he should have just killed the woman holding his kid
-
mobocracy — 17 years ago(June 09, 2008 06:06 AM)
It does seem like a weak spot in the script. It wouldn't have been hard for him to have gotten a head shot, but she could have had the hammer cocked on her gun and a nervous impulse from collapsing could have caused her to pull the trigger.
Personally I would have cut that scene, though. I kept thinking Depp should have greased Walken in the bathroom early on and enjoyed all the time in the world to ambush Roma Maffia in the van. -
chrismahon2005 — 17 years ago(July 15, 2008 04:02 PM)
True,but he was not a man used to guns or so it seems,and also he was not to know if anyone else was in on it,remember they wanted the governer dead,so it would be pretty obvious it went fairly deep,as in a lot of people were in on it.
Also he did go after her,but she had a gun on the kid,he dare not take that chance,and if he killed walken,the women and him were in contact,she would know quite quickly when he failed to contact her,she would then plug the kid and be of before he had time to react -
shinigami89 — 17 years ago(January 14, 2009 03:18 PM)
He would never risk his kid like that not even with the tiniest chance that the child would be hurt. On top of that Gene was not a killer and I highly doubt the OP would just shoot someone in the head.
I swear to shake it up if you swear to listen. -
EverquestSux — 16 years ago(July 18, 2009 08:43 PM)
" On top of that Gene was not a killer and I highly doubt the OP would just shoot someone in the head."
i dont know what kind of person you are, but we normal people wouldent hesitate 1 fraction of a second to blow that womans brains out all over the beep seats , IF there was a very high chance that the shot would save ones own child from death.
however.. in that particular situation, there was a 50/50 chance of sucsess..and thats not enough . when the bullet enter the womans head..will the muscless in her hand contract ? or will they go numb..? could screaming and waking up the girl up the chance of the bullet missing ? its to many variables,,
depps character being a killer or not is not the issue,, all normal parents turns in to killers when some lowlife scum threatens their kids life, its natural, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
"A fundie to me would be anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible" -
ShizaMinelli — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 06:54 PM)
Agree 150%
I don't even have kids, just neices and nephews, but if anyone thought about hurting one of them they would be wishing for a bullet when I was done with them.
When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbiddenam I alone here? -
the_la_baker — 12 years ago(August 01, 2013 01:03 PM)
Killing a person is not an easy thing to do. Even when highly motivated and they are trying to kill you and/or loved ones(unless you are a psychopath). That is the reason the military changed their targets to have human silhouettes on them. So soldiers will get used to shooting at people.
"In-depth studies by the U.S. Army after the war showed that between 80 percent and 85 percent of the greatest generation never fired their weapons at an exposed enemy in combat, military psychologist Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman reports in Christianity Today. Many times they had the chance, but could not bring themselves to do it. They either withheld their fire altogether or else shot into the air, to the side, anywhere but at the fellow human beings their blood kin in biology, mind and mortality facing them across the line. This reluctance is even more remarkable given the incessant demonization of the enemy by the top brass, especially in the Pacific, where the Japanese soldiers and civilians were routinely portrayed by military propaganda as simian, subhuman creatures fit only for extermination.
Yet even with official license given to the most virulent prejudice, even with the sanction of a just cause (self-defense against aggression), even with the incitements of mortal fear, of grief and anger over slain comrades, even with all the moral chaos endemic to warfare, U.S. soldiers killed only with the greatest reluctance, in the direst extremity. These were not "warriors," bloodthirsty automatons with stripped-down brains and cauterized souls, slavering in Pavlovian fury at the bell-clap of command. No, they were real men, willing, as Grossman notes, to stand up for a cause, even die for it, but not willing, in the end, to transgress the natural law (implanted by God or evolution, take your pick) that says: Do not kill your own kind and every person of every race and nation is your own kind." -
o1977jp — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 01:26 PM)
I disagree. I've never fired a gun before and I certainly wouldn't fire it for the first time in that situation, and risk screwing everything up. At that point in the movie the rational thing to do was to go along with their game and see what happens, and not turn into Super Accountant Man.
-
lorddeseiz — 12 years ago(December 14, 2013 04:38 PM)
i would have shot her between the eyes before she had a chance to shoot the kid.
No you wouldnt, ever shot anyone?
Everyone wants to be a cold as ice badass, lol
Collection
http://www.imdb.com/list/4zXrE3AAzT4/ -
liven1812 — 11 years ago(June 13, 2014 02:22 PM)
A lot of people here are wimps. I'm no keyboard commando. I am only "competent" with firearms. But there wouldn't be any hesitation beyond target acquisition to shoot that $*)@!. She couldn't pull the trigger with a .38 blasted through her brain. If reflexes did so, the shot hitting the girl would be completely left to chance.
At that point, you acquire the child, step into traffic, create a massive scene, and if you end up in prison for life you know your daughter lived because of you.