This wasn't another 2012, I was able to get into it most of the time and just enjoy the pure escapism, the fantasy of the film. But I seem to get distracted by the implausible details of movies these days.
Don't worry, no spoilers here, but you've got a murder suspect in custody, and you need to question him. There's a bird cage looking (very imposing) structure that has one table in it, and the shackled prisoner is in there while the DA comes in to question him. There are no other prisoners, apparently, who have any visitors. There is no glass partition, a reasonably violent man, even shackled, might be able to grab Jamie Foxx by his goatee or something.
Then there's the prison warden accompanying the guards to the cell of the accused, escorting him to solitary, etc. A prison warden with hundreds, maybe thousands of prisoners in his charge personally sees to an individual one?
For that matter, the initial violent deed that sets up the movie (a home invasion that takes the lives of Clyde's daughter and wife with rape implied at least in the latter death) is never explained. Clyde is connected, but I never saw that his connections to the world of covert ops were why two thugs come to his door in the opening minutes. It's a weird combination, they were apparently sent specifically to subdue him, and then murdered his family as a crime of opportunity, perhaps to avoid witnesses, but subdue him to what end? On behalf of what interests? And if they'll kill a little girl to avoid a witness, why leave Clyde alive?
Like I say, as an escapist thriller, it was diverting, but I found myself walking out of the theater more diverted by the plot holes and improbabilities. I know, you shouldn't look to Hollywood for accuracy any more than you should look to the Op Ed page of a newspaper for wisdom or the Waffle House for a high fiber, low fat meal.
No comments:
Post a Comment