This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time. (Spoilers)

First of all, you have a lot of hostility towards me, but for what? I'm not interested in a flame war, I was simply looking for a debate about a film. Simmer down. Debate is much more enjoyable when there is a mutual respect, rather than bickering.

With that being said, I honestly hate to call people out based on logical fallacies but it seems like you're putting on a clinic here. Every single one of your retorts have been quoting me out of context. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Except that it was filmed on an ex-estate prior to it being demolished. Caine also wanted to work on the film because it was dealing with "estate violence and associated social problems". Yours is a head in the sand comment.

How so? No matter where it was filmed or who starred in the movie, it's the script I'm talking about. Senior citizens who live in ghettos often complain about the youth because they play loud music, loiter and they're generally disrespectful. I agree with that. But it doesn't mean they terrorize random old people and seek them out based on their inability to defend themselves. It also doesn't mean that every kid who hangs out in a pack or gang are rotten to the core and have no sympathy or empathy for others. This portrayal of youth in inner cities is demonizing them. It's an exaggeration and without it being in place, the premise for the movie wouldn't exist. I consider this a plot hole.

The movie doesn't claim that it's a scenario that occurs every day. Remember that most of the cops don't conceive of him being involved because of his senior citizen status. However it's possible with a character drawn as he is with his background and knowledge of weapons.

What about his background and knowledge of weapons makes him less inclined to report the fact that he killed someone in self defence? This is a prime example of you quoting me out of context. Within context your retort doesn't even make sense. I was saying that a man in his situation who killed someone in self defence would report it. I went on to say I could allow an artistic license on something like this, but again, when it's the premise of the movie and needed as a major plot line in order to move the movie along, it's making a house out of a deck of cards. A solid plot should be based on solid plot lines. Not stretches that aren't conceivable.

LOL! You clearly don't keep abreast of the news. In my corner of the world, disguised drug labs being raided or (even) exploding in suburban areas is a relatively common occurrence. Caches of weapons are frequently found. Have you never heard of hydroponics? Your comments are plainly daft.

Again, you're quoting me completely of out context. I said that drug addicts who are skinny, dirty, do heroine while doing business with strangers etc don't run hydroponic labs with cash and guns laying around. I never said these places don't exist. But the people who are in charge of them do not look like homeless people with nothing to lose. By putting someone who looks like he is strung out on crazy drugs in a situation like this, in a movie like this, is fear mongering and playing into the ignorance of people who don't know any better.

In other words, there are people who are drug addicts. There are people who are bad, dangerous people. By rolling them all into one is creating a boogie man for the audience. It's not realistic. It's actually ridiculous and thus to me, a plot hole.

Sure. Guantanamo Bay comes to the London estates! That'll keep 'em off the streets. LOL!

You asked me what they could be charged with and without being a prosecutor or a police officer, I gave you a simple example. If he committed a crime, on video tape, within the police precinct, what plausible reason do you have to believe they would let him go? Why make the stretch of comparing that to Guantanamo Bay? I am not talking about holding them indefinitely. My point in the first place was that it was unrealistic these "young punks" could act like that and not be charged with anything. Your retort was to ask me what they could be charged with. I answered, and now we're at Guantanamo Bay?

Yes, I understand. The mistake the movie made was treating her character in the situation she was in, as a real person, whereas you were waiting for Lara Croft to arise from the pub floor.

Again, you're being disingenuous. I said making her the poor defenceless lady who is crying and waiting to be killed or rescued is not portraying the character fairly. She's received training and has on the job experience to at least contribute something to the resolution of the situation. Implying that I'm expecting Laura Croft is an exaggeration that is completely deceitful.

You wanted Sid to be "nicer" to make the plot twist more believable? LOL! The twist is somewhat realistic in that it plays to his back story as Harry knows it. Your desire to have a "nicer Sid" would make the twist less realistic.

I didn't say him being nicer would fix the plot hole. I said if he had just bought the place and they didn't know him well, but he was nice to them so they (read: we, the viewers) had a positive perception of him, it would be more believable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just read it too quickly and only saw what you wanted to see rather purposely misquoting me.

reply share

add reply

formatting help