Man on Fire : Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Anyone else get a little fed up with Creasy's torture and murders? The guy tortures people for information and then kills them even when they tell him what he wants to know.

There's also the part where he pushes Pita's father to kill himself. Yeah I know he was a scumbag who was in on the kidnapping, but why not just get him arrested now that the truth is out? Instead he does everything he can to deprive Pita of a father. Way to show your dedication to the kid there, Creasy.

By the end of the film, I was rooting for the bad guys to kill Creasy. Really, he wasn't any different then they were, the only difference was we were supposed to put up with his atrocities on grounds of being the protagonist.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

The real world is more brutal than movies.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

You're not actually going to claim this movie is an accurate representation of the real world, are you?

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

The real world is brutal, movies are fantasies.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

I should have replied he's not supposed to be a hero. He is a former assassin who lost himself and pita made him care again. You deal with people like the bad guys like in this movie there is no room for compassion or feeling, do think making nice will make people nice? You can't negotiate with people who want to kill you.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

"He is a former assassin who lost himself and pita made him care again"

But that's the thing, to me it just seems like his relationship with Pita only made him worse, as it provided a convenient justification for all his atrocities. It didn't actually reform him at all.

Really it's a shame he died at the end because I would have loved seeing him explain to Pita why she no longer has a father. Try to make him seem sympathetic while he's doing that.

"do think making nice will make people nice? You can't negotiate with people who want to kill you."

I didn't say he had to be nice to the kidnappers. Just not torturing or killing them shouldn't be too much to ask. At the very least, he should have turned them over to the cops once he got the information he needed instead of killing them. Action movie stars need to have at least some restraint.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

He wouldn't have had to interact with/kill anyone if they hadn't been trying to kidnap Pita.

He's protecting her. His atrocities were done as a retaliation to their actions.

He was not initiating ANYTHING. His job was to protect Pita from people who wanted to harm her and he did his job. He went the extra mile in trying to get her back safely with her family.

If he turned the kidnappers over to the police they wouldn't have done anything.

I think the movie did a good job explaining that the entire police system was corrupt and could not be trusted.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

It's a movie. Who cares

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Well, that's how it works. Simply. What would have happen, if he let one of them lived? Go quiet and not warn the others?

Yes, he tortured people; For information. He killed them, when he got the info he needed. He could have made it much, much more brutal. He could have kept tortured them to death, after been giving the necessary info. They got the priceless gift of a quick death, after he got the info.

It wasn't Creasys mistake, that they didn't want to give it. They all knew exactly what was gonna happen, if they didn't give the information right away. But they didn't. How is that Creasys fault? This is how it works. You pay for what you've done. But they couldn't be charged because of the level of corruption and go to prison anyway.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys


What would have happen, if he let one of them lived? Go quiet and not warn the others?



You act as though the trail of mutilated corpses he's leaving behind don't provide the exact same type of warning his victims would if he let them live.


Yes, he tortured people; For information. He killed them, when he got the info he needed. He could have made it much, much more brutal. He could have kept tortured them to death, after been giving the necessary info. They got the priceless gift of a quick death, after he got the info.


So that makes it okay? Come on that's a pretty lame rationalization. Obviously he should have just turned them over to the cops once he got what he wanted. Action stars need to have some restraint. They can't just be the same as the people they are fighting and still maintain sympathy from the audience.


It wasn't Creasys mistake, that they didn't want to give it.


Well seeing as giving up the information didn't stop him from murdering them, I'd say it wasn't a mistake at all.


How is that Creasys fault?


Because he's supposed to be better then them. He's not supposed to be acting the same way they did.

I'm not saying the film makers had to make him a saint, but they ended up making him look more evil then a freaking Bond Villain, yet they still acted like he was the hero we should be cheering for.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

How do you quote like that? Oh well..

Obviously he should have just turned them over to the cops once he got what he wanted
They are the cops!!!

You're talking like a lawyer, that want justice in the court, where it isn't possible.
This is personal vengeance. They kidnapped an innocent, little girl.

Because he's supposed to be better then them.
They can't just be the same as the people they are fighting and still maintain sympathy from the audience.


He maintain sympathy from the audience, because they (we, us) think it's fair.
If the audience didn't agree, the movie would just have a crappy rating.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

How do you quote like that? Oh well..

Obviously he should have just turned them over to the cops once he got what he wanted
They are the cops!!

You're talking like a lawyer, that want justice in the court, where it isn't possible.
"This is why we have a court of law. So people don't take matters into their own hands; They should go to prison for their acts, not killed on the street because it is personal".

There is no court...
This is personal vengeance. They kidnapped an innocent, little girl.

Because he's supposed to be better then them.
They can't just be the same as the people they are fighting and still maintain sympathy from the audience.


He maintain sympathy from the audience, because they (we, us) think it's fair.
If the audience didn't agree, the movie would just have a crappy rating...
Don't you get that?

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

You can just use the quote feature above the dialog box

If I recall correctly, only one of the people he tortured and then murdered was a dirty cop. Anyway I just couldn't get behind a "hero" who acts just like the bad guys and gets by only due to his "hero insurance"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroInsurance

I especially didn't like it here because the whole point of the movie was supposed to be how Pita brought Creasy back from the brink and made him appreciate life again.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

I could have shortened it down, but wrote this first. The important part is at the bottom.

I looked your link over, but... what's your point? Honestly. I know what you mean when you say the "hero", is just as bad as the bad guys, I don't need a wiki site to tell me that... It feels like you're trying to spread a word out.
Well.. I'd say it was torture when, the corrupt (who made all of this happen in the first place), main head of the anti-kidnapping division, Victor Fuentes had a bomb up his ass. He was unconscious, though.

But in all honestly, in real life; What are you supposed to do, when the authorities are way beyond corruptness, that they'd easily have a kill order issued on Creasy?

You said "Hand them over to the police". This was nothing but the police. Well, almost, but the entire network circles around them.
All the dead men (which is 4), that Creasy killed were police officers.
Have them at trial in a court that doesn't exist - at all? Or have all the other criminals, that participate in this, at trial again - in a court that doesn't exist anyway?

Let's set a scenario;
You're in this very same corrupt world, same cops, criminals, everything; No court - no criminal (incl. cops) can be prosecuted.
The closest person to you gets killed - in front of your own eyes - someone totally innocent, that you love. If you had the abilities, the tools and skills, would you not do something about it?
That's a bad feeling, right?
Imagine just a blink of that genuine (remember that; Genuine) feeling, if it actually happened. I do believe, that you would act in a similar way.
Add to this, that you have absolutely nothing to lose; No job, marriage, kids, house, car, money.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

When you brought up the cops killed by Creasy, you seemed to be counting the corrupt ones he killed in the initial shootout during the kidnapping. I wasn't talking about them (or anyone else he was forced to kill in self defense or to try and prevent the kidnapping). I'm totally cool with that. That's how an action movie goes. You expect the hero to kill people who are actively trying to kill him.

I was specifically talking about the people he tortured and murdered after they were no longer a threat to him. As I recall, only one of those was a dirty cop. The rest were just basic gangsters. I'm sure the cops would have taken care of them just fine. Remember the movie ends stating that the "Big Bad" is eventually gunned down the police. So obviously the police were not all corrupt.

To answer your question, if I had the skills and abilities to track down the kidnapper/killers, maybe I would do it, but if I had rendered them tied up and no longer a threat, wouldn't torture them by cutting off body parts or shoving bombs up their asses. That kind of stuff is too sick for your average Bond villain. And I certainly wouldn't kill them after they gave me what I wanted. That would defeat the whole purpose of interrogation and make me no better then they were.

You know what I would have liked? If Creasy was in the process of doing those things, but then thinking of Pita made him stop and realize what a monster he'd be if he went through with it. But nope, turns out Pita didn't really help him recover or reform after all. He's still a sadistic lunatic, the only difference is he has a convenient outlet for his rage.

At the very least, if he's going to be taking these actions, the film should have treated him more like Clyde from "Law Abiding Citizen": Sympathetic, but horribly misguided. Instead the film made it seem like there was nothing wrong with what he was doing.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

All right, fair answer about the scenario thing!

Actually, he only tortured 2 people. The guy on the cliff, with the fingers was also a cop. An extremely brutal one, but also stupidly persistent. Creasy told him right away
"I'm going to ask questions. If you don't answer truthfully, you'll undergo much more pain than you actually have to".

Isn't it possible that the "sadistic" term could be divided in two?
A truly sadistic person enjoys anyones scream, and far from not least, get aroused by it.
That's a sadistic person. Ok, lets cut the "aroused" part off, but "enjoying anyones scream" stands. That's the type that goes off of to a mental prison.

Creasy is not enjoying it in the same way, but! By doing this, he gets his payback. He makes them suffer, like they made him suffer. And there is still a difference; He has a grudge. A big one, that they created.
If Pita wasn't kidnapped, there wouldn't be a grudge, no murder, neither torture.

He killed them after he got the information, that he needed.
If he really wanted to, he could have made them suffer much, much worse. If he did continue, they'd welcome death as a precious gift.

This is why torture exist! To get information from people, that is required to know, but under any other circumstances won't give it to you. He would never meet the requirements, for going to some mental facility.

When referring to the "non-corrupt" police, you mean the AFI.
It is clearly stated, how corrupt the police actually, during the press conference, with Creasy in the hospital bed, police officers and the police chief, with the AFI director and the journalist in the background.

Creasys contact was the journalist. Her contact was the AFI. And they never crossed paths. Who should he have handed them over to? He had no idea who her contact was.

The AFI knew very well what Creasy did, and most importantly what he was going to do. This is clearly stated during the conversation with Rayburn and the AFI director.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

You're forgetting part at the end where Creasy invades the guy's house, threatens his wife (who didn't seem to be in on the criminal activity), and then blows off his hand with a shotgun for absolutely no reason. I'd love to hear you try to justify that. That wasn't for the purpose of getting information. That would seem to prove Creasy is a sadist. I'm sure he would have killed the guy too if he hadn't discovered he needed him for leverage since Pita turned out to still be alive.

Also, you gotta be a sadist to shove a bomb up someone's rectum, since if you are just going to threaten to kill them for information and then kill them later, a gun would have done the job just as effectively.

I didn't say that the bad guys in this film were nice people, just that's it's not okay to torture them through permanent mutilation and then murder them simply because someone is established as a "hero".

Did Creasy ever tell AFI director he was going to torture them in the most horrific away imaginable and then murder them even if they gave him what they wanted? I didn't remember that.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

I'm not forgetting it at all :)


Did Creasy ever tell AFI director he was going to torture them in the most horrific away imaginable and then murder them even if they gave him what


The only conversation Creasy ever had with the AFI director, was at the animal hospital. He showed him mug shots of corrupt cops. He denied seeing any of them, but Creasy recognized the guy, that he cuts his fingers off later. That was the only conversation they had.
But do you really think, that the AFI director, not only assumed it, but was interiorly sure of it? It's like I said earlier; It's necessary to make use of torture, to get information from people, that under any other circumstances would refuse to give away?

torture them in the most horrific away imaginable

Oh, come on! He got about 4 fingers and an ear cut off.
But it was his own fault.
Creasy told him very clearly from the beginning; "I'm gonna ask you questions. If you don't answer truthfully, you'll undergo more pain, than you actually has to". That wasn't a lie. He didn't answer the questions, and suffered more, by his own very choice. Also remember; This wasn't any guy. This guy was at the very same scene, when Pita got kidnapped. In all honesty, Creasy let him go off cheap.
But... Are you thinking that this movie should be marked as horror, because of the torture seen?

One more thing that should be taken into mind, is that Creasy know, that Pita is actually dead. The reason that she should still be alive is unthinkable. The FBI rule, for kidnappings is 24 hours; Then there isn't much hope left.

Whenever we see him with a new bad guy;
Every single one of them says; "I'm just a professional, I'm just a professional". Pita is still the very center of his heart, but the deeper he gets in, the more he's thinking about the other children. It may not seem like it, but he is aware that many other children has been killed by this or if they're lucky, getting out, very traumatised.
This isn't just about avenging Pita anymore. Esp. when he find that child, Camille, at the night club, it takes him further.

Just take a few seconds and think about it. It's like I said; If he really wanted to go at it, he could make them suffer so much, that they'd imagine the most precious gift they could was; Death. They wouldn't beg for gods mercy; they'd beg to killed. Look, I'm no psycho, but I do think you know that. It's not imagining torture; It's just a quick look at the human body. All the part, that it consists off. It hurts just if you scratch your knee, right?
Creasy was totally honestly with the[/quote]permanent mutilation[/quote]I do clearly see your point, but he was gonna kill them anyway. He should just have broken every bone in his body, instead of cutting his fingers off, right?

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken a bit; These actions did not occur in that order.

He knew the house he invaded, would belong to either Daniel, (the very head of the entire La Hermandad organisation), Daniels brother Aurelio (who can only be assumed to be 2nd in command) or Daniels wife.
If you breaks into a house belonging to the head of an organisation, that protects every corrupt cop and every corrupt politician?

threatens his wife (who didn't seem to be in on the criminal activity)
How could he not know, that if you're Daniels wife, it is literally impossible not to be involved in crimes.

Would you not point your gun at anyone, who might seem to take position, where a gun could very possible be? He never laid a finger on her, even though she was pretty hostile towards him. Of course, she was pregnant, but he wouldn't harm her even so. He would, but definitely only as a last resort. He simply pointed the gun at her, to make her sit down, so she couldn't make the possible move for a gun. That has nothing to do with actually firing the gun, does it?
Remember, at the club? He didn't kill the woman there either.
Would any police force, smashing a door in, not point their gun at any pregnant woman?

Aurelio, the 2nd in command of a major crime organisation, didn't actually get his fingers blown off, until Creasy talked with Daniel.

Creasy got furious, absolutely furious, when Daniel asked Creasy how much money he wanted, to just simply go away.
That was an "no need to clarify" statement; I have your brother and your pregnant wife; I don't want your money under any circumstances, I want you, Daniel!! I want you!!
That's the time, when Daniel told them, that Pita was alive. Creasy traded his life for hers.

And.... Yes, of course he would have killed his brother. The 2nd in command of La Hermandad, the organisation he's been tracking down during all of this.

But yes.. That C4 expolsive in Lieutenant Victor Fuentez ass is really, really wierd!

As a former CIA assassin, Creasy has seen a lot of things. But doing this don't fit his psychosocial profile. I do think this is more a question, that Tony Scott should answer.

Creasy isn't sadistic in the way. I do below you know. Honestly, really. I'm not defending Creasy now, in terms of the movie.
If he was sadistic in this way, why would he let any of these guys die so early?
In the car, at the cliff; He had a lot of time to go further with his torture. If he was sadistic like that, there is no possible chance, that he would let him go that easy. Would a sadistic killer let his victim go, who he has massive personal hate against, letting die with only 4 fingers and an ear cut off? He even got off with a peaceful death. He could have abandoned him, in the heat with no water and such.

That place was totally abandoned. No one would turn up there. Nobody in the world could hear him scream. If he was sadistic like that, do you suppose, that a nutjob like some mad serial killer, would let go of this victim, strapped to a seat, where he could toy with him as he wanted?
He ain't no Ted Bundy or someone, that just kills random people because he enjoys it.
Considering he was, he would have been killed by the CIA long ago anyway. An assassin is never supposed to be seen.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

I'm sorry, but "he could have tortured them worse" is hardly a defense of Creasy's conduct. Sure, there is always something that technically could be worse then what he's doing, but you could pretty much say that about anything anyone ever does. The torture he did inflict was pretty horrific, regardless of how much worse it could have been.

And like I said, it wasn't all just for information. He blew that one guy's hand off with a shotgun for pretty much no reason at all. There is also the case of him killing with victim with a bomb up his ass, even though a simple gunshot would have served the same purpose.

And then of course there is the issue of him still killing them after they give him what he wants.

So Creasy didn't actually tell the AFI director he was going horrifically torture his victims and then kill them even if he got what he wanted. That clears that up.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

So to you it, would make little difference if he cut off those 4 fingers and the ear or all 10 fingers and the ear? (Just for starters).
If you watch that particular scene, you'll see that it is to make a very clear statement, whatever you might think of Creasy, that money is none of his concern?

And then of course there is the issue of him still killing them after they give him what he wants.
What? No. After he shot his fingers off, Daniel suggested, if Creasy was willing to trade his life for his brother and Pita. Creasy accepted. They went to a bridge. Lisa hold Aurelio, until Pita was with her, and let him loose. Creasy was walking on the bridge. Unarmed. Creasy went with them.
The deal was kept.

For that matter, the 2nd in command of an extremely powerful mafia, who has kidnapped hundreds of children and committed thousands of horrible crimes, directly responsible for traumatizing many thousands of people for the rest of their life, of is simply a "victim"?



So Creasy didn't actually tell the AFI director he was going horrifically torture his victims and then kill them even if he got what he wanted.

No. Rayburn told the AFI what he was gonna do. The directer knew from the beginning, that this was by far their best chance, to clean up the streets. Of course he knew, that this would include torture. How could it not? Few things would be more predictable than that. Kinda like a proxy war on a small scale.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Yeah there was one single case where Creasy didn't kill a guy that he captured and tortured (in this case tortured for no reason, he didn't need to blow his hand off), and that was only because he could use that person to make a deal.

That one case doesn't make up for all others where he killing people after he got what he wanted out of them.

Like I said, Creasy didn't say he was going to horribly mutilate his victims and then kill them even if they cooperated.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

troll...

Finally realized that, by how you just replied to what I wrote before.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

What a dumb thread.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

one day you will grow up and meet the real world Ohio9

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys


I'm not saying the film makers had to make him a saint, but they ended up making him look more evil then a freaking Bond Villain, yet they still acted like he was the hero we should be cheering for.


If you want a good guys versus bad guys, then watch a Disney film. Reality is not so black and white.

You have completely missed the point of the movie. The movie is brilliant, because it does cause the viewer to question/struggle with whether the ends justifies the means.

He is shown to be deeply guilty over his actions as an assassin and struggling with alcoholism and faith. For gods sake there is even a scene where creasy sits down with Christopher walken and questions if they could ever be forgiven, or how they will be judged..or whatever.

If you want a simple metaphor bashed over your head for 2 hours watch Prometheus. This is questioning war, torture, and soldiers actions intellectually, without necessarily taking a stand.

Watching this movie you question, what if your child or someone you cared about was kidnapped and going to die? what lengths would you take to save them. Would you condone torture, would you torture/kill "bad" people.

What if by torturing someone you could have stopped 9-11...then would you? The US government has in the past.

The depth and complexity of the main protagonist in the film is something rarely seen in Hollywood. You mention James Bond, how many people has he killed over the years, but he is just walking round cracking jokes and getting laid.

Creasy had no expectation of ever surviving this rampage, it was always a suicide mission. If he had then the movie wouldn't be anywhere near as good and meaningful.

What he got back by befriending the girl was his humanity, and he was willing to throw it all away to save her. There was never going to be redemption...no happy ending for him.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys


He is shown to be deeply guilty over his actions as an assassin


You wouldn't know it considering his actions in this movie.


What he got back by befriending the girl was his humanity


But that's the thing. When you look at what he did after the kidnapping, it seems he never really got his humanity back after all. That's why it seems the film was sending a really contradictory message.


James Bond, how many people has he killed over the years, but he is just walking round cracking jokes and getting laid.



Well generally they have him killing people only in the heat of battle when they are trying to kill him. There have been a few films when he kills disarmed captured people, and I've criticized those quite harshly. However, it's not like in this one, where torturing and murdering disarmed people takes up the vast majority of the film's running time.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Don't bother... Read what I wrote, his answers and you'll understand.

Or in short; He thinks that the 2nd in command (the brother, Aurelio) of the entire La Hermandad organisation is nothing more than a ... victim.
No bs, this person wrote that, plain & simple.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

After reading everything the OP said about the main character.I still liked him more than anyone else in the entire movie.I think because Denzel Washington is so charismatic,he makes it difficult for me personally to be 100% completely against even his bad guy roles.American Gangster is a perfect example of that because the real guy disgust me.However having Denzel in that role kind of prevented me from feeling total disdain for that character. I also still liked his role in Training Day despite him being a corrupt cop.I wonder would his charisma still have me not completely being against him if he played a role as a rapist or someone who tortures/kills animals.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

The movie is called "Man on Fire," not "Boy Scout Brings Justice and Happiness."

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys


Anyone else get a little fed up with Creasy's torture and murders?
Not really. The opening text of the movie let us know that those scumbags ended up murdering 70% of the children they kidnap, so I was expecting them to get what was coming to them. I generally don't have a lot of sympathy for people who kidnap children and then murder them. They should be happy they have someone like you out there looking out for them. I love your idea of leaving it to the police to bring them to justice... despite the fact that they were corrupt and behind the whole child kidnapping franchise in the first place. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

Creasy thought Pita was dead when he handed her father the loaded gun. In his mind there was no Pita to be dedicated to at that point.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

What bothers me is more the contradiction between his bible reading and what he's doing. Denzell Washington is the son of a minister, I suppose that should bother him, but he's an actor getting paid a lot of money. As a Christian, I'd hope the bible reading would not play a part but I suppose it's supposed to redeem the character somehow as a good guy with good intentions and motivations. But his behavior has nothing to do with faith in Christ as far as I can see. At least exploring the contradictions might have made the film more interesting, but I don't think interesting was what the director was after or maybe even understands.

A lot of expensive talent on screen, and still so much idiotic camera work as if it was a music video. Oh well. Would have been better to have a more solid and complicated hero -- Warner Brothers would have done it better back in the day. Streetwise justice doesn't really mean total violence; live long enough and you see the effects of such a life. Film noir at least depicted a world experienced from WW II; this film seems to be missing that. Yeah, a corrupt world, no doubt. And in Mexico there is a heroic woman journalist who's lost much of her family. How about telling her story?

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

People seem to forget that for the whole movie, up until the end, he believes that Pita was murdered by the kidnappers. He is basically on a mission of retribution, getting revenge for the murder of an innocent.

Worse, this innocent girl had made him think that it was okay to care again. And they took her away for no good reason.

Yes, he was extremely violent. And we have no idea if he was a Christian or not. But his feelings and actions were very realistic for a man in that situation.

Speaking as a Christian, I know how I felt when my wife was raped. If I had known where to find that man, I might have done unspeakable things to him. I would not have cared about the consequences. And I would have understood that there would be consequences. But I fantasized about what I would do if I found him. I fantasized for years about it. Eventually those feelings subsided. Thank God I did not find him. Or I would be writing this from prison.

And thank God you don't know that kind of fury, that kind of wicked anger. Yes, vengeance is for God. But when you are that angry, you don't care about that.

So that character seemed very realistic to me.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

The OP seems to be missing the very point about Creasy's behaviour. When talking to Walken's character, he asks, "Do you think God will ever forgive us for the things we did?" And when talking to the nun, he describes himself as a lost lamb. In his own mind, he's beyond forgiveness. The little girl Pita gives him a reason to live; his purpose in life is protecting her and see that no harm befalls her. He fails in this, and has every reason to believe that she is already dead. The police are not an alternative; they are in fact in league with these killers.

From this point, Creasy writes himself off as belonging to the human brotherhood and becomes God's avenging angel, doing terrible things because he knows that this is the only way to make these evil people pay; to exact justice for Pita.

He does exactly what someone needs to do, and what can never be done within the bounds of the law. Only he's ready to face the consequences. He doesn't care what happens to him, as long as his body will carry him long enough to wreak justice, yes, even vengeance. He knows earthly justice will not touch these scumbags, that are even arrogant about what they do. So he is determined to show them that they are not untouchable after all.

And for all the terrible things he does, he only does them to evil people and his vengeance is not indiscriminate.

It's really a lot like the allied soldiers of WWII. They were not hired killers, but ordinary guys called upon to leave their peaceful lives to go up against evil, to suffer terrible things and perhaps even doing terrible things -- because someone had to do it. Many of them could never return to the lives they had, they hade been damaged. They gave up a part of their humanity so that others could live in peace and freedom. It's like Frodo says to Sam in Lord of the Rings, "Someone has to give it up, so that others may keep it."

Yes, I'm a Christian, and this is one of the better movies I know.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Simple. He is no hero. He is the protagonist. Noone ever claimed he was a hero.
Its the story of a bunch of villains to poke the wrong bear so they end up getting arse raped hard. Its a revenge movie with a twist in the end that clearly should make us question the deeds of the protagonist. But for the b etter part...I never felt sorry for those guys given their profession. The cops where never going to trial because of their connections and status. Creasy knew that much so he delivered his own brand of messed up justice

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Creasy thought Pita was DEAD. So he didn't leave her without a father by making him kill himself.

You were rooting for the kidnappers who as we all thought during the movie kidnapped and killed the lil girl..........Wow, That's pretty ridiculous.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Whoever said Creasy was supposed to be "our hero"??

Things aren't always so neatly defined, like the good guys always wear the white hat, and the bad guys always wear the black hat. WHo said Creasy was a good man?? Why do you need a definitive "good guy"...and a definitive "bad guy" in your stories? It's time to grow up.

Creasy was a tortured man, with many demons. And he loved that little girl. And he did terrible, extreme things to get her back. The end.

Whoever said Ceasy was supposed to be our hero??

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Well, the fact that they were all involved in one way or another with a bunch of people trying to murder him and cover up a kidnapping, I'd say it's justified.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Maybe the OP does not understand the difference between good and evil.

The "poor criminals" that you root for routinely kidnap children, killing whoever they need to in the process. Their blase attitude about it only makes it worse. The police are complicit at the highest levels.

Creasy's goal is not to have them arrested (not going to happen) but to destroy this entire enterprise. He means to deliver justice the only way possible.

A lot of the movie is realistic. I don't think there are any real life Creasys though.

Re: Our "hero" is worse then the bad guys

Bleeding heart snowflakes like you are the reason people spend a few years in prison and then are released only to ruin more families by rape/murder/kidnapping, etc.

It happens all the time. Watch a few serial killer documentaries and see just how many of them should have been jailed for life for early atrocities, but were released only to kill several more people. That's on people like who you can't handle making the hard choices to keep animals locked up or put away. 40% of criminals who murder someone with a firearm in Chicago have prior gun charges. Bleeding hearts like you want to treat them nice and give them a second chance, and more than 1 in 3 end up ruining more lives and families.

You treat scum like scum. It's a cruel world but the safety of innocents is worth more than the freedom and comfort of those who don't deserve a second chance.

Re: Our 'hero' is worse then the bad guys

You must be one of those bleeding heart Liberals.
Top