MovieChat Forums > Hummingbird (2013) Discussion > OK Movie, but Statham's character just d...

OK Movie, but Statham's character just doesn;t make sense...

posted 8 years ago by ActionJunkie007
8 replies | jump to latest

I get that he was a troubled character, did bad things and wanted to redeem himself, But how can anyone justify doing MORE bad things to justify the bad things you've already done in hopes that it will lead you to doing GOOD things?? Excuse me, what?

So you have a daughter and have been an absentee POS Dad?? How about redeeming yourself by REALLY turning your life around, get a solid job and see if you can somehow re-connect with your daughter!! Nah, why do that when you can beat up people and help mafia bosses while you collect mad money, mooch off some rich out of town schmuck, and live the high life for months!

This film had potential early on but the character himself was written all wrong and at the end, I didn't find the moral at all satisfying or rewarding. Or even that understandable. Seriously, Statham was a drunk POS deadbeat dad loser, stole someone's identity, started doing bad things to make money, justified his actions by blaming "the system" and ultimately gives himself up after he gets one more kill in. What are they trying to say? He killed innocent people so redemption is all about using those skills to kill bad guys?? Um, wasn't he doing that before his squad got killed? Wasn't he a good soldier once with a wife and kid? And he just got lost along the way??

It's just dumb to me. The film felt like he was going to "find himself" but all he found was another excuse to kill and instead of living on a curb eating handouts, he's going to jail(which is probably better/safer for him than the streets at this point) or "killing himself" by not being captured by the police. Just extremely flawed any way you look at it and the film moving at a ridiculously slow pace didn't help.

Anyone else let down by this film? Namely the central character?

Who's strangling the cat?

[–] ganiscol 8 years ago

Did you perhaps miss that the main character is not a mentally healthy person and meassuring his actions with reason does not make sense at all?

[–] ActionJunkie007 8 years ago

Did you perhaps miss that the main character is not a mentally healthy person and meassuring his actions with reason does not make sense at all?

Even the most *beeped* up characters show LOGIC, though it may be twisted. I couldn't find any logic , good or bad, to support what the character did throughout the film. Most of the time, he had his head on straight, other times, he was erratic or a drunk but the ending goes into detail on what MADE him this way. So even he knows the difference between good and bad, and what he's doing, so when things don't line up, you can't just say "well, he's messed up in the head! It's not supposed to make sense!" That's a cop out. Even the looniest of the loons have "reasoning" behind their actions and if they don't , a film needs to back that up the entire way. You can't have it both ways and that's what Redemption did.

If you wish to explain your thoughts on how you interpreted his motivations and how they play into his actions, I'm all ears! (well, eyes haha)

Who's strangling the cat?

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

It's just dumb to me.

I guess to an action junkie , it would be. The film depicts a conundrum. As he admits himself at the end; he's a traumatized vet, a self-confessed bad guy trying to do some good things in his own way. And yes, there wasn't necessarily a neat happy ending, though he felt he'd done everything he needed to do that summer.

Anyone else let down by this film? Namely the central character?

Not in the least. I couldn't imagine Seagal, Van Damme, etc. attempting something like this, though Stallone did with Copland and succeeded too.🐭

[–] ActionJunkie007 8 years ago

I guess to an action junkie , it would be.

While I love action, I have no issues with more meaningful(deeply metaphorical) films. But...

The film depicts a conundrum.

It actually doesn't. It presents a troubled character who's done troubling things and just continues to do even more troubling things all in the name of "redemption". There is nothing of REAL VALUE gained by the conclusion. So wow, he killed someone who "deserved" it and gave all his blood money to his kid?? His character didn't CHANGE one bit and he certainly didn't REDEEM anything. He took the chicken *beep* way out in every scene and that;s why it didn't hold any impact. (at least for me)

I couldn't imagine Seagal, Van Damme, etc. attempting something like this, though Stallone did with Copland and succeeded too

Statham is beyond talented but I don't see this film showcasing anything but wasted opportunity. Ill take him in Revolver any day of the week, which DOES have a good subtext for those looking to explore it.

Funny you mention Stallone because that guy is SUPER talented and knows how to write central characters with REAL issues and REAL motivations behind what they are doing to change their station in life. The Rocky films are a great example of it and should illustrate my point.

Redemption is a poser. It makes it out that Statham got "messed up" from his actions in the war and that led to his wasted life, right? Or was he messed up his entire life and had no other choice but to continue down the same path? If Statham was a good guy at any point in his life, then the "moral" is non-sensical and stupid. You can make it out to be more if you like but the story, as told, cannot support its own ridiculous interpretation of "redemption".

Who's strangling the cat?

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

It actually doesn't.

Well it does, but if you've decided ...

His character didn't CHANGE one bit ...

or he may have been

...messed up his entire life ...

... or .

.. He took the chicken *beep* way out in every scene ...

or by inference downplay the effects of PTSD, none of which is suggested by the film, I guess you're going to feel the way you feel.

[–] ma-darrell 7 years ago

How about redeeming yourself by REALLY turning your life around, get a solid job and see if you can somehow re-connect with your daughter!!

let's be honest ... would you hire him?

homeless
gaps in employment
visible scarring/injuries

how's he supposed to get a good enough job to turn his life around? you think he's just going to start at a decent wage? who's going to pay for him to get into rehab? his injuries? minimum wage job and he's stuck in the system.

[–] ActionJunkie007 7 years ago

let's be honest ... would you hire him?

Yes, but only after he went through the first 30-40 minutes of the flick. I'm fine with him, being down on his luck, and a bit out there, breaking into that house and cleaning himself up, wearing a nice suit, etc. All the things he does at this point make sense to me. But its this "second chance" that he has the ability to TRULY get back on the right track. But instead, he just continues to do what he's always done. He allows his dark nature to continue forth even when he has months of clean, showered, living. Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, but I feel any homeless person given the advantages his character was given in the beginning would have tried to do the right thing.

That's what really bugs me about this film. If they didn't try to make him so sympathetic, and a product of his time in the military, with a wife and kid, a real life before he went a bit crazy from the war, I could forgive it a bit more. But no, they try and do that, as well as try to state he's "just a bad guy who does bad things" and he cant get out. HE COULD HAVE...but he chose not to. To me, it's just a very bad narrative.

Who's strangling the cat?

[–] BrunoAntony 7 years ago

He's mentally unwell and essentially an anti-hero character.

He uses his military skills to become an underworld thug and donate his earnings to a homeless shelter and ex-wife.

It's worth noting he also started off in a honest job as a kitchen hand after detoxing, and only stumbled into that dude's vacant apartment by chance.