MovieChat Forums > Contraband (2012) Discussion > Some things that do NOT sit right with m...

Some things that do NOT sit right with me....

posted 12 years ago by creatorof2002
6 replies | jump to latest

1. I like it when the HERO of a story even if he is an "antihero" never kills or seriously harms innocent people, lowlives who kind of deserve it anyway is fine though. He participated in an armed robbery that resulted in the deaths of several armed guards and police, making him an accessory to murder even though he did not actually shoot anyone himself in that scene though he did manage to escape. It just does not sit right with me those deaths were at least indirectly his fault. True he was kind of "forced" to go along and had he not that bandit guy would have done it without him anyway BUT in the end when he got rich as hell the least he could have done was send some money to the families of the slain police and guards who were just doing their jobs and enforcing the law. Likely there were widows and children left without the breadwinners of their family which is bad even here but this was the third world....

2. Yes he was a sleazo and one of the main villains of the movie but there is an old saying that there is some good in everyone and that drug lord who was going to kill Mark Wahlberg's brother in law had a daughter. I am sure he loved her and she loved him too. I was worried he would rape Mark's wife to help drive home his point and though it looked like he was going to all he did was rough her up a little. Maybe his love for his own daughter gave him a degree of respect for women, at least enough to keep him from being a rapist. Anyway, this girl did not seem to have a mother, either because she left the guy and he got custody (can you blame a woman for leaving a sleazo guy like that?) or because she was dead or in jail or something. What happens to her? She is an innocent victim too, none of what happened was her fault and now she will end up in the horrible foster care system and have a crap childhood. The least Mark could have done was see to it that she was taken care of.

3. I had a problem with the framing of the captain of the cargo ship. He was innocent of specifically what was happening in his house but I guess you can rationalize his arrest there as morally justified because earlier in the film he had proven himself to be corrupt when he got that phone call offering to split the loot with him, and his house looked way too nice for his pay grade. Maybe if someone is a criminal and gets framed for a crime they happen to be innocent of its karma?

4. Um... how the hell can that painting that was being transported in that armored truck be worth ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION DOLLARS? This was PANAMA that was NOT the Mona Lisa. I mean MY GOD if it was really worth THAT MUCH then how can one armored car even be enough? that armored car should have had an ESCORT of maybe a dozen police cars as opposed to an armored truck traveling by itself with just the guards on it. Usually when transferring bank money there is no more than 4 or 5 million dollars in an armored car but that is small potatoes compared to something valued at ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION.

5. Um... after a crime like that armored car heist where the police KNEW that some of the robbers managed to escape wouldn't there be a legal provision in any country that has ports to not let ANY ships leave just in case the robbers try to get away on a ship? For example if there was a major bank robbery in San Francisco I am sure that the police would notify EVERY SINGLE PORT in the area not to let ANY ships leave until it can be established that none of the robbers are hiding on any of the ships and the roads would probably have blocks set up too...

[–] buol0401 12 years ago

I just want to respond to point number 5. In no way shape or form would any major port ever have a rule like that. If a major port like Panama or in San Fran was closed for a day, that would result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The largest ports generate that much money in revenue every day. Furthermore, while the painting was stolen, they had no idea if the person who stole it was leaving by a ship. In fact, the police followed them to the gang hide out, so they knew the thief was local.

[–] Hurry_up_N_buy 12 years ago

(1. and 2.) Forgive me for being judgmental, but you must be overly sensitive and living in a perfect world on planet Quazar 7. Action movies NEVER go into the after effects and the consequences of the deaths of unimportant characters, how much more run-time would that take? And don't you think it would be a little suspicious that he's sending money to all these Panamanian families?

(3.) If its in your house, you will get locked up. As far as I know, that's the law in most states. Same as it was in the movie, is the same as it is in real life. Doesn't matter that they looked like thugs and he didn't. Charges might be dropped in his case if the real story was brought out, but who knows.
.............................................................................that's 100 characters

[–] luckycatcoffeepdx 12 years ago

The painting was a Jackson Pollock, which would easily be valued at $140,000,000. The Mona Lisa would be valued at closer to one billion dollars. It isn't uncommon for paintings to tour the world on exhibit, so it is hardly strange that it would make its way to Panama and is completely unrelated to the worth of the piece.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueree 12 years ago

In reference to #4, I just wanted to add this link, because I believe this is the painting (a replica of course) that was used in the film and the price was exactly $140 million. This article is from 2006, so it may even be where the director got the $140 million figure from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/arts/design/02drip.html

As to why it wasn't transported better (more securely), I can't speak on that because I have no idea how something that valuable would be transported in real life. But, it's a movie so it's to be expected that we would have to suspend our disbelief on some elements of the film.

[–] kinsayder 11 years ago

3. It seemed very clear to me, particularly in the phone call with Sebastian, that the captain was in the habit of colluding with drug traffickers when it suited his purposes - i.e., when he got a cut. So yes, he deserved his fate.