unrealistic and ridiculous

In the first two deaths she had no control over anything. Later they are trapped and are only able to escape due to one them sacrificing themselves (he was suicidal after the death of his wife).

So right there, three deaths which they had no control over. By that time they had already escaped, so there was no point in handing over the girl.

I agree that handing the girl in at the police station would have been the realistic option. Something irrational and illogical was them not leaving the girl at the station. But it's seems they weren't thinking clearly due to stress, as they suspected the cop there was in on the kidnap.

[deleted]

Them trying to save the girl shows the difference between themselves and the kidnappers who were evil. To leave the girl there would be inhuman and handing her back would mean certain death anyway.

Thank you! They were terrible shots when using the rifles, like 10 year old terrible. If they couldn't shoot a slow moving target of that size who is climbing up a rock face they should of just given up and walked away. From that distance I could of hit that chick with a rock.

And also, three gun malfunctions in the movie... seriously? I would of been fine with one but to use that cop-out three times is a joke.

I liked the movie but the gun play was stupid.

Thank you for your reference to the crap Hollywood/Corporations put out. I would put "A Lonely Place To Die" up against ANY "big-budget" movie with the usual no-talent big-name cast, who as always hog the screen, yet are incapable of doing anything considered acting, and therefore the "action" can only be completed by continually blowing things up loudly while cars are flung about in silly, useless car-chases that smash up a lot of metal. (As an aside, those directors certainly could use another, or first, look at the best car chase scene I ever saw in a film, which was in "Bullitt ," the 1968 film directed by Peter Yates, starring the all-time coolest of the cool, Steve McQueen. What a great car and what a great car chase.)

I loved most of this movie, and even those parts I didn't were far offset by those I did. The entire part of the movie from the beginning until they got to the village had me captivated. Even so, I always thank the film art god (there must be at least one ephemeral one) when one decent movie is made without at least two well-known stars. As was said in an old English film I no longer recall, it makes one quite sick-making, doesn't it?

Before I get attacked, there is good film-making going on, but extremely little of the money ever gets to worthwhile projects. Good god, the film corporations should set funds aside to nurture young artists in all areas of the film-making progress, instead of being so concerned with selling popcorn - that horrible stuff with liquid fat on top that passes for butter. THAT'S the bottom line for them. THAT'S all the film corporations care about - money.

To find a good film, I follow the director, because the other creative people in the industry will want to work on a project with the director. I do recognize there are a few actors who are worthy of their craft, are not Hollywood whores, and I will watch a film just because they are in it. I watch a lot of foreign films, silent or sub-titled, and have a special place in my heart for Irish and Japanese film. I'm of Finnish decent, so whenever I run across a Scandinavian film (not only a Bergman), I am really thrilled. Just remember, as always these are just my opinions, that's all.

Right now on TCM there is a series starting called "The Story of Film: An Odyssey." I think it is a fourteen-week series, and after only one episode, I can say this isn't just another history of film. I recommend it.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them