I root for the 'bad guy'
-
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. -
cccl350 — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 08:30 AM)
The movie had good acting, decent and not too over-the-top action,
Are you serious??
The whole movie is over the top. The action scenes where extravagant. Probably not so much nowadays with all the desensitizing cgi crap-fest of the last 15yrs, but at the time it was awesome.
The Hummer/Ferrari chase in SF, the F-18s flying under the Golden Gate bridge, the graphic death scenes (rocket man getting impaled, AC unit crushing the marine w/ blown off toes, etc.), The shower scene, The number of explosions in general, etc, etc
Also, the US has a policy of not giving into terrorist demands. The ransom was never going to get paid. -
Legendary_Badass — 10 years ago(March 08, 2016 11:50 PM)
I commend this action film for having an antagonist with layers. He has a noble goal, but gets the ball rolling in a dangerous manner in which he loses control of it while the government suits are the ones casually ordering for deaths.
THE MOST ORIGINAL YOUTUBE CHANNEL YOU'RE NOT WATCHING:
http://bit.ly/1pPzoBc -
The_paranoid_android — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 04:47 PM)
It was the government and the mercenaries who were in the wrong. Men who have no respect principles or morals, especially for soldiers who live and die for causes that they believe are greater than them rather than just for fame, money, or power.