MovieChat Forums > Don't Breathe 2 (2021) Discussion > Wait so now he's a good guy?

Wait so now he's a good guy?


So now he's a sweet old man with a little girl getting invaded by criminals? wasn't this guy like kidnapping women and trying to impregnate them in the first movie with his sperm using a turkey baster? We supposed to root for him now?

reply

Just saw this, and he's hardly a sweet old man, but a complex one (as are we all). I would argue that in the first movie he even had certain sympathetic qualities, while at the same time exhibiting certain villainous qualities. He was an emotionally disturbed war veteran who'd lost his daughter and was going to extraordinary, immoral, lengths (i.e. rape) to replace her, who then had his home invaded by delinquents.

In this one his replacement daughter, which he happens upon when she's young under circumstances the film explains, is taken by people (the real parents) even more vile than he is. This sequel really just expands more upon the nuanced aspects of this character that were established in the first film. He was/is far from evil, but has done some despicable things out of unbridled, desperate grief. Don't root for him directly, but root for the girl, his replacement daughter, the symbol for what led him to do those nasty acts in the first film.

We must also consider that if the one story element of him trying to force a replacement for his daughter was removed from the first movie, he would have been the good guy simply defending his home from intruders. In the first movie from one aspect he was the good guy, while from another he was also the bad guy, just like the intruders were also the good guys and bad guys. The same holds true here, except that his opposition this time have very few redeeming qualities by comparison. Maybe from now on watch a movie before commenting.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

He was an emotionally disturbed war veteran who'd lost his daughter and was going to extraordinary, immoral, lengths (i.e. rape) to replace her, who then had his home invaded by delinquents.


I liked the fact that this movie implies that he acknowledges that what he did to that poor girl in part one was rape, since as I recall, he denied it then or he was trying to downplay the atrocity of what he was doing.

reply

Good comment! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

reply

You're welcome!
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

Exactly. Wtf. What a shame of a sequel. This whole movie reeks of poor creativity all around.

reply

Its not black and white. Besides, if memory serves me right; in the first film the "victims" broke into his house. He saids it himself: he's a monster, but he is less of a monster than the girls parents. He does have some kind of morale and kindness in him, as opposed to her organ harvesting meth head parents.

reply

After they stated that he was a veteran of the Iraq war I knew that they were going to make him a hero.. There was no way that they were going to continue to portray a vet as some sick rapist/possible pedophile. It was kind of a cope out actually..

reply