MovieChat Forums > The Purge (2013) Discussion > Movie wasn't great, but what TRULY ruine...

Movie wasn't great, but what TRULY ruined the entire thing was

posted 9 years ago by ZaZeus
14 replies | jump to latest

The fact that anyone in that family would choose harboring that stranger over the safety of their family is absolutely nonsensical. We get it! You were trying to prove a point, or something, writers! But really, no one in their right mind would allow their family home to be raided by murderous yuppies to save a stranger. AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF they left the dude strapped to a chair while they all ran around trying to hide/overtake the invaders. So, basically, if he hadn't escaped from the chair on his own, some random yuppie would have waltzed into the room and shot the guy dead, defeating the entire ridiculous purpose of saving him in the first place. Usually I can get past dumb movies doing dumb things for the sake of just attempting to enjoy said dumb movie, but a decision like that is just insanely stupid.

[–] cwamne_h 9 years ago

I think it would be much more harder to believe a family would suddenly turn to torture and easily hand a man over to be killed. But yeah leaving him tied made no sense at all, especially after he was like just send me out and your family. Plus he could have easily helped them and why did he and his wife split up? I try not to question films, but this really fell apart as the film played out. But it would have never been anything more than a excuse for violence movie.

[–] alomba1328 9 years ago

I'm still trying to figure out why half the country didn't simply go on vacation to Canada during purge week.

[–] geearf 8 years ago

That's a fair question.
Anybody not willing to purge has no real reason to stay.
Though for this family there's a bit of an issue, the dad sells security systems, if he were to flee every year, would people really buy his stuff knowing that he doesn't even believe in it?

Also maybe the security system can only be activated from the inside (to prevent outside cracking), so leaving the house might mean leaving it unsafe and since it's most likely not insured on that night...

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

no one in their right mind would allow their family home to be raided by murderous yuppies to save a stranger.

I would. But I would also have a whole array of rocket launchers and those preppy psychopaths would be a soup all over the lawn.

[–] ian-strathdee 8 years ago

Did they ever clarify what constitutes a class 4 weapon? This movie was all over the place and I agree, I can usually get past the plot holes because it's entertainment, but there are so many and are thinly justified, I couldn't suspend disbelief.

[–] TheManInOil 8 years ago

Well, you are an evil person.

First of all, caving in to the demands of people who've threatened to break in and kill you all is no assurance they won't do it anyway. Second, fighting to protect the rights of ALL people is supposedly what America is all about.

The point being made is that cowardice shouldn't guide your actions - justice should.

If you think that's 'stupid' then you are truly lost.

[–] ZaZeus 8 years ago

Themes of the film aside, no I would never knowingly allow my spouse and my CHILDREN to be bombarded with an assault on our home and gunned down by people if I could help it. I don't think it makes me "evil" to want to protect my family if it means sacrificing a stranger. That family was literally about to have all of their heads blown in to protect a complete stranger. No parent would ever bring that upon their children if they could help it, especially if all they had to choose between was their blood or a complete and utter stranger.

Say you were walking down the street with your daughter and a man hurriedly ran past you and into a nearby building. If moments later a crazed man with a shotgun ran up to you and told you to tell him which building that man went into because he wanted to kill him in cold blood, and if you didn't tell him he would blow your daughter's face in with his shotgun, you REALLY mean to tell me instead of just saying which building he went into you'd rather give your daughter up to death? Even if you could attempt to diffuse the situation, chances are the man with the shotgun will have the upper hand.

It's completely asinine that Hawk's character would allow that assault on his home when all he had to do was trade off that stranger. Not only is this kind of trade off a no-brainer for anyone who is a parent, but in the context of the film it is acknowledged that this behavior is legal, no matter how macabre. PLUS, if I were that stranger I would 100% understand (albeit obviously be upset I was about to die) if the family gave me over to the crazies in order to protect themselves. Maybe you should think twice about throwing around the world evil to describe people who would protect those that they love?

There is a time for being brave and then there is a time for being smart and protecting yourself and your loved ones.

[–] DustnBones001 8 years ago

I like how you try to hide around the "protecting family excuse" to try and not come off as a disgusting human being. Saving your family or not handing someone over to be killed is terrible and makes you a sh!tty person in my book. Not to mention there is no guarantee that they still would not try to go after your family even after handing him over.

[–] ZaZeus 8 years ago

Yeah ok. Write me back after someone has a gun to your child's head.

[–] RaizelRose 8 years ago

ZaZeus,

Just by reading through the comments, I can tell no one else on this thread has children of their own. The "justice should trump all" argument is totally ridiculous.

When someone is threatening to murder your children, you do W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R it takes to keep them safe. You do not second guess your intentions. You do not hesitate and think, "but this adult man is surely as important to me as my baby girl". This just doesn't happen.

I can appreciate that so many posters want humans to be treated equally, but unfortunately that's just not reality.

And from an evolutionary standpoint: Humans are biologically programmed to want to protect their offspring above all else. This is to keep the family line for future generations.

[–] ZaZeus 8 years ago

Someone gets it! AND I don't even have kids! I have enough people in my life who do have children, including said children who are important to me, and from the understanding of how much my parents care about me, to get it. People are bonkers.

[–] leesjshez 8 years ago

I wouldn't bother watching Straw Dogs, as I don't think you'll enjoy it.

Obviously it's all in movieland, but the message was "murder is murder, and it's wrong, no matter how insane the government is".

After the change of mind about throwing him out, you have to remember that they were sh!t scared, and so logic goes out the window.

You could level the same accusation at the ending too. It's easy to sit back and say that you'd have blown the Stepford Wife away, after she came to kill you, but if you believe killing is wrong, the Purge night is coming to an end, and you're on top of the situation, chances are you'd wait it out.

[–] ellipsisms 8 years ago

To be fair, they couldn't have possibly known those preppy *beep* would go after the guy, let alone kill their family for it.

[–] MrRazorz 8 years ago

The fact that anyone in that family would choose harboring that stranger over the safety of their family is absolutely nonsensical. We get it! You were trying to prove a point, or something, writers! But really, no one in their right mind would allow their family home to be raided by murderous yuppies to save a stranger.

Which is why the decision to let him in was made by an adolescent boy. Kids at that age aren't in their right minds - they're impulsive, naive and haven't developed good judgement or decision-making skills, and are far more likely to act without thinking. Especially when they feel as strongly about something as that kid did about the Purge.

And he didn't think he was allowing his home to be invaded. He thought he'd just let the helpless stranger in and his dad's "impenetrable" security system would keep everyone else out. He wasn't to know his dad was a scam artist and the system was actually a piece of crap.

AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF they left the dude strapped to a chair while they all ran around trying to hide/overtake the invaders. So, basically, if he hadn't escaped from the chair on his own, some random yuppie would have waltzed into the room and shot the guy dead, defeating the entire ridiculous purpose of saving him in the first place.

It wasn't about whether or not he was killed. It was about whether they handed him over to be killed. If he died anyway, at least they hadn't gone along with the "yuppies" (it's been a good long while since I've heard that word, btw) and served him up to be executed.

But at the end of the day, he was still a complete stranger who'd hidden in their house, attacked them and held a gun to their teenage daughter's head. They didn't trust him enough to turn him loose (and if there's one lesson to be learned from this movie, it's that you can't trust anybody) so leaving him tied to the chair while they went out to fight off his would-be killers was a good compromise.