Well, I saw this movie on Friday night. I think I found it intriguing throughout, but there are some things about the film that bothered me. I’m going to go ahead and request that spoilers be boxed since the film is so new.
The first thing that bugged me is that Terrence Howard’s character seemed really…flat. I think he’s a better actor than what I saw on the screen. The idea behind his character seemed really interesting to me, but I don’t think they went deep enough into it. Also, [spoiler]The way his character turned at the end was unexpected to me, but not necessarily in a good way. I’m not sure I buy that he was weakened to the point where he would throw away the value he seemed to hold most dear at the end.
[robot chicken]
“What a tweest!”
[/robot chicken][/spoiler]
I was also left wondering about some of the symbolism at the end of the film. Specifically, Jodie Foster’s character ends by finishing the journey she had started in the beginning, going through the tunnel to get her dog. So she’s done with her vigilantism, right? But she also remarks that she can never go back to being the person she was before it all happened, so…she’s going to keep killing?I’m confused.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, can anyone verify that Foster had a body-double during the flashback scene early on?
Haven’t seen it, but it led the box office receipts last week. I don’t go to the show much, but I look forward to seeing this one when it comes out on DVD. I just love Jodi.
I really enjoyed it. I didn’t see any of the attack scenes. I just couldn’t look at them. I was very happy with the twist as the end where he makes her shoot him. I wondered if he would retire from the police department after that because now he had compromised his values. I totally did not expect it and I love that in a movie, because so often I can tell close enough what the ending will be like. I was also thrilled to near tears that she got her dog back. I worried about that the whole movie,
The press called it Vigilante Justice. That does not meant that is in fact what it was. In all but one case it was flat out self defence. Kill or be Killed. Only the slimeball that was tossed from the roof was premeditated. Her real crime was leaving the scene of a crime. If she had stuck around the convience store, she might have been charged with illegal possesion of a fire arm, what jury would convict her of that based on her recent past? If she had stuck around on the subway, same, plus fleeing the scene of a crime (convience store), and the same for the slimball in the car. I don’t think the case would have ever gone to trial, she acted in self defence in all of these three cases.
I can’t completely agree with you here.[spoiler]While, as you point out, technically all but one of the killings was in self-defense, the problem is that she deliberately put herself in situations that she knew would likely lead to such a deadly confrontation.
Certainly the liquor store situation was not her fault. But she rather deliberately didn’t get off the subway to safety when she had the chance because she expected and (I believe) wanted to be attacked. And she could very easily have called the police on the sleazeball in the car rather than get in and force the situation at gun point. I’m not sure how this is much different than me purposefully walking into a gang-infested neighborhood flashing my jewelry and then shooting someone when they try to rob me at knife point.
Probably self-defense from a legal standpoint, but I think morally, she is still acting as a vigilante.[/spoiler]
Great movie. I didn’t know anything about the film except that Jodie Foster was in it (which is good enough for me…I’ve had a crush on her since I was 12) so the storyline came as a complete surprise.
Did anyone else notice the similarity to Death Wish? That subway scene, certainly, was a straight up homage. I’ve put that film in my Netflix queue to see how simliar the two movies are.
The only part that didn’t seem very logical was the ending. In particular:
Why did the cop ask Jodie to shoot him in the fucking CHEST?!? That type of bullet wound can easily kill you! Why not the arm or leg instead?? And I don’t think the cop’s spontaneous frame-up job will hold up under scrutiny, unless he pays off the CSI folk. (Maybe that’s what the sequel will be about…)
Saw the movie yesterday. Liked it a lot, except for the ending, which I had problems with.
Foster’s an extraordinary actress. She truly looked like a different person after the attack than before. Even in movies that weren’t great, I’ve always found her convincing.
I really liked the screenplay for most of it. It’s rare when you can see the point that ends Act 2 and leads into Act 3, and it’s not a plot development from outside cropping up. That is, at first it seems like the development is the police bringing in the gang-banger with the video camera, having tracked him through the stolen jewelry, but that only sets up the real transitional plot point, which is when Erica Bain (Foster’s character), seeing the man in the lineup, makes the decision to not identify him. This show how far she’s gone down the road she’s on. Even when she killed the rich sleazebag on the roof, she was getting rid of him because the police couldn’t; but now, when the police actually have the man, that’s not good enough for her, and she wants to take revenge on her own. She really has become a different person. It’s not often a major plot point happens through a character’s moment of unspoken mental deliberation.
But, given that, the ending seems like a cheat. I didn’t believe that the detective would abandon his principles so suddenly, and if he does, then it’s a huge tragedy for him. The whole ending feels like a studio rewrite to me: it leaves all the “good guys” alive, all the bad guys dead, and dog and owner are reunited. It’s a compromised ending to an uncompromising story; I would have ended it with Erica dead or under arrest.
I liked the movie but the ending pissed me off. I found it to be cheap and predictable, and unworthy of the serious characters that had been developed.