Like what the whole damn movie is about? Okay they've got this Euro mastermind ex-prisoner. So who the hell is he?
OK, the "real" target was targeted for some vague reason that's sort of explained, but what does that have to do with anything?
Did I sleep through it or are there just multiple untied loose ends?
Read the book, it'll fill in the blanks
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
Thanks, but I'm not really interested in the book. Books always are fuller than the movie version, but the movie doesn't usually leave such a gaping void as this one did. Again I ask: who was the prisoner and what was his connection to the whole deal? And what was expected to be the gain from shooting the "intended victim?" [Phrased that way to avoid spoilers.]
shareEverything was actually explained in the film, maybe you missed it in the dialogue: The prisoner (Zec) is a leader of some Russian gang, who go by the name of Lebendauer Enterprises. They move from city to city, always buying out a local construction firm to add to their empire, ahead of major redevelopment in that city. Quote from Helen Rodin: "They build bridges no one needs. Highways no one uses. They're like a cancer. A cell that won't stop growing."
They bribe key officials in the cities, and when bribing isn't enough, they might kill a construction firm owner who refuses to sell, like they did to Oline Archer.
They killed Oline Archer because she refused to sell the construction firm to them, killed four other people to hide the true target, and framed James Barr for the murders.
The whole story about Lebendauer was made for the film. Don't know why,the one from the book would have worked just fine and was much simpler. They tomcruised the entire movie.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
They changed aspects of what was in the book, but for the most part the general actions of Lebendauer was the same.
This signature has stupidity!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgACO7ZBuw
Beauq81 - Love the quote man, brilliant!!
shareWhich?
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
Yep, that one!
shareYeah, it's a good one. Whoever said it (I can't find the real source) must have gotten some heat on them. I know I have had some on this site.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
I remember Bill Maher saying it, but I don't remember if he was quoting someone else?
share[deleted]
Quite possibly down to anomalous materials.
If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?
Oke, so I just googled "Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better" And this was the one that sounded the most reliable, of course it's still the internet, so no "hard proof", but I'll just post it here so you can decide for yourself if this might be a "real source" ;) https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100105151413AAgf1Xy
Me, I liked the movie. Haven't read the book though. For me the story was simple but not really lacking. Like one of the reviewers wrote, a movie with a nice 80's feeling to it.
(though it didn't change my mind about Tom Cruise getting to old for these action flicks)
The quote seems to be a paraphrase of “A religious war is like killing someone over who has the better imaginary friend.” The quote is attributed to Larry Beinhart.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/225935-a-religious-war-is-like-killing-someone-over-who-has
Well, thanks for clearing that up. Apparently I did miss it because it makes so little sense and is so ridiculous that my brain filtered it out. So for this they go around shooting people willy-nilly? There was no other avenue? Right!
shareIt's old device. Read or watch The ABC Murders. Read the book Inheritance by Tom Savage.
--
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!
The killing-multiple-victims-to-hide-the-true-victim thing has been used many, many times, dating back at least to the Agatha Christie days. But has it ever once happened in real life? I don't think so. The easy way to get rid of the main victim would be to just kill her and make it look like an accident. Why complicate things so unnecessarily?
Of course, then there wouldn't be a story, would there?
Yes it as happen in real life...the dc sniper was killing random strangers, so that he could kill his wife and get custody of their kids
I found this show of me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8EyrC1364E
Ch-n
no, no, no, no. Seriously?! You have your facts all wrong. I mean do you even know anything about the DC shootings? There is this amazing thing called google that fixes our worlds problems... oh you cant use it? Here let me google that for you.
1. He never killed his wife. so no it didn't "happen in real life." His wife was never a victim in relation to the DC shootings. AND is still alive today. If his real intention was to kill his wife... why wait till shot #14? I think she would be dead.
2. He didn't want custody of his kids. In fact, He kidnapped them in '99. Before he was executed in 09, he was given a chance to call his family. He never called his kids.
3. Evidence suggested he wanted money from the government. Which EVIDENCE is usually what we use to convict people.
4. Article from Washington post 10 years after: "Lee Boyd Malvo (accomplice) said. 'My focus is on witnesses, passengers, and whenever there was an opening, I told him to shoot.' It was rapid, one after another, he said, all at random. 'Whoever was there.'" Article shows it was random.
So stop being and idiot and learn truth before you spread lies.
Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine.
rayonmullings never said the DC sniper killed his wife. He said that he targeted random strangers so that he could kill his wife. Which he obviously never managed to do.
I heard the same thing. I just never bothered to vet every detail I heard fly about the case at one time or another.
Why not simply correct what you felt was inaccurate? Why resort to name-calling and condescension? What are you, in 3rd grade?
Stella Nickell poisoned random Excedrin capsules with cyanide in 1986 and planted some of them in retail stores to cover up the fact that she poisoned her husband Bruce with cyanide. Her attempt to hide her husband's murder by making him look like a serial killer's victim resulted in one other death, an innocent woman Nickell had never met named Susan Snow.
And that's just the first example that came to mind, because it's particularly famous. I'm sure there are others that I can't recall offhand at the moment.
*****
People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.
Why do they build useless bridges and *beep* though?
shareBecause some company/group pays enough money to some congressperson's "re-election" fund that they push to get a project built under the guise that it will put people to work.
It happens all of the time. There were tons of "pork barrel projects" in 0bama's "Shovel Ready" jobs bill. And, it isn't just one party which does stuff like that.
It is one of the problems with the way our government "operates" now. States have to give billions to the Federal government, who, in turn, doles out money to the states to fund their projects.
So, members of Congress feel that if they don't fight to get as much money from the Feds as they can, they aren't doing their job. They think that their job is to get the money for jobs for their district - even if it means people's taxes will be higher and/or the project that is being built is useless and wasteful.
For example, in my area they built a civilian use airport on an air force base. They measure the success of the airport on if they have to sink less millions into it this year than last in an effort to keep it open. For most of the time it has been built, it hasn't been in use. But, we're still on the hook for it and they keep p!ssing away more money on it even though there are less people in the area/state than when they first built it and said that it was needed because of the over-flow from St. Louis (never mind that they shut down one of the terminals at that airport due to lack of use)
Read the book, it'll fill in the blanksWhy? If the adaptation is good, non-readers should be able to enjoy it without ever cracking it open. Everything is explained in this, you just have to pay attention.
Well, I guess I wasn't, which is in itself, a commentary on the movie. I have to ask, even assuming that the explanation was as stated in earlier responses in this thread, does it make a lick of sense?
shareWhy doesn't it make sense? You think the Russian mob makes their living by selling flowers, or by killing people? When they take over a construction firm which has lucrative contracts with the city, they make millions in profits. People have killed for far less.
shareSome, but less than in the book. The filmmakers complicated it a bit to sound flashier, with a bit of conspiracy theory. In the book, the Zec and his gang own a quarry and the killed couple owned the competing quarry. No international conspiracy, just a local dispute.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
No international conspiracy, just a local dispute
In the book, Zec's company keeps winning city construction contracts by bribing city officials. The woman they killed in the shooting and her husband owned a competing company and when they suddenly stopped getting work and saw only one company was getting all of it, they started asking questions and got themselves killed.
Fighting a religious war is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.
The story is explained, it's just so banal and cliched you probably dozed off.
shareYeah that's what I thought too. I got it, it just wasn't that well done nor did it make much sense as a whole. There's quicker, easier, and less messy (ie: less of a trail) ways for the mob to make money.
Anyone remember the simpsons episode where the mob gets hired to build the school and everything is built with tape and posicle sticks and it falls down right away while they take off with the money? It's literally been a plot device in a comedic TV show, not sure how someone thought it would work as a serious thriller...
I'll tell you why. You take a crap in a brown paper bag and have Tom Cruise deliver it to the audience. Instant money.
shareI have thousands of books I have yet to read, and just found a few Reacher novels among them. Can anyone tell me which this film is based on?
Edit: never mind..it's 'One Shot'
[deleted]