I think Grainey was just a lonely and cranky old man who wanted to be left alone. Plenty of people are like that. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person but can be cause for people to speculate about you. Because Grainey was cranky it supported Ethan's account of him so that his friend believed him.
Agreed.
It's important to note that at the end we learn that his wife died 12 years before the events of the movie. That means that Ethan was about 4 or 5 when it happened and wasn't really around to witness any of the stuff he claims about the man.
The dog-killing thing sounds to me like the kind of rumors that kids make up about creepy neighbors.

I don't believe he killed a dog. Considering the other accusations were baseless, I'd say the dog one was too. I think Grainey was just a lonely and cranky old man who wanted to be left alone. Plenty of people are like that. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person but can be cause for people to speculate about you. Because Grainey was cranky it supported Ethan's account of him so that his friend believed him.

Really? 10,000 years of societal norms?!?! That is hilarious! Nothing is recent. People throughout your 10,000 year history have been killed for much less than killing a dog.
And yes everyone "judges" in some wayjust like you're doing with me.
Yeah that was my point. People have different moral codes. Just because they are not an exact match to yours does not mean they are askew. Maybe yours are askew.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

"askew form what? Yours?"
Oh, say 10,000 years of societal norms, not this "blink of an eye" recent amoral relativism you evidently espouse. And yes everyone "judges" in some wayjust like you're doing with me.

askew form what? Yours?
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

As much as I love animals, esp dogs, I don't think someone who killed a dog, which is about as scumbag as one can sink,deserves to die for it. Thinking that is definitely a sign you have your priorities askew.

Right before he gave his wife the bell as a gift he tells her that her garden is holding up great. He treasured everything of hers and didn't want a dog to use it as a restroomI don't blame him and I don't believe he'd ever hurt a dog.

I love all of the dog defenders on here! Even though I'm against violence I understand the sentiment of thinking he got what he deserved if he had killed a dog.

LOL! I actually agree with you, given that my own dogs are quite precious to me, & what they did to the old man, reckless though it might have been, doesn't amount to actual violence. If he had killed a dog it would have been mild retribution at best.
But I agree with those who say he neither killed the dog nor beat his wife. Those were projections from the teen, more likely attributable to his own father. The old man didn't deserve what befell him. Circumstances, tragedy & his own reaction to it, however, made it difficult for his contemporary neighbors to empathize with him.
That's what made the boys' actions so utterly recklessplaying what was essentially a prank on someone particularly vulnerable to its machinations.
If the more sensible of the two hadn't been a newcomer to the neighborhood he have had a better sense of who the old man was, why he was the way he was & chosen a different target. But of course that wouldn't have suited his partner.
Reminds me of an early 60s potboiler-type film with John Ireland & Joan Crawford in which teen girls call up people at random saying "I saw what you did & I know who you are!", just a prank until they happen to ring a guy who just strangled his wife.

All you knobs saying that he wouldn't have deserved violent repercussions for poisoning an innocent creature that someone loved as part of their family are probably the same sadists that leave dogs outside to freeze because "they're not people". Yes, I'm aware that dogs are not people, but if the law started treating them as such, then maybe there wouldn't be so many starved, beaten, neglected and abandoned pets in the streets. Viewing domesticated animals as disposable, and their abusers as anything other than evil, sadistic piles of crap makes you no better than them. Shame on you. Also, I don't give a flying beep what you think of me.

It's made quite clear that he was actually just a lonely old man; not some mad psycho the kids thought he was. It's more likely that it was either rumours or Ethan exaggerating/ making stuff up.

you are correct does are not people - they are are better than most people. And FYI - If anyone harmed my pets - they would be done for.

My uncle killed his dog so I lost any respect for him and don't associate with him (then again I never did). So you think it would be justified if his sister (my mom, who takes care of dogs and cats) or any of my other aunts (who are great people) were killed for his actions? I love animals. I love animals so much that I can't even eat any animal at all, including fish. I have rescued a lot of dogs and cats. I currently take care of quite a few dogs and cats. I should not be punished for my uncle's actions. You need a psychiatrist.

And yes, I'm proud to be one of those. A person can be measured by how the weaker are treated. Dogs are loyal and affectionate and will give their lives for us. And they're just about powerless against us.

Seriously that is a really dumb thing to say, and I'm not saying that to try to insult you, it's the truth.
I understand the view that humans aren't innocent, and that no animal is worth any more or less than any other so humans aren't more valuable than a dog, and I can pretty much agree with that.
But why would you take someone who kills an animal, have nothing happen to them (if they really are so terrible than they may not even care much about their loved ones death because they're beep people) and instead kill possibly the greatest animal lover in the world that will commit their life to saving animals? This sounds utterly ridiculous and makes no sense. You are basically killing more animals yourself if that's what you'd do. Leave all of the people who kill animals or hurt/abuse other living things alive and well and kill all of the innocent people that are possibly doing exactly what you want them to do with their lives.
Stupidity at its finest. That is not an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye means the same thing is done back. That would be killing the person that killed the dog. And I can almost 100% guarantee you a loved one of yours has killed an animal at some point in their life. You are basically admitting you therefore deserve to die (but then you say it would suck if that happened right after). Even though you sound like someone who wants to help others. I hope you never do take action or have any sort of responsibility if you seriously think this through and decide that's a good idea. I can't even express how idiotic you sound.

You are an idiot. Terminate yourself so we have one less worthless human.

thank you for posting a thoughtful, measured disagreement. That is rare on IMDb.
I've never found humans to be innocent (yes, even kids. i don't wish anyone generally any harm, but I don't find humans to be particularly special creatures either. We all kinda suck.). And if it helped get the word out to dog killers and abusers what would happen to them, then yes I'd be happy if society took a few loved ones from the abuser/killer. Yes, the logistics of that would be concerning, but the concept to me is excellent.
You're correct that I'd be a terrible vigilante. I've never been in a fight even. But the thought of this particular brand of an eye for an eye is appealing to me. Of course, it would suck if one of MY loved ones turned out to be a closet animal abuser

So an innocent human, who did not kill the dog, should be killed? So the mother and sisters and brothers who lose said innocent human should suffer? Because of the actual dog killer? Please don't become a vigilante. You would be very bad at it.

People are not innately more valuable than dogs. I would say that humans are LESS worthy than dogs, actually. So yes, if someone randomly and purposely kills a dog, I would be happy to have one of their human loved ones put to death, in front of the dog killer.

Oh, you're one of those. Yawn.
No, he didn't kill a beep dog. It's a rumor. It was obvious it was just something one kid heard and the other was quick to affirm because he hated the old man.
That aside, if you think someone deserves to die because they once killed a dog, then your own sense of proportion is severely twisted. Grow up. Dogs aren't people. This isn't a Disney movie.

I doubt he killed a dog. He wasn't beating his wife like they said so why would the dog thing be true? Threatening to chop up the neighbors dog was probably just an empty threat. It's a real piss off having random dogs crapping and peeing all over your lawn plus the dog was right up at him barking at him in his own driveway. That was an irresponsible owner that needed to hear a threat to get his nuisance dog under control.

Well said RidiculousPasta

What is it about this movie that brings you deranged psychos thinking you were watching torture porn?
No the old man didn't deserve any of it. And no killing a dog doesn't mean you should be driven insane you beep moron.

Also, I think he was very protective of the cat his wife adored so much, which would perhaps explain his hostility to dogs.
But I don't think he killed any dogs. That seemed to be the product of Ethan's fertile and vengeful imagination.