Killing Emmitt was justified
-
JolenesClover — 9 years ago(June 27, 2016 07:42 PM)
Plus..when they were all playing that game with the timer,he kept calling Michelle a girl,child,princess etc. But he couldnt come up with the word "woman". Howard didnt see michelle as and adult, but as a replacement daughter.
-
chopperman — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 10:27 PM)
Plus..when they were all playing that game with the timer,he kept calling Michelle a girl,child,princess etc. But he couldnt come up with the word "woman". Howard didnt see michelle as and adult, but as a replacement daughter.
yeah that was basically hitting you over the head with what this guy's deal was. it was a good movie so i can forgive how heavy handed that bit was.
Larry Gaylord: "a billion people come in on a day off, and they don't flip out!" -
surajkrstha — 9 years ago(June 29, 2016 02:33 AM)
Why Howard has shaved his beard just after killing Emmet when we see his body still i acid later. What's so hurry or care to shave at that time, he could have done it any time early before killing happned or later any time. Who goes to shave after killing someone? What's director was implying with this?
-
registers-944-48791 — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 02:16 PM)
Killing him was a tough action, plus now he was alone with Michelle.
Either of those were a big milestone, and they were reached together. Shaving helped visually show that Howard's emotions were heavily touched. -
billytyner — 9 years ago(July 10, 2016 12:22 PM)
Yes, sooner or later, he would have killed her. He killed Emmett so suddenly in a flash of anger, she would have been in the same position too- I think he did kill the girl and held her hostage probably for the last 2 years. He was nuts. I almost think it might have been good of her to just kill him off and stay down there herself for a while while she figured things out.
-
LadyMiraculous — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 08:49 AM)
Well, he kidnapped a young woman and held her against her will. Not to mention killed his own daughter. So I assume he was bad.
Third-wave feminism is a hate movement, not a civil rights act
[Formerly CosmosX9] -
Ringworm7 — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 03:00 PM)
I think Howard was extremely confused, possibly mentally ill and not acting out on a normal healthy conscience. He had his own militaristic worldview and he stuck to it.
At the end of Cloverfield
we see a satellite drop into the ocean
and we know Howard's worked on satellites for years in the Navy. I'm thinking he is driven insane by a failure and also the guilt of not being able to keep his family where he can control and protect them.
7even days
-
joem420 — 9 years ago(July 24, 2016 12:43 AM)
This question sums up my problem with this moviefor the first 3/4 of the film the driving question is: "is howard good or is he bad"(aka is he right or wrong about the apocalypse)?
It's a bit of a cop out that the answer is: BOTH!
Clearly, howard was 1000% right about the "attack". He might have been wrong about some details (i.e. the air wasn't poisoned)but this was exactly they type of scenario his shelter was built for and an "attack" has definitely occurred. And Howard definitely was a "good Samaritan" when Emmett showed up at his door and he let Emmett in.
However, it is obvious that Howard kidnapped and murdered a girl in his bunker before the "attack" ever took place.
And it is unclear whether he kidnapped Michele in "cold blood" and then the attack just happened to occur.or if he told the truth that he accidentally ran her of the road as the attack was starting.
So, Howard is both correct about the attack and is protecting Michelle and Emmett from whatever is out there.and he is also a (sick? deranged? evil? delusional? all of the above? some of the above) individual who has kidnapped and murdered people before.
The movie tries to straddle the fence..and when you straddle the fence, you lose your balls.
I was entertained, but disappointed in the end. On a true 0-10, bell curve style scale (where '5' is average) I would give this flick a 6..aka above average, with a few highlights, but also a few disappointments.so decent, but nothing special. Glad I caw it..but even more glad I saw it for $5 on ppv instead of $12 on the big screen. -
arizonaangels — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 08:04 AM)
I thought about it in a way that he was just a sad and desperate man that had gone mad before and started prepping. I think he lost his real daughter a long time ago, maybe even by the hands of a bad man, seeing as he gets quite angry at the time when Emmet and Michelle touch hands at the table. He wanted to replace his little girl and keep her safe (he even keeps referring to Michelle as little girl during that game.. even saying little princess) and at the end he is really desperate for her to stay.
He might be insane but I don't think he is a bad person. He wanted to keep her safe and the fact that he reacted differently to Emmet was because he never wanted him there, he fought his way in and in that way intruded on this man and his plan to go into his shelter and just be there by himself. He took Michelle because he rammed her car and probably saw her and thought of Megan. -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 07:54 PM)
I thought about it in a way that he was just a sad and desperate man that had gone mad before and started prepping. I think he lost his real daughter a long time ago, maybe even by the hands of a bad man, seeing as he gets quite angry at the time when Emmet and Michelle touch hands at the table. He wanted to replace his little girl and keep her safe (he even keeps referring to Michelle as little girl during that game.. even saying little princess) and at the end he is really desperate for her to stay.
He might be insane but I don't think he is a bad person. He wanted to keep her safe and the fact that he reacted differently to Emmet was because he never wanted him there, he fought his way in and in that way intruded on this man and his plan to go into his shelter and just be there by himself. He took Michelle because he rammed her car and probably saw her and thought of Megan.
Agreed.
"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens -
truetexian — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 11:28 AM)
Ah, earth to slgr7, earth to slgr7!!
That you ask the question is disturbing.
Da, hell yeah Howard was 'bad'! Bat-sh*t crazy, but 'bad' just the same.
You do remember what happened to Emmett and who-done-it, don't you? -
ivyelle4 — 9 years ago(August 23, 2016 06:04 AM)
It's incorrect, IMO, to to say there's no evil, just degrees of mental illness and other's perception of 'evil acts'. There are truly horrible things that society as a whole condones. however, I do think that it's mostly true that "the victor writes the history". How many evil deeds were committed by our "heros", in the name of right. But who is right?
Various groups (religions, countries, races, clans, etc etc) have had centuries-long battles, both sides believing they are doing God's side. The people involved are doing horrible to others are either:
-completely evil and have no humanity (possible in some cases, but not likely)
-possessed by demons (hey, its possible. I watch Supernatural lol)
-completely believe they are doing the right thing to protect their people from the "other" (who is doing the same thing for their side) but neither heinous act is done out of malice, just "protection" of their people, or following orders. This accounts for most military or police, I guess. Generally are psychologically normal people, but convinced by their leaders that the other is a bad person and they are simply defending themselves. This is the gray area. I think what the one person above was saying about Hitler wasn't inaccurate. We believe him to be pure evil because that's what we've been told. Not to say he wasn't pure evil, but if they had won the war, there definitely would be a different slant on the guy. How do we, as Americans, idolize "cowboys" or our military when the Native Americans think of them as evil aggressors? And the military personnel heard of the "Indians" as savages that will scalp soldiers. An entire, huge group of people got lumped together as "savages", when they had limited contact with other tribes across the nation. Similarly, the Jewish people were blamed unrightly for WW1 which made the Germans band behind the Nazis and were easily swayed by their propaganda.
This has happened for all of history, of various propaganda and "righteous acts against aggressors".
Anyway. Cloverfield. What were we talking about? Lol -
C-Younkin — 9 years ago(August 31, 2016 11:29 AM)
You can't tell and that is was made him great- the complexity Goodman brought here was fantastic. Still the year's best performance.
Trying to create a funny, engaging YouTube channel. If you guys check it out, hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance.
Review of the film here- -
saintmarsh — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 08:38 PM)
He was dangerous and thus had to go. He happened to be right about the world but she wasn't given a choice to survive he took her and kept reminding him that she should be gracious. He was ill which isn't his fault but he definitely hurt people therefore he couldn't continue on.