Revived Cop - Why?
-
driver-anthony — 16 years ago(October 05, 2009 08:45 PM)
its not a ZOMBlE you fool - anyone that is saying that this scene is completely unrealistic is a fool - you know nothing about the human body and what degree of trauma it can handle - best realistic violence movie ever - and ill prove it to those who dont believe
-
fisktopia — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 02:42 PM)
Figured That La Femme chick, if she was the evil one? Never caught up with the names Anyways, she had the shock gun, which I figured didn't kill, only harmed (thought it was a tazer at first, but I've reconsidered.) Anyway, the cop turns to face the shock gun as she puts it to the side of his skull, and then she shoots, his eyes facing the gun.
My understanding is he was blinded, and was still trying to protect the pregno'lady, but ended up beating her up as to put insult to injury. As she killed her mom, typical horrorstuff innit.
I might be wrong though since he flicked on the power 'fore his craze.
He might've been Ben Affleck though, acting all daredevil
Support my city, click this link. Thanks love<3
http://cloverfield2.myminicity.com/ -
scyza — 16 years ago(September 10, 2009 12:40 PM)
I also thought he was blinded and probably mad with rage at the one who did this to him, so he lashed out when he heard a voice near him, thinking it was her.
On second thought though how could he switch the lights back on blinded, when before it took him forever to fumble with the switches and he didn't manage to do it anyway?
The film doesn't make much sense anyway though so whatever. ^^ -
dameean — 16 years ago(September 19, 2009 03:24 PM)
i came on this board looking for a topic of this kind, so if someone else brought this up, i guess i was right: that scene made no sense and made the movie seam like a cheap horror flick, it was added only for the violence. the movie sucked because of that.
-
waz_fukashima — 16 years ago(September 26, 2009 03:23 AM)
He turned the light on to scare the audience. He obviously just figured it out how to do it because he was blind and could still sense it.
Now the reason he hit Sarah i think was because it was normal police tactics to use a batton in this way. Despite his state he simply believed she was the killer and responded in the exact way he had been taught. -
samuelbronkowitz — 16 years ago(March 10, 2010 12:52 PM)
Exactlythe movie takes place where there's a great deal of civil unrest going on and people are burning cars.
People who get shot in the head survive it more than you think. It looked like to me he was standing in a stupor listening to the static of the TV and then went ape sh!t when he heard a female voice. -
barrybot — 16 years ago(October 12, 2009 07:11 PM)
I had lost interest by that point, but it was a really stupid scene.
Someone on here also made a point I didn't catch immediately: when the killer puts the Stun Gun thing up to his head (and it would have been nice if they said what the thing was at any point), the cop turns and looks at it at which point it cuts away and you hear two shots. It would seem she shot him in the face with it but he has wounds on the side of his head and can apparently see well enough to do (sorry trolls, but it's true) epic Zombie battle with the killer and Sarah's stomach. I had just watched 28 Weeks Later and he looked and acted like he had the rage virus but otherwise the scene made no sense and seemed tacked on as an excuse to give the killer a weapon and send Sarah into labor.
Was he blind? Was he a zombie? Was he in a well filmed but otherwise horrid piece of gore porn?
(The answers: 1.Maybe 2.No, but his character had as much depth as one. 3. Oh my yes.) -
break-stoof — 16 years ago(October 13, 2009 06:11 PM)
I have to say, usually, when it comes to plot holes, I tend to look past them. After all, there's no point even starting a film if you're not willing to do the whole 'suspension of disbelief' thing. But, having said that, when 'Inside' ended my first question was 'how the beep did that cop get back up?!'. Of course, purely because of his appearance, the possibility that he was a zombie crossed my mind, but that didn't fit in at all with the story so I went with the 'brain dead' theorybut I was always under the impression that, if someone is brain dead, they are incapable of moving. Maybe slight twitches, but standing up, using said brain to switch the lights on, then have the strength to beat someone up? HmmmSo, if I was trying to find a 'realistic' explanation, I'd maybe try to argue that he actually suffered a serious concussion (I don't know how powerful those riot guns are, but we can't be sure if la femme shot him straight on or not), damage to the eyes and was in severe shock. I guess the scene did come out of nowhere, but it was the final shock to Sarah's body that provoked the ending.
The thing that bothered me most about this film, though, was the total incompetence of the cops, and the fact that they didn't call for back up as soon as they heard gun shots coming from the house. I'm no expert on police protocol, but surely that's rule number one??
Apart from that, though, I did enjoy the film. On the whole, as far as horror films go, it's probably one of the best I've seen recently. Had some great tense moments, brutal slashings and an extreme ending you won't find in boring same old Hollywood. Just a shame about some of those plot holes, just a bit too difficult to simply accept and ignore. -
Buffy_Summers3 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:55 AM)
Ya i have to agree with what someone else said earlier that if so many people are coming on here saying wtf was that, than clearly the scene was a tad out of place for an otherwise great film.
I Love My Dead Gay Son -
jason_parallel — 16 years ago(October 29, 2009 09:02 PM)
After reading all the posts regarding the "zombie/possessed cop", I'm really at a loss as to how this many people could not see that scene for what it was- a cop that got beaned in the head and suffered severe physical and mental trauma as a result. It's pretty obvious from the beginning of the film that "Inside" is not a supernatural thriller or zombie movie.
You guys are right though, the scene was totally out of place. Surprising and effective (at least to me), but out of place nonetheless.
-
Clandestine337 — 16 years ago(October 30, 2009 03:54 AM)
Yet with his physical and mental trauma, he could use the circuit breaker and turn back on the lights when he couldn't do it beforehand? He also made some loud screech type sound (not very human sounding)
it reminds me of From Dusk 'Til Dawn.. in the sense that to get a desired ending, Tarantino chose vampires out of the blue and this director chose to add a zombie. Both good movies, but both out of nowhere, and both completely ridiculous.
When I write my movie and I can't figure out a way to get to my ending, I am going to use a werewolf, so I call dibs. -
badgerboob — 16 years ago(November 04, 2009 06:19 PM)
What a ridiculous scene. How on earth did he turn those lights on, brain damaged and in the dark whilst still attached to the youth. He couldn't do it before. It was simply a plot vehicle to get the lights back on and add another 'shocking' scene. However I thought that this brought me back to reality and question the film therefor become uninvolved in the narrative.
I thought Them was a better film than Inside, disappointing after the hype. -
badgerboob — 16 years ago(November 04, 2009 06:22 PM)
What a ridiculous scene. How on earth did he turn those lights on, brain damaged and in the dark whilst still attached to the youth. He couldn't do it before. It was simply a plot vehicle to get the lights back on and add another 'shocking' scene. However I thought that this brought me back to reality and question the film therefor become uninvolved in the narrative.
I thought Them was a better film than Inside, disappointing after the hype. -
bEATpREDATOR — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 07:39 PM)
All I can say is, if the intention of this scene is just a way to induce labour and get the lights back on then it is one of the most contrived things I have ever witnesed in a movie. Ever. Surely the writers could have come up with something more plausable than this? Its just plain out of place and insulting to the viewer.
If you want to see a scene that involves brain damage from a gunshot wound to the head (that is waaaayyyyyyy more disturbing and accurate than this one!) then watch the last bit of Blue Velvet. -
gillia-1 — 16 years ago(January 15, 2010 11:25 AM)
Why is there all this talk of him being 'braindead' or a zombie. She shot him in his eyes at point blank range with some kinda of flash bang gun didn't she? So no of course he didn't die but that's why his eyes were bleeding, he was blind, then heard someone near him so resulted in trying to beat the **** out of them thinking it was the crazy woman. Would you not act like this if someone just blinded you? I don't think he was aiming specifically for her stomach either he was just swinging randomly. I don't see what's wrong with the scene and it was a great scene to put into the film imo. It was an awesome moment when you go OH SH*T HE NEVER DIED BUT HE LOOKS beep SCARY.