I root for the 'bad guy'
-
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.
-
gpapa1998-24-961204 — 11 years ago(June 07, 2014 08:14 AM)
I totally agree. General Hummel is not a bad guy but he just wanted to get his point across. To be honest I didn't like the plot of this movie. I would never watch this movie again. I also rooted for the bad guy.
-
SamusPirate — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 01:40 PM)
Hummel was meant to be sympathetic and relatable. Hence why he is not taken out by Goodspeed or Mason, but by the real villains of the movie: Darrow and Fry.
I also wished while watching the flick that the government would just pay up. I know they have that "don't negotiate with terrorists" policy, but it is remarkable that they would be prepared to kill 81 hostages to uphold that policy. -
Josh_The_Third — 10 years ago(June 06, 2015 02:11 AM)
I re-watched the movie today on TV randomly, and thought this exactly.
well, I wasn't rooting for Hummel, but I thought paying the 100 million should have been plan C. Once the 24 hours ended and you are left with no other options, in reality, how could you NOT PAY and let the whole city die? don't buy it. You can take into account it's illegal money, not taken from citizens, plus you can deduct the (maybe) millions it took to run this mission- the aircraft, the special missiles, preparations, the sarin gas itself, the prison. Paying the families of the dead. Just nitpicking here of course. No need to prove the movie is unrealistic. But it's a lot of fun anyway! I especially love how Cage is always playing the same dude in all movies - Even when he is given the "calm scientist" role, he finds a way to get crazy and say some very ridiculous lines. -
mywhychromosome — 10 years ago(August 09, 2015 09:08 PM)
I think Harris being a "villain with a just cause" actually adds to the movie, makes it interesting. I totally get why some people found it made them feel confused or off-put, especially when compared to a typical "MWAHAHAHA NOW EVIL SHALL REIGN!" type of villain, but I consider that element a plus, not a minus
-
NikolajCostas1005 — 10 years ago(October 03, 2015 12:38 PM)
You nailed it. The Mason / Womack situation also supported this idea. I hate to give Bay movie credit, but as you said this is an action movie that actually has a fairly dimensional story to it.
See you in hell, candy boys! -
Z_daryang — 10 years ago(December 10, 2015 11:06 PM)
What upsets me the most is that it wasn't even that outrageous of a demand. 100 million dollars 1 million to each of the 83 soldiers that were unrecognized. 1 million dollars is about give or take 10 years of salary plus benefits, which their family definitely deserved. The government probably blew that much on how much the operation ended up costing, three helicopters, submersible vehicles, an entire mobile FBI base, F/A-18s with thermite plasma missles, not to mentions the WMD VX-gas missles that they could recover, oh and the partially destroyed San Fransisco that Mason created. Should of just paid General Hummel.
chiggity-check yourself, before you wreck yourself -
Kawada_Kira — 10 years ago(January 16, 2016 03:50 AM)
I think threatening a city full of people with chemical weapons does make him a bad guy. Even if he didn't intend to go through with it. Plus there's the fact that he brought a bunch of psychopaths along with him who did.
I actually think he was a bad guy when he did the black ops. What he did at Alcatraz was nothing more than bringing back home the same violence (in general, though not with the same weapons) he visited on the people of Laos, China, Vietnam, etc etc etc. Only difference being that in this case he didn't intend to actually go through with it. It doesn't suddenly become bad just because he was now threatening Americans with it.
The US government and Hummel were both the bad guys. And the US government wasn't bad only because it covered up its criminal actions and refused to compensate the families of the soldiers who engaged in them, but because it had engaged in those actions in the first place.
I would have sympathized with Hummel if his aim was to expose the US's crimes against the people of the rest of the world. Also if he wasn't threatening a city full of civilians with chemical weapons in the hands of a gang of unhinged maniacs.
However, I also agree with other posters here that the US government should have just paid Hummel the f-cking money. The safety of the civilian population is more important by leaps and bounds than the US government's macho pride. -
paulioetc17 — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 05:12 PM)
However, I also agree with other posters here that the US government should have just paid Hummel the f-cking money. The safety of the civilian population is more important by leaps and bounds than the US government's macho pride.
The thing it doesn't change the fact they illegally seize Alcatraz, took civilians hostage, and demands that the United States government submit to Hummel's demand. That makes them terrorists. Whether you like the U.S. government or not, America doesn't condone senseless violence especially the taking of hostages as a way to purport a political change. I don't like how the U.S. government handled its things when not paying the families of 83 dead American Marines, but violence cannot be the way to settle scores. That's the reason why we have lawsuits and negotiation in order to settle things, which could take years, but to achieve the same effect. The policy is that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk. You're just going to give into them more and more you cave into someone's demand. And absolutely no way would any sensible government do that because it would be open season for all Americans.