| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
knockmesilly 
|
 Posted - 12/01/2006 : 18:41:24
|
josh hartnett exacts revenge on two mafiosos who killed his parents.
before he "bags" them (morgan freeman & ben kingsley), hartnett reveals his true identity and design.
"how do you get to two men who can't be gotten to?...you get them to come to you. and to do that you need a name."
so an innocent kid named nick fischer, who owes the mafiosos money, is murdered by bruce willis, so hartnett can take over his identity, get close to the dons, and kill them.
here's the issue:
(aside from the fact hartnett's plan for revenge for the killing of his innocent parents involves having bruce willis murder this innocent stranger, nick fischer, whom hartnett refers to as a "low-life who no one's gonna miss" yet lucy liu misses him right away, and the dead guy's really not a loser, just a bad gambler, like hartnett's dad. so, in the end, hartnett's even worse than the dons because he just picks nick fischer's name from the dons' bookies' books (say that 5 times fast)and has willis whack him. expediency over morality)
hartnett's elaborate plan to exact revenge on his parents' murderers, which involves his taking on a gambler's identity, being brought before each don, whom the gambler owes, then fulfilling tasks given to him by each one(for example, freeman has him kill the son of the other don, which hartnett-as nick fischer- does, in cold blood) is totally unnecessary.
why unnecessary?
because at the movie's end, willis just kills each don's body guards, while hartnett blackjacks kingsley, brings him over to freeman's abode, ties them back to back, tells his story, then suffocates them.
why did hartnett have to kill 2 bookies (one with a baseball), two guards (with poisoned sun glasses), each don's son, and nick fischer when he and willis could have just done what they did at the end anyways? kill the immediate guards and get the two dons.
___
bonus pisser: stanley tucci, a bad cop who participated in the murder of hartnett's parents, is killed by hartnett when, as tucci's talking on his cell phone, hartnett sits up from the back seat of tucci's cop car and pops him. some detective tucci is. he doesn't see this big kid lounging in the back of his car when he gets in? or maybe harnett's just the quietest car door opener ever.
___
thanks for listening. just needed to get that off my chest. phew, feeling better now.
if you've got a plot hole that burns your soul...
|
|
|
Rovark 
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 20:11:22
|
Remember, by now Hartnett is, like Willis, a hitman. It's not so much a plot hole as an illustration of the fact that he is totally amoral and frankly not much better than the mafiosi he executes.
The whole killer in the back seat is pretty tired granted, having appeared in so many slasher pics over the years.
Overall, I still enjoyed the film, and it's not that often you can say that about a Josh Hartnet movie. |
 |
|
|
knockmesilly
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 04:41:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
Remember, by now Hartnett is, like Willis, a hitman. It's not so much a plot hole as an illustration of the fact that he is totally amoral and frankly not much better than the mafiosi he executes.
The whole killer in the back seat is pretty tired granted, having appeared in so many slasher pics over the years.
Overall, I still enjoyed the film, and it's not that often you can say that about a Josh Hartnet movie.
i enjoyed the movie too and would give it a solid b and concur with "it's not that often you can say that about a Josh Hartnet movie," but
even if hartnet's amoral, it seems unnecessary to kill all those folks, especially nick fisher, just to get to freeman and kingsley.
basically, in the end, they just enter the gangsters' homes and kill them.
i guess it makes me wonder about the means by which hartnet is avenging the death of his parents. he says to the two dons, "the two of you killed everything i ever loved." yet, he's willing to do the same to nick fisher-- kill an innocent guy, who was a bad gambler.
does this seem contradictory? avenge the death of innocent people by killing an innocent person. shouldn't there be an internal conflict with hartnet? how does he justify this?
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
lucky # slevin plot hole *spoiler
