First, I'm a poor man's film critic. I like most of the movies I've seen, whether they deserve it or not. Except Leonard Part 6 (don't ask).
I liked this movie, not because of its actors (who did better than I could have done), or its script and dialogue (that was better than I could have written), or its overall production quality (that revealed no amateurish mistakes which I'm sure I would have made). I liked this movie because it clearly did, here in IMDB, exactly what Joe wanted to have happen - we're debating the wisdom of the Second Amendment, amongst other things, only we're carefully wording our positions to sound like a critique of the movie, or its plot, or the script.
To all of the other commentators out there: please stop whining about whether it's Yet Another Liberal Film From Hollywood. You have as much right to say what you want as they do. I think even the non-liberals are a little desensitized to the "everything in the media/movie business is slanted to the left" hew and cry. I know I am, and I'm not a liberal, but merely a thinking man (or so I hope). Just make your case, and stop worrying about Them.
[WARNING -- SPOILERS AHEAD]
Joe wants many things, not just the second amendment debate. I don't know, if my daughter was shot by a punk with a gun that I knew was almost hand-delivered to him by another man that I knew was corrupt... I can't say that I wouldn't feel some desire to make the corrupt man pay for his sins with his life. True, two wrongs don't make a right, and it still wouldn't have brought back my daughter, yet having the desire and acting on it are two different things. I'm sure I would want revenge, though I may not act on it. Joe wanted revenge, and clearly he was willing to act on it.
Did nobody catch the subplot (you know, the subtle one that was sort of shoved into your face with the dialogue)? That Victor Wallace was heavily guarded and a difficult target? That Liberty was the one that had the predictable schedule, whereby Joe might use her to draw out Victor? That Victor wrote his wife's life off from the first moment, and that Joe knew he would? That the only way Joe could get to Victor was to accuse him of being less than a man -- NOT by using his love for his wife during her time of greatest peril.
So why not a simple hostage scene, which would have given us, the paying audience (even if you watched on Cinemax, you paid for it) with the desired Fiorentino/Snipes combustion? Because Joe wanted his daughter's death to mean something more than simple revenge, I guess. Liberty suggested to Joe, "would your daughter want this?" But then, would his daughter want another little girl to be the victim of another punk with a gun, if there was something -- ANYthing -- that could be done to change it?
Or, for another reason: had Joe merely kidnapped Liberty, then Victor's henchmen, and the henchmen of the people in Victor's back pocket, would have eliminated Joe, and Liberty, and the supervisor of the building, and the neighbors, and anyone else standing too close... and the police (who Joe alleged were corrupted by Victor) would have blamed it all on Joe.
Whether you agree with gun control, or think that Joe was right when he said "I'm could be just another legal gun-owning American fighting the government's oppression of my freedom," or think that the answer lies somewhere a field, this movie, regardless of it's overall view-ability value, should inspire thoughts
Joe hit where he could, where it would hurt, and where it would make a difference. He knew it would also cost him his life (too many powerful people would want him dead, anyway). But, as he said, "It's a start."
So the debate has been going on, anyway. True, it's people that kill people, not guns, not bullets, not pits, not your heritage to your murderous ancestors, not teachers failing to enact safety measures, or anything else ourselves.
It's merely a sad truth that there are people who will kill other people, using any means they can. What we have to do is find a way to better teach a would-be killer that they let themselves down the most if they kill, whether by violating their own values, or by letting down the people that matter to them.
Joe took the violent man's way out. Funny thing -- so did the American colonists when they decided to set themselves free. That second amendment was awfully important back then.
So, did the end justify the means? Joe said "yes." What do you say?
It's a movie without a definitive answer (even if you think there was one), but one with a definite result after the fact. I have to admire it for that.
I liked this movie, not because of its actors (who did better than I could have done), or its script and dialogue (that was better than I could have written), or its overall production quality (that revealed no amateurish mistakes which I'm sure I would have made). I liked this movie because it clearly did, here in IMDB, exactly what Joe wanted to have happen - we're debating the wisdom of the Second Amendment, amongst other things, only we're carefully wording our positions to sound like a critique of the movie, or its plot, or the script.
To all of the other commentators out there: please stop whining about whether it's Yet Another Liberal Film From Hollywood. You have as much right to say what you want as they do. I think even the non-liberals are a little desensitized to the "everything in the media/movie business is slanted to the left" hew and cry. I know I am, and I'm not a liberal, but merely a thinking man (or so I hope). Just make your case, and stop worrying about Them.
[WARNING -- SPOILERS AHEAD]
Joe wants many things, not just the second amendment debate. I don't know, if my daughter was shot by a punk with a gun that I knew was almost hand-delivered to him by another man that I knew was corrupt... I can't say that I wouldn't feel some desire to make the corrupt man pay for his sins with his life. True, two wrongs don't make a right, and it still wouldn't have brought back my daughter, yet having the desire and acting on it are two different things. I'm sure I would want revenge, though I may not act on it. Joe wanted revenge, and clearly he was willing to act on it.
Did nobody catch the subplot (you know, the subtle one that was sort of shoved into your face with the dialogue)? That Victor Wallace was heavily guarded and a difficult target? That Liberty was the one that had the predictable schedule, whereby Joe might use her to draw out Victor? That Victor wrote his wife's life off from the first moment, and that Joe knew he would? That the only way Joe could get to Victor was to accuse him of being less than a man -- NOT by using his love for his wife during her time of greatest peril.
So why not a simple hostage scene, which would have given us, the paying audience (even if you watched on Cinemax, you paid for it) with the desired Fiorentino/Snipes combustion? Because Joe wanted his daughter's death to mean something more than simple revenge, I guess. Liberty suggested to Joe, "would your daughter want this?" But then, would his daughter want another little girl to be the victim of another punk with a gun, if there was something -- ANYthing -- that could be done to change it?
Or, for another reason: had Joe merely kidnapped Liberty, then Victor's henchmen, and the henchmen of the people in Victor's back pocket, would have eliminated Joe, and Liberty, and the supervisor of the building, and the neighbors, and anyone else standing too close... and the police (who Joe alleged were corrupted by Victor) would have blamed it all on Joe.
Whether you agree with gun control, or think that Joe was right when he said "I'm could be just another legal gun-owning American fighting the government's oppression of my freedom," or think that the answer lies somewhere a field, this movie, regardless of it's overall view-ability value, should inspire thoughts
Joe hit where he could, where it would hurt, and where it would make a difference. He knew it would also cost him his life (too many powerful people would want him dead, anyway). But, as he said, "It's a start."
So the debate has been going on, anyway. True, it's people that kill people, not guns, not bullets, not pits, not your heritage to your murderous ancestors, not teachers failing to enact safety measures, or anything else ourselves.
It's merely a sad truth that there are people who will kill other people, using any means they can. What we have to do is find a way to better teach a would-be killer that they let themselves down the most if they kill, whether by violating their own values, or by letting down the people that matter to them.
Joe took the violent man's way out. Funny thing -- so did the American colonists when they decided to set themselves free. That second amendment was awfully important back then.
So, did the end justify the means? Joe said "yes." What do you say?
It's a movie without a definitive answer (even if you think there was one), but one with a definite result after the fact. I have to admire it for that.