Too much unnecessary cruelty shown towards dogs. Keeping his dog under the porch, yelling at him and the other dog, and of course the dog fight scene. I mean what's the point? It had nothing to do with the main story. I hate it when movies do stuff like that. Just leave the animals alone. It made it almost unwatchable for my wife.
shareIt's called a movie Eddie. Just so you know, the old black wino wasn't really killed.
SMH at asinine comments made by folks that should stick to watching transformers.
Too much unnecessary cruelty shown towards dogs. (...) I mean what's the point? It had nothing to do with the main story.
Great catch!
shareHow people in movies interact with people says something about them.
How people in movies interact with animals says EVERYTHING about them.
We used to have a dog that liked being under the porch. She didn't like her dog house and would whine at the door until we let her outside. She would run to get underneath it. She was so sad when we blocked off the area so we could fix it.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Getting in late, and no time to read every post, but just in case somebody hasn't said it yet: It's not necessarily just an irrelevant plot point. In fact, it strikes me as deliberate characterization. One of the first elements a good investigator will look for in a person's background to determine propensity to kill, sexually abuse, or sexually torture is whether the person has a history of deliberately mistreating animals.
shareWas it really unnecessary? Maybe you didn't like it and maybe it even ruined the movie experience for you, personally. But what exactly do you mean "unnecessary?"
And what exactly do you mean by not having anything to do with the "main story?" What if some people enjoy movies more for their subtleties and complexities and often could care less about what exactly the "main story" of the film is as much as how well the movie is crafted in general? What if some people actually like a film to be nuanced?
WHAT IF IT'S JUST A FREAKING MOVIE in regards to no animals actually being hurt here?
Look, I love dogs. I mean, I REALLY love dogs. Dogs are great. If I thought this film was suggesting that people should abuse dogs then I'd find it pretty appalling myself. It wasn't. Joe may have been the "hero" in this movie... but he was a pretty freaking obviously flawed hero!
Even more, I actually had the impression that the writer of this film might like dogs and was using Joe's dog as a way to tell us about the main character... because, you know, people that love dogs would tell you that there aren't bad dogs, there are only bad owners and dogs are a reflection of their owner.
For the record: Joe didn't seem to treat women very well either. I don't think the movie suggested that we should treat women poorly either.
The point is to show realism...no problem with people shooting each other...but show a few clips of dog violence and it becomes "unwatchable"? There is child abuse, prostitution, and a rape of a an underage child and you wife can't watch because of dog cruelty?...just wow....
This has already been touched on, and this thread is a year old, but whatever, I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway:
The dog in this film, as well as the "cruelty" in this film, is very much necessary to the point the film is making. The dog is a pretty obvious symbol for Joe. Joe gives a speech about halfway through the film about how his life is all about "restraint." It's not a coincidence that the dog is chained, or "restrained," under the porch. It's not a coincidence that while the dog attacks and kills another dog, Joe is giving in to his own animalistic impulses as well. It's not a coincidence that when Joe loses himself in his anger and fights the police for no good reason, the dog runs off and gets lost. Ya feel?