You people really support vigilante justice?

i thought it was a great film myself. i thought it presented and asked some very serious morality questions, in a very relatable way.

And in answer to your question, i have absolutely no problem with the morality behind the specific murders of the convenience store murderer, the parking garage magnate, the taxi cab pimp and the 3 guys at the end.Based on the info given the viewer,they had all murdered someone (metaphorically/psychologically, in the case of the pimp.)
I tend to have 'an eye for an eye' sense of justice. I didn't think she was a terrible person at all; she showed that she was capable of both compassion and love. For me, the big question, given the negative last line, is- will she ever be able to accept and love herself again.







The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.

OP,

You are right. She should have let herself get killed by the guy who just killed his wife.

She should have let herself get raped and killed by the thugs on the subway.

And she should have let that loser in the car run her and Chloe over.

After all, there is never a reason to kill.

The only "revenge" murder was the end.

Jodie Foster's character is a super hero in this movie. I cheered as every thug got whacked.

Our justice system is in place to protect the innocent. Those guys weren't innocent. Therefore, there is no moral objection to what she did.

The difference between real life and the movies is that little is black and white in real life. Go out shooting criminals and you're likely to shoot someone who is innocent. Since everyone she shot was guilty, I applaud the swift execution of justice.

Whats it like on rainbow hill kid?

Killing thugs who killed someone close to you isn't even wrong. So this morality debate or "two wrongs don't make a right" crap are completely irrelevant. Nothing she did was even wrong.

Hell yeah. It's far cheaper to kill scum than imprison them and place a burden on the taxpayer!

Perhaps if you read some good history books about the Vigilance committees, you wouldn't call this vigilante justice.

There should never be a need to kill

No I don't support it at all.

I enjoyed the movie the first hour, thought it was good. I had no problem at all with her killing in self defense. The two first killings were ok then it turned silly.

That feminist-BS with her killing a guy for buying a hooker (hooker carries no responsability of course) + killing some mobster that she didn't even know apart from her cop-friends description.

That turned her into a silly moralist and contract killer.

I don't know why they threw in those scenes at all, they had NOTHING to do with her story. She was much more likeable and convincing when she killed in self defense.

Last killings made sense out of her perspective, but the ending was idiotic. If she really wanted to kill those guys why involve the cop?

And once again another movie with an incompetent police officer making the wrong choices. The ending was weak, it would've been much stronger with him either shooting her or that she'd step aside and respect the law.

Then the morale of the story would be: "retaliation is understandable but we can't have a vigilante society" as opposed to "the police fully support a vigilante society"