Uh, did they forget something?
-
JW-7 — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 11:50 AM)
Thanks, but I'm not really interested in the book. Books always are fuller than the movie version, but the movie doesn't usually leave such a gaping void as this one did. Again I ask: who was the prisoner and what was his connection to the whole deal? And what was expected to be the gain from shooting the "intended victim?" [Phrased that way to avoid spoilers.]
-
vake — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 06:03 PM)
Everything was actually explained in the film, maybe you missed it in the dialogue:
The prisoner (Zec) is a leader of some Russian gang, who go by the name of Lebendauer Enterprises. They move from city to city, always buying out a local construction firm to add to their empire, ahead of major redevelopment in that city. Quote from Helen Rodin: "They build bridges no one needs. Highways no one uses. They're like a cancer. A cell that won't stop growing."
They bribe key officials in the cities, and when bribing isn't enough, they might kill a construction firm owner who refuses to sell, like they did to Oline Archer.
They killed Oline Archer because she refused to sell the construction firm to them, killed four other people to hide the true target, and framed James Barr for the murders. -
Beauq81 — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 12:54 AM)
The whole story about Lebendauer was made for the film. Don't know why,the one from the book would have worked just fine and was much simpler. They tomcruised the entire movie.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better. -
Beauq81 — 11 years ago(September 01, 2014 03:46 AM)
Yeah, it's a good one. Whoever said it (I can't find the real source) must have gotten some heat on them. I know I have had some on this site.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better. -
love-song — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 06:47 PM)
Oke, so I just googled "Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better" And this was the one that sounded the most reliable, of course it's still the internet, so no "hard proof", but I'll just post it here so you can decide for yourself if this might be a "real source"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100105151413AAgf1Xy
Me, I liked the movie. Haven't read the book though. For me the story was simple but not really lacking. Like one of the reviewers wrote, a movie with a nice 80's feeling to it.
(though it didn't change my mind about Tom Cruise getting to old for these action flicks) -
Hmmwhatshisface — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 07:12 AM)
The quote seems to be a paraphrase of A religious war is like killing someone over who has the better imaginary friend. The quote is attributed to Larry Beinhart.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/225935-a-religious-war-is-like-killing-someone-over-who-has -
JW-7 — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 03:30 PM)
Well, thanks for clearing that up. Apparently I did miss it because it makes so little sense and is so ridiculous that my brain filtered it out. So for this they go around shooting people willy-nilly? There was no other avenue? Right!
-
wvmcl — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 05:48 AM)
The killing-multiple-victims-to-hide-the-true-victim thing has been used many, many times, dating back at least to the Agatha Christie days. But has it ever once happened in real life? I don't think so. The easy way to get rid of the main victim would be to just kill her and make it look like an accident. Why complicate things so unnecessarily?
Of course, then there wouldn't be a story, would there? -
saburaukami-645-566777 — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 08:59 AM)
no, no, no, no. Seriously?! You have your facts all wrong. I mean do you even know anything about the DC shootings? There is this amazing thing called google that fixes our worlds problems oh you cant use it? Here let me google that for you.
- He never killed his wife. so no it didn't "happen in real life." His wife was never a victim in relation to the DC shootings. AND is still alive today. If his real intention was to kill his wife why wait till shot #14? I think she would be dead.
- He didn't want custody of his kids. In fact, He kidnapped them in '99. Before he was executed in 09, he was given a chance to call his family. He never called his kids.
- Evidence suggested he wanted money from the government. Which EVIDENCE is usually what we use to convict people.
- Article from Washington post 10 years after: "Lee Boyd Malvo (accomplice) said. 'My focus is on witnesses, passengers, and whenever there was an opening, I told him to shoot.' It was rapid, one after another, he said, all at random. 'Whoever was there.'" Article shows it was random.
So stop being and idiot and learn truth before you spread lies.
-
Don-the-Lamplighter — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 11:47 PM)
Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine.
rayonmullings never said the DC sniper killed his wife. He said that he targeted random strangers so that he
could
kill his wife. Which he obviously never managed to do.
I heard the same thing. I just never bothered to vet every detail I heard fly about the case at one time or another.
Why not simply correct what you felt was inaccurate? Why resort to name-calling and condescension? What are you, in 3rd grade? -
sidgirl — 9 years ago(April 22, 2016 03:11 PM)
Stella Nickell poisoned random Excedrin capsules with cyanide in 1986 and planted some of them in retail stores to cover up the fact that she poisoned her husband Bruce with cyanide. Her attempt to hide her husband's murder by making him look like a serial killer's victim resulted in one other death, an innocent woman Nickell had never met named Susan Snow.
And that's just the first example that came to mind, because it's particularly famous. I'm sure there are others that I can't recall offhand at the moment.
People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.