MovieChat Forums > Boy Wonder (2010) Discussion > What I liked. ...............spoile rs ...

What I liked. ...............spoile rs of course.


I liked the bad guys, especially the pimp- strong, memorable tough guy who weathered his injuries well and then gets shot dead for telling the truth. He had a bad day including his autopsy.

I liked Sean-- a well developed character who spoke Chinese and a bit of Spanish. The director cast him very well and his fighting skills were quite passable.

The editing/directing of the homeless man fight on the train-- how it wrapped back on itself to unravel the fight. Well done.

The whole story hung together and was not cliched, that has to be difficult when vigilante films have been done dozens of times before-- some in cartoon or comic fashion, some serious and this one darker and realistic. Sean picked his fights and often left bad behavior on the street just pass by.

The Chinese restaurant scene-- use of captions- and Sean's spoken language-- loved it.

Sean's father- good portrayal by this veteran actor. Definitely a believable "scrapper" and boxer from Brooklyn. Go SUNY-Purchase-- I read his bio.

I liked the surprise in the homicide of the dastardly Childs. That actor simulated anaphylactic shock very well. Until he licked the stamp, I didn't anticipate what was about to happen. Great scene.

The script writer who left enough clues so I could discuss with my friends whether Sean would be convicted of any of the four homicides despite the supportive female detective. And that's if the coffee table guy lived.

I sort of liked the enigma of the stamp's color indicating that Sean's father was innocent--- ....hmmmmm? No visible reaction from Sean. But we know his father knew the killer, Childs, and suppressed it.

That's enough for now, liked the realistic settings. Thanks.

reply

Well said, I agree.

How about the topic mentioned elsewhere; did both stamps have poison?
Oh it wasn't poison, er whatever it was according to the morgue guy ;)

Complaining about mistakes is almost as bad as complaining about complaining about mistakes.

reply

Nice post.
I think both stamps where poisoned. Sean knew the truth already and the murderer of his mother had to pay more than 2 years in prison and witness protection after that. The whole letter was written totally out of character for him (which was awesome btw) and only written like that so that Larry Childs would actually answer. It was a trap.
I only wonder why he said his father was innocent, to protect himself from further investigation (clever, as indicating his father was guilty would incriminate himself) or to give the poor kid peace of mind (merciful).

Anyway, awesome, chilling movie.

reply

The father WAS innocent. Before Childs killed Sean's mother, he said, "Time's up, Rock." - In other words, pay your debt or I'm going to take it out on your family. It wasn't an organized hit. The father was friends with Childs, but obviously had debts, and he also didn't want to rat Childs out. He didn't actually hire Childs. Childs was telling the truth with the red stamp. Sean made a mistake by killing his father.

reply

"Sean made a mistake by killing his father."

Really?

1) Because of his father, his mother was killed (he had a debt with Childs or he asked him to kill her for the insurance money, whatever version you like, still he's the reason why his mother was killed).

2) He was an alcoholic and abusive father and husband.

3) He didn't want to rat Childs out, so he tell his kid he was wrong when he identified him in the police station, to the point he threatened him.

So, Sean grew with all of that, and when the truth was out, the father didn't admit *beep* to Sean... I think he didn't make a mistake by killing him, in my opinion.

reply

The father had a debt with Childs, yeah, but that doesn't mean he knew Childs would kill his wife over the debt. He was stupid for having a debt with someone like that, but I wouldn't kill him over it.

Agreed that the father was an abusive drunk, but the father DID seem to turn that all around after Sean's mom died.

Yes, he should have ratted Childs out, but at the same time, maybe he felt he was protecting his son by not doing that.

All in all, the father wasn't a saint, but he also wasn't responsible for Sean's mom's death. Sean thought that Childs was hired by his dad, but Childs saying, "Times up, Rock" implies otherwise - as does the stamp that Childs selected. So, I say that Sean made a mistake.

reply

The father wasn't completely innocent of his wife's death because he sought to cover up Childs as the murderer. But that's not the point of the stamps and Sean's letter.

Childs is not a good man. He has overtly threatened the Detective and her son if he gets his witness protection, She only has two years before Childs will be coming after her and her son. Sean knows this, too.



Childs is not a redeemable character. Sean sets the trap with his uncharacteristically compelling letter. Bottom line is Sean wants Childs dead. Both stamps are poisoned.

What were are left with is Sean. He has killed his dad. He now has confirmation that childs is dead.

Some have thought that Sean was giving Childs a chance to redeem himself, to come clean about his father's guilt and posit that only one stamp has poison. To me that is an illogical premise

Sean's black and white view of the world leaves no option for forgiving his father no matter even if Childs indicates that his dad had no prior knowledge that he was going to kill Sean's mother that night in the alley.

No matter how much his father attempted to make amends to Sean after the tragedy by getting sober and moving Sean to a better neighborhood with better schools. The father's amends are not enough in Sean's eyes, to tip the scales in favor of redemption and forgiveness.

His father beat his mother and himself and put their lives in danger and constant duress and stress by being the drunken bully he was.

His father forced him to lie about what he witnessed during his mother's murder.
His father forced Sean to deny what he knew was true. Whether Daddio knew that Childs intended to kill Sean's mother doesn't matter in Sean's eyes.

The father killed his mother by living a life that culminated in all three ending up in that dark alley. The father is guilty in Sean's mind as sure as if he had pulled the trigger. The father must be punished.

The color of the stamp just doesn't matter to Sean. He got what he wanted.

It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.

reply

I liked Sean-- a well developed character who spoke Chinese and a bit of Spanish. The director cast him very well and his fighting skills were quite passable.


I liked the confused/surprised looks on the Chinese staff in the restaurant when Sean tried to threaten them in Cantonese-- cos it was so atrocious you couldn't tell what he was saying, LOL!

So I was REALLY surprised when he told the Chinese kid in the subway to get away with his mother-- cos his Cantonese then was pretty good!


I think the director/script-writer was just too ambitious-- giving Sean all those Cantonese lines in the restaurant....


If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.

reply

I agree with everything the OP says.

Loved this movie!!!!!!!

reply

One more agree from here, this movie gets under your skin and stays there for a time. :)

reply

This film might be the greatest depiction of vigilante justice i've encountered.

___________________
Warrior 10/10
Red State 4/10
The Fighter 7/10
Hunger 6/10
Dog Pound 8/10

reply

The father WAS resonsible for his wife's murder, it's made clear that he and his son got out of the slums with the assurance's money; he hired Childs to do it; the night the murder occured Childs said it was about time, about time to kill her...

What about the red stamp ? Its also very clear; Sean write he forgive him but need an answer about his father, in fact the poison is only on the red stamp; If Childs would have be honest and said the truth he would have lived, but he chose instead to lie, so he deserve to die, meaning Sean don't forgive him not to saying the truth but to protect himself instead appeasing Sean.

Very good movie and excellent ending.

reply

SpookShow^

"This film might be the greatest depiction of vigilante justice i've encountered."



So agree.












"I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book." ~ Bradbury

reply