids. He does wild things because he is out of control. His children are the prime example of the cost of his lack of control.
Throughout I was thinking I hope nobody in the world is dumb enough to take his side in this or feel sorry for him at all. Affleck's character has way better excuses for his ill acts.
*****If you're reading this your not blind, yay!*****
I totally do not agree.
I feel so bad for Samuel L Jackson's character. He was working hard to improve his life, and Ben A.'s character was selfish and self-centered and ruined Jackson's character.
I have no sympathy for Ben A's character at all.
[deleted]
He has a temper,yes. But in this movie he is ultimately the good guy. At least he wants to do the right thing, he wants to be a good guy.. He reminds me of the Michael Douglas "D-Fens" character in Falling Down, who all along thinks he is the good guy.
I don`t think the ending benefits Jackson`s character more than it does Afflecks. He defies his "evil" boss, and buys a house for Doyle, I think ultimately both characters see a positive ending.
That's absurd. He's vile? Affleck's character is closer to vile. He is a terrible person for a long time. Jackson is a very good person, trying very hard. In fact, I think the movie is a bit hard on him. But he has to get his life fully under control. Everything he has worked for has imploded, and as a result, he goes as far as doing what he did to Affleck's character's car. Affleck was worse, but Doyle crossed the line there.
And what a great comparison: D-Fens is the person you have to compare Doyle to. Wow, great comparison. Great film also.
There is no such thing as good and evil in this movie. Maybe Doyle sabotaged Affleck's car, but what did Affleck's character do before that? He left Doyle bankrupt. This movie is not about the good guy vs. the bad guy, and there is no such thing as that, so stop trying to find out who is the "bad guy".
shareAgreed. Both Doyle Gipson and Gavin Bannock are playing with fire. Each ups the ante on what the other did. They both start out with good intentions, but end up trying to hurt the other guy more than what they got hurt.
Doyle Gipson has temper, and as William Hurt's character said "You're drug of choice isn't booze, it's chaos". Gavin Bannock is desperate because he sees the possibility of him going to gaol.
It's just two people in bad situations in their lives crossing pathes on the worst possible day for each of them.
"There is no such thing as good and evil in this movie."
That's false, there very much is good and evil in this movie. Both characters are fundamentally good but highly flawed and capable of making mistakes. I think they both have emotional problems too.
Ben Affleck's father in law and apparently the other partners in the law firm are evil, plain evil, from the movie's depiction. His wife is morally bankrupt as well.
I disagree that Samuel L Jackson's character is vile, though some of his actions are. Both characters did some pretty awful things. Both characters were clearly repetant and suffering extreme pressures from all sides, lacking the ability to handle that pressure properly. There were some major leaps in evilness made during the movie, especially Ben Affleck erasing his credit which was shocking, but because the character doesn't match those actions I just chalk it up to bad writing.
Unfortunately, this movie has crippling script issues that make it difficult to talk about seriously. However, the performances were powerful and nuanced, which is the only reason that any of us are here discussing it.
Affleck didn't try to murder the other guy! Losing all money and killing somebody is a bit different thing IMO,
share[deleted]
what about Sydney Pollack's character? he buys yachts while his company IMPRISONS children in 3rd world nations.
I mean, all Jackson gets in the end is the right to see his kids... a right every father should have (well... Most fathers).
I don't know about a criminal. I did enjoy the he beat the hell out those two fools for picking at him.
shareSamuel L. Jackson played a different kind of character in this film. Granted, he at times had his typical moments of fury, but this was a character much more vulnerable and more down-to-Earth than most of his recent roles. Unlike his characters in Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, this is the type of person you could easily imagine sitting next to on the subway or waiting on line with in a convenience store. What makes Jackson's character compelling- maybe not terribly likable- is that, for once, he plays a normal everyman.
shareA fight which he basically started by being rascist......
shareUm. Racist because he was poking at those two white guys who were making rasict cracks? I mean, totally. Except not.
shareI didnt see them being racist, please xplain it to me.
shareThe two guys in the bar just talked about an ad with a "cute black kid" - is there something else they said?
------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes
So it's ok to hit people if they make "racist" jokes, right (saying cute black kid is racist?!?!)? Some double standards you have.
share[deleted]
I saw Affeck as more of a villain here being that he almost totally disrupted someone’s life first by carelessness for the car accident he was responsible for which he left with no regard for Jackson’s character at all. Than by pulling strings and trying to destroy a man over a file that he left behind at the scene of an accident. Jackson’s character was no angel by any stretch of the imagination. But he was definitely the lesser of two evils here in this film. He tried to do the right thing but was to an extent pushed too far by several factors in his life and Affleck’s somewhat vain and egotistical character that cares more about trivial details of his career than he does about human life happened to push him over the edge.
http://JonTees.suddenlaunch3.com
http://www.JonTees.opportunity.com
I have to agree with the original poster on the fact that Jackson's character committed a very very serious crime by sabatoging the car. That could have led to a huge pileup with a lot of innocent lives lost. He would be looking at a LOT of jail time, and I'd say that he probably deserves it even though nothing happened.
Nothing gives you an excuse for gambling with random innocent lives on the freeway. If we looked at the lives of a lot of criminals, we'd feel sorry for them too...but that doesn't mean they're excused from their crimes.
He definitely went too far with the car incident. I think he realized that when Affleck's car crashed. He put his hand to his mouth in horror like "Oh my god, I can't believe just I did that." Affleck also realized he had gone too far when he saw what his stunt did to two innocent kids. I think they're both just too men who are pushed to the edge and start behaving extremely irrationally. I was glad to see the both of them come to peace at the end.
share[deleted]
Maybe we should consider this angle of view:
From a social point of view Affleck is a "winner" and Jackson is a "loser". Affleck is about to lose eveything he has and Jackson is about to lose the only thing he has left (the right to see his sons).
The two guys in the bar definitely started picking on Jackson since they saw immediately the "loser" in him (lone brother in a bar drinking in the afternoon - that is as easy a target as it gets so they think). Perhaps - as one very famous movie critic states - Jackson somehow provoked that but that doesn't change the fact that the two guys are cowardly wannabe bullies of the worst kind. Jackson even called his AA sponsor to tell him that he lost the custody battle and feels tempted to drink - he isn't too proud crying out for help when the whole world seems to be against him. I also think the man in the bank was a little too fast saying: "The computer says you are bankrupt" without carefully checking how, when and why the money went out of the account only hours ago. Looks to me as if an array of people sensed the desperation of Jackson and saw him as a loser and treated him this way. Jackson knew that and started creating havoc out of dispair.
I agree with the eralier comment: check how he asks his kids if they are alright - not out of a hurt ego but out of real caring - just when he gets cuffed on the floor. That is heartbreaking. The only weak point - definitely - is the car sabotage. That is crossing the line - I second and third that.
That's the way I saw it too . . .Jackson (Doyle) went way beyond personal retribution with his sabotaging of Affleck's car. In effect he said ,"the hell with everybody" and committed a criminally reckless act that was potentially dangerous to numerous people. Affleck's character was the white-collar criminal (and he did commit criminal acts); while Doyle was more prone to violence.
shareThis film and this debate (who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?) is an interesting one. There is no definitive answer and people will think differently according to what they bellieve to be right and wrong in the situations posed. I remember the commentary said it was left open for that purpose.
In my opinion Samuel L Jacksons character was desperate not to see his family leave him and move to Oregon. Yes he attacked the men at the bar and was overtly aggressive. It was described as the addiction to chaos. His reason for being angry is his frustration at not being able to at least try to put his case across about his childrens custody. That was made clear in his first scene when he talks to himself about how children need their father.
As for Afflecks character hes dragged along this court problem where he wants to take over the trusts money when he doesnt realise that theres a lot of below the belt activity going on with that, in fact its illegal and he could go to prison for it. He is forced to put Jackson through hell to get that file back which will save him from prison. However in doing that Affleck is breaking an unwritten moral code and a Christian rule...treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.
My view is that both characters are forced to take actions they wouldnt normally do. Affleck wants the luxuries he has through being a lawyer and doesnt want to get to prison and Jacksons character wants to stop his family from leaving him. They are forced to be bad guys.
I just saw this movie again last night and again found it very moving. For me neither character is "vile" but pushed right to the edge by the circumstances of the day and of their lives thus far. These circumstances take both men to their edge and show both exactly what they are capable of, but both are able to pull back and then face the fact that they are capable of horrible things (as I think we all are) and cause them to re-examine their lives and make a decision to be better people. An amazing soul searching for one day! I think it was realistically portrayed to show the depths that humans can sink to when pushed and also the heights that one can reach when brave enough to face the worst. Both actors were so great in their roles!
shareTrue, Samuel Jackson's character commits violent, criminal acts. But what about Ben Affleck's character? He illegally sets off the fire sprinkler; he breaks into someone's personal records to "bankrupt" a man; he shows up at the school to slander Jackson (this could be the basis of a defamation suit); and he was certainly no saint, committing adultery.
If you want to call Samuel Jackson a criminal, go ahead. But He was not alone.
Yeah, about that-- nobody so far has really talked about how Gavin sent Doyle to jail. I mean, that was the final straw for Gavin himself, wasn't it? Seeing Doyle's family after the fiasco at the school? Bankrupting someone and then sending him to jail on a trumped up charge, that's pretty awful.
PS >> For the sake of the good vs. bad, vengeance vs. forgiveness conversation about this movie, we need to ditch the moral failings of alcoholism, adultery, etc.; the point is, neither men are saints even from the get-go, though both are genuinely decent guys just trying their best.
He didn't slander Doyle. Doyle is a violent man. His own sponsor called him an addict of chaos and destruction. Only at the end does he realize his problem.
shareI'm not so certain he would have proved to be a danger to his children. He bought the house for them. He was giving them the biggest room in the house, while he took one of the smaller rooms. He stopped, on his way into the custody hearing, to pick-up a present for his son's birthday.
On that note, you don't need to be violent to be chaotic and destructive.