I root for the 'bad guy'
-
MagikGimp — 12 years ago(June 08, 2013 03:28 PM)
I know, it's such a sad setup for such a good film!
His men are wrongly treated and he seeks justice for them.
His theft of the missiles is done by shooting service-men with stun darts.
The death of the first guy is (albeit stupidly) accidental.
He demands a only paltry 100 million dollars. From an illegal arms fund!
He apologises to his hostages and makes sure the children are sent home.
The US government people- they all admit wholeheartedly to their poor treatment of the marines, one says 60 people's deaths are "OK", the other suggests bombing the island with incendiaries which to top it all off are untested and highly dangerous!
And that's as far as I got before I decided I'd rather write this than sit down to watch the rest of the film on TV again! I mean there's rooting for the bad guy but when the bad guy isn't even that bad lol! -
-
Jack_rabbit — 12 years ago(June 26, 2013 03:20 PM)
Indeed, its almost an alegory of american foreign policy. You know, invading countries with the stated aim of bringing freedom and democracy whilst leveling the country, stripping its resources and massacring its civilian population, then when that population take up arms and fight back, labelling them as terrorists.
-
MartyScorsey — 12 years ago(July 01, 2013 03:43 AM)
He's a good guy with bad methods rather than a bad guy. However, as Commander Anderson tells him, he took an oath to defend the country from all enemies. Holding civilians captive to get at the Government was not a part of that oath.
The other thing that struck me watching the film last week for the first time in years was that deals made under duress are not legally enforceable. Sending the families of your 83 fallen marines $1m each in compensation is very honourable. But how did he know the Government wouldn't take the money back from them afterwards?
Also, did he at any point consult the 83 families to ask if they wanted this done in the names of their beloved husbands, fathers, brothers etc? I suspect most of them would have felt the same way Commander Anderson did.
Don't get me wrong, I love the film and Hummel as a characterbut these questions crossed my mind on rewatching it after all this time.The Space Shuttle Atlantis music video: http://youtu.be/ZZ67FMfC1Gg
-
smoko — 12 years ago(August 17, 2013 10:21 PM)
@MartyScorsey
Sending the families of your 83 fallen marines $1m each in compensation is very honourable. But how did he know the Government wouldn't take the money back from them afterwards?
I was instead imagining all the family infighting over who would get the money. What counts as a marine's family? Spouses and children, sure, but what about siblings, stepchildren, and third-cousins? With a million dollars at stake, things could get ugly. -
MartyScorsey — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 04:55 AM)
I never thought of that, interesting point. I suppose Hummel would argue that his responsibility is his men, and that once he has honoured their deaths, how their families honour their legacy (or not) is not for him to interfere with.
Challenging Endeavours: A tale of two shuttles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-8CR6i5a5Y
-
smoko — 12 years ago(August 17, 2013 10:43 PM)
@viking-fjord_90 Other than the government, the real bad guys were Darrow (rocket man) and Frye ("Whoever said anything about bluffing, General?") - that's why they got those brutal death scenes.
Mental note: if you're going to threaten to launch missiles and kill thousands of people, don't use new staff. -
RParmly-3 — 12 years ago(October 19, 2013 11:49 PM)
The movie makes it really hard to find a "good guy"/"bad guy" in the usual Hollywood sense, which is one of its strong points.
Normally a movie like this would play it straight with the feds as the good guys and Hummel as the bad guy. Not this one. They give Hummel a rock solid motive, make it clear that the government is as guilty as sin, and let Hummel redeem himself by stopping the rocket and dying to protect San Francisco.
At the same time, it's not black and white in the other direction either. Yes, Womack is a snake in the grass and the entire White House is as useful as a bottle of dried glue, but most of the feds under them from Goodspeed to Paxton to Anderson and his SEALs are pretty straight laced and doing their job. Whereas Hummel hiring a pair of complete psychopaths he couldn't control doesn't really reflect well on his judgment. ("Hey, want to join me, steal some WMDs, take a bunch of hostages and hold an entire city for ransom, and no, as far as you're concerned this isn't a bluff?" What kind of soldiers did you THINK that sales pitch was going to bring in?)
Nazis. I
hate
these guys. -
SausagePourVous — 12 years ago(February 02, 2014 10:33 PM)
Yes,Hummel hiring two men,captains,he never has worked with and only know by reputation feels a bit like stupidity forced upon a characer for it to fit the outcome of the plot. Killing 80 000 would not get those two the Money with one rocket left,if they were pissed about the bluff,shoot him without debate or split.
These two whores get the marines killed. And though it would be sad to see Hummel face off against our heroes,his fate became somewhat cheap. I like when danger comes from unexpected places,its just that the audience was dealing with(And especially for a Bay flick)with alot of ambiguity regarding Hummel from start to finish. We are not trusted with giving approval of Hummel shooting it out with Mason and Goodspeed,too much for our fragile minds.should I have seen his end come this way? Maybe but I didnt want to accept it.
And a few more henchman shouldve survived. 3 vs 2 and poor Crisp gets it in the throat while a Major with the element of surprise hits Candyman in the neck when trying to kill him. For dramatic effect and respect to these two characters,a few more mercenaries shouldve jumped ship and turned into Storm troopers Hummel could shoot downbut here,they stuck to reality(Except a gun in 1 second turning into an assault rifle in Cap Fryes hands,now thats Quick hands).
The lesson Anderson gives Hummel as both trie to undermine the other is a moot Point. Think Hummel was aware of breaking the law and oaths,like he was aware how the government let his men die without getting a cent since it never happened.
Lecturing him on the subject becomes hipocritical,if Everything is just about doing your jobif you agree with him when stakes are this high.just lower your weapon. Hummel was doing the right and illegal thing,this wasnt an interesting discussion for him.Hell of a line delivery from Biehn though.
Hummels- what the hell is wrong with you,man? both felt desperate,funy and showed us hat kind of man he was. He didnt want anyone to die cause of a bluff. Wanting Goodspeed and Mason dead after they killed 3-4 marines.well,a necessary evil if the plan is to work or his team even survive. But did he kill them though he could? No.
-Im not about to kill 80 000 innocent people,you Think Im out of my fu- mind?? Love how he with that line completely deconstructs and shows his characters soul and honor,concidering how so many saw him as a madman. He did at least redeem himself like you say and I guess being gunned down by those psychos was the only way it was ever going to play out.
Hell of a performance and Harris was born for this role. I tell myself action and Bay is the reason no Oscar or Globenom came his way. A performance with such authority and pathos. -
run_to_daylight — 11 years ago(April 26, 2014 08:03 PM)
hummel was an anti-hero.
as a patriot he went to an ostensibly patriotic congress, to seek recognition for the deceased marine recon soldiers and reparations for their families.and no one listened.
basically what everyone else in the thread has said hummel wasn't going to kill his "brother" seals on his own order, nor 80K civilians.
hummel's undoing was bringing in two renegade captains, who weren't a part of his original outfit. -
mistershankly — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 06:21 AM)
I tend to agree. I especially liked how when he talked to the girls to get them off the island, he bent down when talking to them. That`s actually a sign of humility, children appreciate that you comed own to eyesight level with them instead from just looking at them up there.