Changed "subject title" as requested...
Why didn't he take the money?
I kind of thought the plot of the missing man rescuing little kids was stupid. Why did he let him go and not take the money?
i kind of thought the whole movie was stupid. and that it wasn't worthy of a 9/11 subplot.
sharei just spent an hour posting about this on another thread-:
near and at the end, rostow, and then rostow and charlie, talk about the joy and closeness of the good old days- which are no more. I think that when rostow sees the painting and groks/ feels the acute loss of the child that painted that painting , he recognizes the acute loss he himself has been
feeling, and he realizes that each person should be allowed to suffer their loss and grief in their own way. The man was begging him to be let go- to return to the new life he had claimed, so Rostow acquiesced. And in so doing, Rostow, made the first step to recovering his "self as a moral being. " (returning the money was also part of the new moral him.)By the film's end, we see that both the pursued and the pursuer are Missing Persons on their way back to finding themselves.
what I don't understand is:
1)what the lawyer had to gain in bringing back the man (whose 'death' had enriched the lawyer)
and
2) why did the writer throw in that confusing stuff about the evil or goodness of the mexican man(who, if evil, might have, in actuality, been hoodwinking the man and invalidating the very work that had become the "dead man's" raison d'etre.)
was it to show that even a drug lord could do good things (support an orphanage?)
And why was the f.b.i. involved?and why did they tell rostow that things were much deeper than he realized?
Plse educate me!
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
To be honest, I thought this movie was pretty bad, and it left me with my hands in the air and an angry look on my face.
Now, I really liked Charley, she made me laugh more than once, and there were a couple of other characters I enjoyed, but to be honest, I thought Rosow was a weak main.
He couldn't get over the fact that his wife died, I get it, that sucks, we lived through 9/11 too. It doesn't give you an excuse to be a living corpse.
Anyhow, I saw film_ophile (dirty name ^.~) post their questions twice, and no one answered them! Sooo
1. The lawyer was trying to make sure the man WASN'T brought back. On that matter, when watching this film, my mom and I were almost certain the missing person was going to come up dead. We figured that once the wife saw him, she'd kill him so she'd be able to keep her money.
If SHE didn't kill him, I'm certain the lawyer would have. When the insurance companies found out he was really alive, they would kindly take their money back - by force.
2. I thought that side plot was really stupid, and it just goes to show you how ridiculous Harold was. To live after the world trade center and not want to see your family... obviously they had their issues (too many of them), and he wanted to get away. So I think he flipped a switch. He almost became what he feared the most - a kidnapper. It's not his business what happens to children, and how is he 100% certain that these kids really WERE abused?
The FBI was tailing him because the man he was working for is a drug lord, and they were probably making sure he wasn't using the children as vessels for drugs. You know, who frisks kids these days?
Those were some other thrown in characters.
All in all I feel like this movie was trying to be WAAAAAAAAY too many different things, and it left me feeling bored. I actually only checked these threads to get an answer as to why this painting was oh-so-life-changing. I've got to say, a washed up drunk getting offered half a million dollars... seems like a pretty good idea to take the money, eh?
viper, i don't understand the computer savvy(?) meaning of your "(dirty name)"
reference, but thanks much for helping me grok these things. i still do not understand one thing- if the lawyer wanted to make sure that he was NOT coming back, then why did he not remove the guy from harold's custody once harold had affirmed that the guy did not WANT to ever return to nyc? or maybe this was just a poorly written part of the story..... I thought the latter myself.
one thing i would like to offer re your comment about "nobody has a right to..."
Personally I was shocked by your comment and found it totally inexcusable. how can you possibly play opinionated about someone else's grief? if someone is not hurting someone else, why would you ever bother to judge them and their emotional experience? Certainly you must know that one can never assume to know someone else's feelings.
so sorry you found the work boring etc. I was, for whatever reason, very moved by it and I have continued to feel and think back to the film's final one-two punch.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
I thought the lawyer bit was a poorly written part of the story as well, which stinks because we were really looking for a good payoff to make up for some weak middle dialogue and lack of any action.
I didn't say he didn't have a RIGHT to do something, I said it didn't give him an excuse, and it doesn't. The job he has gives him certain rights over a normal citizen, and him walking around half-dead every day with a license to stalk people is scary.
viper, this is funnny. my Love is helping me w/ the philosophical/ethical basis of our discussion here, and i'm formulating some thoughts over today (away on brief bday trip)and will post them tomorrow or so . hope you'll check back so you can respond (about a movie you didn't even like!-ha!go figure...)
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
[deleted]
hmmm. scary? i guess i would never think of that in that light. 'scary' to me would be a license to stalk being had by a violence-prone person.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.