Thelma & Louise was actually released 20 years ago this spring, and it seems plausible that the police car was not brand new.
If the Wikipedia article on three strikes laws is accurate, then Thelma & Louise predates three strikes laws in every state in the US except Texas. Since Louise insisted on avoiding Texas then that was one legal problem they didn’t have to worry about. But their string of crimes would presumably have been enough to land them in prison for a long time even without a three strikes law. Louise was potentially even facing the death penalty for murder, depending on how well her and Thelma’s story about the events leading up to the shooting went over.
Really? I thought the three strikes laws were intended to act against recidivism. I would think for it to work as intended, there would have to be some period of incarceration between each ‘strike’, regardless of how many crimes were committed during each strike.
the cop they lock in the trunk starts bawling like a baby when they make him get in, so that pretty strongly implies there was no trunk release. and, actually, a later scene shows a biker passing his car and the cop yelling from inside for him to get the keys and let him out, but it just shows the biker blow smoke into the airhole in the trunk, and doesn’t actually show if he gets let out or not.
This would have been more relevant a little earlier in the thread, but I found this conversation from Thelma & Louise in the “memorable quotes” section of the IMDb. I had remembered the gist of this conversation, but not Louise’s specific points.
[Louise tells Thelma the police probably tapped Darryl’s phone] Thelma: Tap the phones? What’re you talking about? Louise: Come on, Thelma, Murder One and armed robbery. Thelma: Murder One? We can’t even say it was self defense?[1] Louise: Well it wasn’t, we got away, we were walking away. Thelma: Yeah, but they don’t know that. It was just you and me there. I’ll say he raped me and you had to shoot him, that’s almost the truth. Louise: Won’t work. Thelma: Why not? Louise: There’s no physical evidence, we can’t prove he did it, we probably can’t even prove by now that he touched you.
**Thelma: **God, the law is some tricky shit isn’t it? Hey, how do you know about all this?[2] Louise: Besides, what’re we going to say about the robbery? There’s no such thing as justifiable robbery. Thelma: Alright Louise…
[sees a white cowboy hat in the backseat] Thelma: where’d you get this? Louise: Stole it.[3]
[1] I think good case could be made for manslaughter, but this requires Thelma and Louise’s account of the real events of that night being believed. As Louise explains, she doesn’t consider this likely. I’ll add that Thelma’s testimony probably would have carried more weight before she was captured on video holding up a store.
[2] Louise dodges this question, but it’s strongly implied that her knowledge comes from her own experience dealing with the justice system as a rape victim, one whose rapist was presumably not convicted.
[3] And with this we see that Louise feels there’s no point in avoiding further crimes, they’ve already gone too far to turn back.
Further, a macho authority figure has his “gun” taken away, and then bawls like a baby as they force him to curl up and confine himself in a warm dark space, and the only thing you see of him later is his little white finger poking out of a hole, like a detached little flaccid weenie.
Agree with the 1960s spirit of the flick, don’t think this is the answer, though, to my first question – the man at the shop tried to dissuade him from going out again, and if it were only a few days, he could have made the drive easily. I think it’s one of the mysteries of the flick – why did Kowalski go, what made him ride, and did he think he could make it through to the glint of sunshine shining between the dozers at the end? Maybe you’re right, he had one last thought of “fuck it” and decided to go out on his term. A few ways to read that last scene, though.
Might as well ask a question about a David Lynch movie – I don’t think there are any non-symbolic answers to any given question about the movie.
In Zombieland, the two guys come across the two girls who then pull a ruse to get their weapons and vehicle. But… why? First off, it was a really stupid trick to try and pull since Tallahassee could have just as easily said “Ack! Zombie!” and fired immediately. But even more so… it’s the zombie-apocalypse. Whatever you want, you just take. If you want a bag full of shotguns, go find a gun store or Walmart or military base or something. Cars are even easier – the streets are littered with them. You don’t need to sit around waiting for the only couple live people you’ve seen in weeks to risk your sister’s life just to get some weapons and a car.
Even stupider, they set the stolen car up and do it again. Why? Was their plan to just sit there on the side of the road like a couple of stumps with their hood up, in case someone else in the zombie infested world happens to toodle on by?
Standard disclaimer: Yes, it’s a comedy and watchable regardless but that doesn’t mean it makes sense.
Then why try to con them at all? It’s a big open world; if you don’t want to trust two strange people, go somewhere else. Slipping out the back door makes more sense than sticking around to pull a con on a couple strange men carrying weapons.
There’s just no benefit in it for them. At the very best, they take off with stuff they could pick up off the street anyway. At the worst, they wind up dead or abused. For a girl who supposedly spent a lot of time playing cons, you’d think she’d pick up a little risk/benefit analysis.
That’s a fair point, but let’s face it: it’s also just about the least stupid decision anyone in this film makes. I liked the movie, but it’s got just about the biggest Idiot Plot I’ve ever seen.
Here’s one that has bugged me for a while. In “Men In Black”, the bug kills the two Arquellians by stabbing them with his tail or pincer or something. But in the morgue, we find out that the body of the prince is just a transport vehicle. The little fellow inside who’s running the controls from the head appears untouched. Why does he die after a few cryptic words?
The meeting with the Asian friend from high-school - I’m not certain I understand that.
Was the point that the cop suddenly gets the idea that someone might actually lie to her?
{Thelma & Louise:
Blowing up that ass-hole’s truck was the most satisfying cinematic moment I have ever experienced. (Of course, I don’t watch the movies with plumbers.)}
At the end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest Chief Bromden takes the big water-squirty thing, smashes the window, and escapes. Big moment of liberation, and the audience cheers.
But my own reaction is summed up in what the Mad satire puts into the mouth of one of the other characters*:
“Hey! Why are we getting all excited? The Chief was in here [oi]voluntarily*!”
It perfectly echoed my own thoughts. In fact, I’d had the thoughts long before the film, because I saw the play based on Wasserman’s book off-Broadway years before.
I never really understood why the guys in Heat absolutely needed one extra guy for the armored car robbery, and that need was so desperate that they took a chance on using the un-vouched-for and inexperienced hothead Waingro. As far as I can tell, he didn’t do anything in the robbery that one of the other guys couldn’t have done.
Of course, Waingro is such a great character that it doesn’t matter.