Paul Brenner's behavior was unbelievable
-
ecavuto — 15 years ago(May 08, 2010 01:22 PM)
That's an interesting comment there, Henry. I found all the Dirty Harry films to be unbelievable. An officer carrying a Magnum, blatantly going against his superiors in the department, browbeating someone in an elevator (called him "dog sh*t," remember?), strolling back into a diner where there are multiple felons and encouraging them to "Make my day", crashing some crime lord's family wedding and bringing on a heart attackThis isn't unbelievable to you? Actually I think Harry also has the death wish.
-
jcush21 — 15 years ago(May 19, 2010 12:29 AM)
Don't forget in the first DH movie, when Harry shot Scorpio at Kezar stadium then proceeded to stand on the injured leg, torturing him to find out where the girl was.
That was kinda amazing he didn't get fired, if not outright arrested.
Don't get me wrong, I love the DH films. -
HenryCW — 15 years ago(May 27, 2010 11:09 AM)
The important difference is that Dirty Harry was a rogue cop and Paul Kersey was a vigilante. Neither was supposed to be an "ordinary" cop or person acting
according to law- or otherwise there won't be films about them in the first place. By contrast, while Paul Brenner was given full right of investigation, he was still supposed to follow the proper procedures, and that was why I find his behavior rather unbelievable.
-
Jefbecco-1 — 15 years ago(March 02, 2011 12:09 PM)
Fourteen years U.S. Army (1986-2000). Eight of them with the Regular or "Full-time" Army (1992-2000). Nothing about this movies is realistic. Nothing. But as far as being just a movie. Hey it's entertaining and had great production standards.
What more can one ask for from Hollyweird? -
Jefbecco-1 — 14 years ago(September 28, 2011 01:01 AM)
It's more than the rank he had when he goes undercover. There were so many things. How the soldiers acted, how they talked, the end when John Travolta is driving his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) through the training site as the solders are training, him taking the bath items to the female officer as an enlisted man. Like I said there is nothing about the movie that is realistic. But he kept me entertained and I didn't watch it expecting a documentary.
-
movie_fan59 — 14 years ago(October 08, 2011 12:21 PM)
The Army is certainly different than the Air Force so I can't speak to the reality of the Army all that much. I was married to a woman in the Army, so I have some notion.
But driving a POV through a training site in order to get to a crime scene seemed plausible to me. Don't recall if his presence had any impact on the training.
I actually did give bath products to a female commissioned officer I was friendly with, as a birthday gift, but I can see the incongruity of the situation in which he did it. There were other ways he could have more appropriately expressed his gratitude. -
Jefbecco-1 — 14 years ago(October 09, 2011 07:30 AM)
My experience when in the Army (1986-2000) was ,when in use, the training sites were off-limits. Especially MOUT (urban training sites) locations. I was assigned to a training unit (1-4 Infantry) when stationed in Germany and spent many many months over the years at other training facilities such as Fort Polk and Fort Ord. It was just something that really stood out when I first saw the movie back in 99.