Pretty decent movie. Too bad the producer(s)/writer(s) had to make the statement "murder is okay if the ends justifies the means". What kind of message does this leave when our hero murders police Captain Wander in cold blood, and internal affairs pats him on the back? This practice would soon lead to a police state... e.g. KGB visiting a "suspect" in the middle of the night and the suspect is never seen again.
Mountain Man
forgive me not knowing the actors, but they guy from house knows what's been going on probably, and knows pretty much as much as ludlow knows. i think he shot wander cuz you tie up a snake, they slither out and away. better to put him down than to put him away im guessing...
share[deleted]
Reeves was killing people left and right right from the beginning of the film where his actions were not yet motivated by the personal vendetta for his ex-partner's death. the same ex-partner he was gonna go beat up at the shop himself. because violence is an answer to everything. if you don't like something somebody does, go beat them up. knock them on the head, give them a brain damage. that's what was in this film. Reeves was insane. you say revenge. was it out of revenge that he practically ran people over at the crosswalk? can't get to go kill people fast enough huh?
this film gives off an impression that it's OK to kill people if you think they deserve it, because Reeves's character gets away with it.
this film gives off an impression that it's OK to kill people if you think they deserve it, because Reeves's character gets away with it.Actually, I just covered this topic on another thread. Reeves is only the instrument--he's not the real killer. Reeve's was being used by the Captain as an enforcer. The captain ordered a hit on Washington because Washington was talking. Maybe they left him alone in the Convenince Store because they knew who he was, not because his he crouched down one aisle away.
THAT is the best synopsis of this movie I've ever read.
Thank you.
Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday’s nut that held its ground.
Well in the coroners defence it was very very likely that Ludlows wife was cheating on him with another cop.
Just imagine if Ludlow found out who that was. I wouldn't be surprised if Wander covered that up himself to protect Ludlow from himself. As for the cause of death, she was dropped off in the hospital and died from a brain stroke. It would be very obvious if she was strangled or had drugs in her system, and Ludlow would be the type who would follow that up.
Now that you mention it subase, that probably would've add more to the story on Tom's part. I wouldn't be surprised that his wife was cheating on him with somebody he knew, and I shudder to think what he would do if he found out who that was. Knowing him, that guy would be dead meat.
shareWell, I think the OP has a point. I am not saying the message of the film is killing bad guys left, right and centre without regard for due process or the rule of law is the way forward. But the story is way too crude to develop the finer points of moral dilemma of good vs bad in a cops and robbers story. In the end, the street justice meted out by the wooden protagonist is presented as some sort of victory. This could give food for thought if the plot had been more believable and not merely a vehicle to carry a run-of-the-mill action flick with shoot-outs and a lot of fake blood.
The first instalment of the brilliant "Tropa de Elite" raises these moral questions a lot better - the perpetuity of the cycle of violence with none of the participants (cops, criminals, politicians, the "liberal" do-gooders) coming out particularly well at the end. And it has also shoot-outs and a lot of blood. And no Keanu Reeves, I might add.
[deleted]
I personaly don't believe they were making such a statement at all-- refering to the "murder is okay if the ends justifies the means". It was there priority to take down Wander, and the only way to do so was to do it was through Ludlow. I assume that they are saying moreso that justice isn't black and white. Ludlow and the several other "law enforcers" aren't really heroes, and I think they all realize that. But what good would come of letting the public in on all the junk. It's too complicated.
Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty
Hm...if that's all you got out of it, you might want to try watching it again. There is much more to the dilemmas of the movie than the types of justification you're seeing. In fact, I didn't see much justifying at all...
Dear Mary, you who gave birth without sin, teach me how to sin and not give birth.
1 He's not a clean-cut goody 2 shoes hero.
2 He lives in the real world. The real world is so fnckd up, that the rules and red tape can be the ones that'll even get you killed. The movie displays Ludlow walking a fine line, and discovering the truth after wading so much bullsh*t engineered by Capt Wander himself.
3 see the movie again, and reply to your own thread if you want to be taken seriously
"Rommel...you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
-- PATTON
Don't forget that the only reason Wander was powerful because he was bribing councilmen, police commanders, etc. with some pretty heavy s***, like spousal abuse, drug abuse and child molestation.
Hell, comparatively speaking, the "hero" is still the better man because all those people can continue doing what they are doing without someone holding it over their heads.
Hell, the point of the movie is "We're all bad, Tom".
"C'mon...you're better than that!"