by - MisterMovieMan on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:30:52
Spoilers Here
ARE PEOPLE ON HERE REALLY DEBATING THIS SCENE???
He wasn't DEAD or a ZOMBIE. He was shot with a riot gun, which blinded him, didn't kill him.
Wow ^^^ just wow. You do realise that any projectile is lethal if you get past a certain velocity right? The cop should have been dead or severly brain damaged if he was shot that close in reality.
I know this is just a movie but that cop scene was really terrible executed, it was way over the top.
Last - all these complaints about not calling for backup. SERIOUSLY?! Most of the police in the city are busy with riots in the area as the movie explains earlier. When the policemen hear the shots they immediately rush in to assess the situation and help stop whatever is going on, knowing that if a gun has already been shot, backup would take far too long to arrive anyway. Any policeman's job in any country is to uphold their laws as well as save lives.
It's standard protocoll to call in backup and to verify your last known position, since you don't seem to grasp a basic police routine, i'll just let you google it or better ask a REAL police officer as to why they call in the position and/or ask for backup.
This whole post is ludicrous to me. These few instances receiving complaints are very obvious during the film. If you have this much difficulty figuring things out please just watch TV shows like CSI etc. that hand nearly every detail out to you on a silver platter. Sheesh.
I'm not even gonna argue with you on this one since "I consider this a modern classic, not just for it's extemely violent aspects."
"Wait!" "Worry" "Who Cares?"
www.alienexperience.com
tiwwa.info/

Nice rant..
I would follow up with my own but all i have to say is that scene looked stupid no matter if he was a Zombie or blinded. It never fit in with the rest of the film and ruined it.

Spoilers Here
ARE PEOPLE ON HERE REALLY DEBATING THIS SCENE???
He wasn't DEAD or a ZOMBIE. He was shot with a riot gun, which blinded him, didn't kill him.
You are meant to believe he was dead for the later surprise! He does fumble around a bit, feels the light switch and turns it on hoping to see something as he hears a noise. When he realizes he still can't see, even with the lights on, he panics and swings hoping to hurt the killer. Not difficult to understand.
He may have a major concussion or minor brain damage but he knows his own life is in danger from the previous brutatlity done to him and the carnage he saw throughout the house. For all he knows, the woman who had already committed several murders, has killed everyone and has noticed him and returned to finish him off. He has survival instincts just like most any human being has when their life is threatened. The body can suffer quite a lot while you still fight to survive. It happens every day, throughout this violent world, in humans as well as other creatures! These survival instincts are especially true for the lead of the film who endures even more attrocities to her body than the policeman did (prior to the last attrocity of course).
The fact that he hits her belly while swinging, causing her to start giving birth is not contrivance for more gore or an ending. Utter nonsense! Read below:

1. The film has an escalating pattern of violence that grows more and more brutal until the last act sending the film into outrageous violence. Violence like this is meant to make you cringe, become shocked, chuckle while being uncomfortable or cheer depending on the individual who is watching. This film is a true test for audiences with it's realistic and unrelenting brutality. Film violence, not real violence, is often enjoyed by most people and this is even explored in films such as History of Violence and other anti-violence films that still often provoke cheers from audiences when violence occurs. The simple fact is, most people enjoy watching it. This film tries to test audiences taking a scenario that Hollywood wouldn't even touch and bringing it to an ugly, extremely violent level to elicit any kind of reaction out of it's audience. People who like horror films do like to be entertained or enthralled in some way after all. Unlike most "torture porn" films (as people refer to them) Inside also manages to ratchet up a lot of atmosphere, dread, and tension/suspense. Most movies that try to be this violent end up not being scary or not having even half of those other elements at all. The last image of this film is forever stuck in my head, though, and I consider this a modern classic, not just for it's extemely violent aspects.
   AND
2. The police offer hitting her belly is obviously meant to be IRONY! Ever heard of it? He ran into to the house to protect the very woman whom he ends up unintentionally leading towards her demise simply by trying to protect himself!
   Last - all these complaints about not calling for backup. SERIOUSLY?! Most of the police in the city are busy with riots in the area as the movie explains earlier. When the policemen hear the shots they immediately rush in to assess the situation and help stop whatever is going on, knowing that if a gun has already been shot, backup would take far too long to arrive anyway. Any policeman's job in any country is to uphold their laws as well as save lives.
   This whole post is ludicrous to me. These few instances receiving complaints are very obvious during the film. If you have this much difficulty figuring things out please just watch TV shows like CSI etc. that hand nearly every detail out to you on a silver platter. Sheesh.

It looked like a riot control gun of some kind, rubber bullets/beanbag gun, it would mess you up but probably not kill you.
However, anyone who denies it being out of place is deluded. They could have handled it a lot better with just a small amount of change to portray him as being concussed/blind.
For starters, show less of a gaping hole when the camera flashes on the bodies, this way people dont think he's dead (I suppose that was the idea but you could still show a bloody wound, just less of a hole to still make him seem dead), and show one of his eyes all bloodied, blindness in one eye and a major concussion = more realistic.
Then when you see him flick the switch, have him stumbling a bit, grasping his head as if he's dazed, having him standing perfectly still then turning towards them is such a zombie movie cliche that it added to the impression of him being a zombie tenfold.
And finally, show a first person shot, a blinding light and then the figure of Sarah appearing, just an outline and the weapon she's holding, so he wouldnt know who this was just that they had a weapon. This would give a much clearer indication as to why he goes ape s*** and would show he's not a zombie just somebody who's dazed and confused.

Perhaps it was his cop instinct kicking in - switching on the lights was the last thing he had tried to do when he got shot. His damaged brain wanted to complete the task at hand. Partially blinded, he could have easily mistaken Sarah for La Femme, and to be honest her stomach was the largest thing about her - hard to miss.
Visually I think the director was messing with the audience a bit, throwing the zombie effect in to cause some debate and shake things up.
There's been a bit of discussion about why the cops didn't call for back-up - it sounds like all their law enforcement officers were out dealing with the riots and whilst I don't think that's an excuse - in real life they would call for back up and an ambulance immediately on hearing gunshots(and they wouldn't take a perp onto the scene) - the writer/director built this idea of the police force being spread too thin which justifies it on a weak level. They seemed like backwater cops, ill-equipped to deal with anything past minor break-ins, apart from the bald cop. For example - why even bothering to switch the circuit breakers back on? I would have radio'd for an ambulance and sat in the dark with the gun pointed at the door until more help arrived.
That plot point was weak, however the whole movie had some highly graphic moments and I think the writer had these in his head and the plot was hinged around it.
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

If he was blinded, how would he know if the lights were on or off? Actually if you awoke from unconsciousness and were blind I guess the first thing you'd do would be to look for lights to turn on, to check if you were blinded or if it's was just dark. Answered my own question there
I did think this scene wasn't appropriate and didn't fit with the atmosphere of the rest of the movie. I still thought it was really good though.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

Because the movie is beep stupid. The guy had pretty much a crater in his skull.
''Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

This message has been deleted.

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.

It was not a real gun. It was some crowd control, non-lethal type of gun. And she shot him twice in the eyes. Best scene of the movie.

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.

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.

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. ^^

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/