MovieChat Forums > Keanu (2016) Discussion > Problem with the ending.

Problem with the ending.

posted 9 years ago by creatorof2002
12 replies | jump to latest

They should NOT have been in jail. They did not really commit any crimes. Everyone they killed was self defense and they HELPED catch the real criminals. All they wanted was their cat back. They were so obviously NOT real criminals. No criminal charges should have been pressed against them and if I was the governor in the fictional universe of this movie I would have pardoned them.

I think they got only a six month sentence but the criminal record will have lasting effects. Harder to get employment and if its felony they cannot vote (you do NOT lose voting rights for misdemeanor, not sure which one it was).

I honestly cannot think of any actual crime they committed, it seems like every act that would normally be illegal would be covered by extenuating circumstances.

[–] hafabee 9 years ago

They aided and assisted the sale of hard drugs. That served them up some jail time.

[–] goonies383 9 years ago

They absolutely shouldnhave ended up in jail. It is also a satirical joke. In so many action films heroes break all kinds of laws and never see consequences for their actions. Them actually going to jail is a way of pointing that out.

[–] creatorof2002 9 years ago

did you say should or should not because shouldnhave is not correct english?

They still kind of got away with it because legally they would have qualified for several YEARS in a maximum security prison and all they got was six months in county jail.

[–] goonies383 9 years ago

They should have gone to jail. The n and space are close together on my phone.

[–] creatorof2002 9 years ago

They were not real criminals, they got dragged into stuff that was way over their heads. I think its at least good that all they got was a few months in county jail with a nice life waiting for them when they got out. Even in jail they had "street cred" and were being treated well by the other inmates. Considering what would have happened to them had they not had that undercover cop lady vouching for them they had a pretty happy ending.

[–] goonies383 9 years ago

Of course they aren't "real criminals" and even if they are in the moral right the law doesn't care much for true right and wrong only legal and illegal.

Like I said I like the ending because it pokes fun at action movies like Taken 3 where Neeson just shakes the cop's hand and walks away despite breaking tons of laws.

Making them only serve a few months is a way to lighten the blow and make it a rather lighthearted ending. Especially showing both Clarence and Rell are in a better place in life because of their experience despite being in prison.

[–] creatorof2002 9 years ago

To be fair in real life there IS a legal term called EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. During certain emergency situations if you can prove in a court of law that you HAD to do things that are illegal normally to survive or save someone else's life you can (though its pretty rare) get off.

Self Defense is a good example. Another might be breaking into a car to rescue a baby that is dying from heat exposure (people sometimes forget babies in hot cars).

I believe if the Harrison Ford movie FUGITIVE had been real every law broken by him in that movie would have received an "extenuating circumstances" defense successfully. Same goes for Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 had she been able to prove all of the events of the film.

I admit that Keanu did not totally satisfy the extenuating circumstances situation though. Maybe Taken 3 did? I did not see it but it might have.

[–] goonies383 9 years ago

Self Defense excuse differs from state to state. Trying to get your cat back doesn't qualify for extenuating circumstances.

As for T2 Sarah would have wound up back in a mental institution. She was an escape mental patient who tried to murder a guy because he was developing technology that would allow robots to take over in the future. She was placed in an institution between T1 and T2 for trying to blow up a building.

In Taken 3 he was framed for killing his wife but he assaulted the aresting officers to escape. Whether you are guilty or not of the murder you can't beat up the arresting officers. That in itself is a crime as is all the crap he blew up and the people he killed. Getting revenge is not an extenuating circumstance.

[–] creatorof2002 9 years ago

What about THE FUGITIVE and all of the laws he broke after and including his escape? What jury would convict him?

Sarah Connor WOULD get off if the legal system inside the fictional universe found out the entire truth and understood it as well as the movie viewers on "Earth Prime" did. In fact if need be the president would give her a pardon and then probably top it off with a reward.

I agree revenge is not extenuating circumstances but if its anything like Taken 1 the people he killed were the "bad guys" and thus killing them could legally qualify as self defense.

My problem is when the hero kills or maims an innocent even if by accident during their "adventure".

For example I do NOT think Sam L Jackson in A TIME TO KILL should have gotten off scott free like he did. Even if the jury rebelled and refused to convict him for killing the 2 men who raped his daughter one of his shots missed and took the leg of a security guard. He could have at least been prosecuted for THAT.

[–] Motoko_Kusanagi 9 years ago

I liked it the ending. When Hi-C says "consequences", the first thing I thought of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dWjKkF0Zi4

[–] smoothsagetx 9 years ago

I didn't really like the ending either but I think that's how I can tell if I enjoy a movie.

[–] zmystico 9 years ago

It would have been too cliched for them NOT to go to jail, in a sense, it brought realism to the film, although I was expecting them to show Clarence being dragged out of his house half naked because he was in the middle of having sex with his wife...that would have been hilarious.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries