kyrat

It's like someone watched a bunch of LA noir films and thought, how could I make the hackiest insult to them possible. There was NO plot, NO humor, just an excuse to keep showing bare breasted women & constant death (and not even in a creative John Woo sort of way or amsuingly like Naked Gun). Throw in some just child endangerment. And the usual "trained assassin with semi-automatic gun can't even hit obvious easy targets. You could see everything coming & the end of the movie telegraphed in advance.

Least important nitpick: Telling someone to dial 911 in 1977, it started in 1984 in LA. Any redeeming feature? I guess the soundtrack.

I was kind of hoping that at least both of them would die at the end to hold up the "they're losers" premise, but it wasn't even bold enough to go that far.

Maybe the book was better.

I get that they were going for a "stupid is as stupid does", to show the triumph of optimism, et al.

But mostly this movie just made me sad. Sad that Forrest was treated this way. Sad that even his triumphs were accidental.

The fact that they had Forrest get to meet Elvis, the president(s), John Lennon and all those other historical figures just made it seem even more fake than the CGI it took to add him to all those historical scenes (George Wallace, JFK, Johnson, etc.) It threw you out of the realism of the film -- AND also seemed so unrealistic that someone like Forrest could achieve those kinds of things outside of a film.

Finally, I don't understand anyone considering his love of Jenny as a true romance. Yes, I believe he loved her. I believe that she loved him in her own way, but not romantically. I understand that she was incredibly messed up by the sexual abuse of her father and that's why she pursued the self-destructive life she did. I understand that she felt she might not be worthy of Forrest because she was suicidal and messed up. She seems to have tried to turn her life around right before she died of AIDS, and was trying to provide for herself without relying on a man.

My interpretation of Jenny relationship with Forrest was either: 1. She came home because she was pregnant (cue her sleeping all the time), then had sex with Forrest, then years later when sick, claimed he was the father, so her son would be taken care of. or 2. Forrest truly was the father (and there are hints such as them bending their heads the same way while watching TV & fishing). If so, why did she not tell Forrest he had a child until she was dying? I understand maybe she didn't want to marry him and raise the child together - but that still seemed cruel. Again, I feel that she only married him at the end as she was dying to give the child a parent. Not because she felt true romantic love for Forrest.

Best part of the film were the performances. I did like Gary Sinese's performance, that was outstanding. His bitterness at being rescued, his life trajectory and turn around were handled very well. Tom Hanks did a good job of portraying Forrest with dignity. And Robin Wright did a fairly good job as a self-destructive victim struggling to come to terms with her life.

Absolutely brilliant skewering of people who lack critical thinking skills and who believe in "alternative" treatments.

My favorite quote was him schooling her on, "Science adjusts its views, based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

That's really all I had to say but IMDb has a minimum length. So I'll just reiterate that I think everyone should see this. Either because they have to deal with people like this, or because they may be like Storm.

After watching this I have been trying to track down everything Tim has made because I really enjoy his sense of humor and skewering of pomposity.

I only recently became aware of James Randi as a debunker of hoaxes. I decided to watch this documentary. I was really loving this and prepared to give it a 10.... until about an hour and a half, the point at which the director prods James Randi into saying something due to his fears of losing his life partner of 25 years. He asks the director not to include his last comments.

If at that point, the scene had ended and it had still been included in the movie, I probably could have lived with the director's choice to include the scene.

However, the interviewer twice assures him that it won't be used AND THEN USES IT. (justifying it at the end credits as saying James Randi had agreed to ALL interviews being used. Well yeah, at the time he signed that he wasn't aware his life partner might be deported).

James says "if I thought any of this would be used. I'd end the film now". (If the film had ended at this point, I also would have been fine with that choice)

Instead....

The director answers "no no no no" to try and calm him while James says he is trusting the interviewer. The interviewer does try to point out that they had discussed using ALL interviews, but then instead of holding firm... when James Randi says "I want this last part to vanish"... interviewer says "OK UNDERSTOOD. NO WORRIES." Randi then says again, "I trust you or I wouldn't be doing this." Interviewer, "Thank you". If he truly believed it needed to be included he shouldn't have told James Randi he wouldn't!

It's not like James Randi just admitted killing Kennedy or something that had to be revealed to the world, something that truly justified violating his trust. For shame. Hope the interviewer doesn't plan to ever request an interview from anyone ever again. He has no integrity.

The film then includes some quotes about "cons for good" which I think was trying to justify the inclusion. But it's a false equivalency. Including James' comments is NOT on the level of exposing psychic Channelers duping people for money or pointing out flaws in the scientific study of parapsychology.

The construction of masculinity is interesting to me and it really could have been explored. However, instead of spending more time with people like Michael Kimmel (professor) who study gender, they seemed to feel they should spend more time showing random quotes from B or C list celebrities whose opinions I don't care about.

The fact that some irritatingly chauvinist guy from "the man show" thinks women are emasculating men - or the lead singer of Antthrax thinking that waxing is 'gay'... fine, that's their personal viewpoint, which they have every right to (much as I may disagree). What saddened me was they each got got as much airtime as the expert in gender roles.

The saving grace of this film was the time spent with some of the subjects. They were interesting, but also quite sad.

Jack Passion, the beard guy, was an interesting person - but he seemed to have nothing in his life except his beard competitions.

Shawn, who plays an "evil Arab" wrestling character demonizing his culture - has to shave his entire body and sculpt his body to achieve an unrealistic standard.

Ricky, the attractive Indian guy who was ashamed to be Sikh and has internalized the same kind of body hatred that many women have. He is a beautiful man with wonderful family and a strong tradition that he has felt he had to "overcome" and admits to never being satisfied.

I wish they had cut the celebrity clips and really dived more into this subject. The ever changing standards of masculinity, the ever increasing focus on men's bodies and the growing insecurities that parallel women's beauty standards is a fascinating topic.

I hope someone else takes up this idea again because it deserves to be done well.

I speak Russian. I'm familiar with the history of the Russian revolution and it's aftermath (from an American college course on the time and having heard a pro-monarchist White Guard version as well). I still could barely follow what was going on or which side everyone was on. I think you need to read the book or be a student of Ukranian history to have followed this.

I'm almost curious to read the book just so I could make sense of it. In the end what I felt was that the Ukranian nationalists were shown to be ignorant peasants who burned schools; the Hetman government was shown as cowardly and supported by foreign governments; the people who lived in Ukraine but considered themselves as Russians were upper class intelligentsia and naive; the expat Russians who flooded in were delusional monarchists fighting for something that could not be resurrected. The only unifying factor was that they were all pretty much anti-semitic.

In the end the ever shifting alliances seem to have fractured the country, it was just a bloody and tragic circumstance for all involved.

You have to remember you're watching a low-budget Soviet Sci_Fi film from 1980. So yeah, it has that 70's/80's sci-fi look and some cheesy effects (which I actually prefer to CGI, personally). The English translation is decent and doesn't leave anything out.

The section where she tries to live on Earth is a little slow and I did not really understand the connection to the film, but I enjoyed the opening bits and the parts on Dessa.

The imagery of the destroyed space lab and then later the gas masks and the posters in the tunnels was definitely ahead of its time.

Apart from the imagery which I enjoyed, the best reason to watch this film - is the prescient display of how people who make money off the destruction of the planet will fight to keep their wealth, even at the cost of the planet. We also see the politicians bribed with money and power to spread lies and fear in oder to fight any change. And even the average citizen can be preyed upon to work against their own interest.

Guillermo Del Toro has an amazing visual sense. His movies are beautiful to watch. However this was visually interesting but otherwise shallow and plot less. This felt like a live action version of Neon Genesis Evangelion. The character were all 1 dimensional archetypes. Other than fight scenes in CGI - which I didn't find that interesting, there's not much to the film. There was not even an interesting backstory on the Kaiju. Their dinosaur form and adaptation to battles was kind of interesting but wasn't explored. The entire plot and ending was completely obvious (you knew who would fall in love, who would nobly sacrifice themselves, who was going to die, etc.)

It's not like Disney couldn't afford this film, so I was incredibly disappointed by the gratuitous product placement in this film. Minus 2 stars for that.

Otherwise, it was enjoyable. Yes, it's wasn't anything that hadn't been done before, but I do like a good heist movie. Also, Konstantine's Boris Badanov style accent cracked me up. Yes, it was a pretty over-the-top stereotype (though not as bad as the leprechauns in Ireland) - but the anti-Kermit shtick was amusing to me.

The songs were rather uneven, "It's a sequel" and the "I'll give you whatever you want" were a little flat. But the "I'm number one" and a couple of the gulag bits were pretty amusing.

If you like the Muppets, it's worth seeing. Nothing ground-breaking, but it's always good to see them. An average Muppets movie is still way ahead of most other films.

Beautiful scenery almost made it worth watching. I love Nia V. as an actress.

I know it's a silly rom-com based on stereotypes & fluff. I shouldn't take it too seriously.... however, it kept annoying me more and more, until the ending which really made me mad.

The lesson that: "style over substance" or catering to the lowest common denominator is the better way of living - really angered me.

The minor things:

-Overrealiance on stereotypes. I'm actually surprised they left out "German with walking stick & lederhausen" and "Japanese tourist with camera" if they were trying to hit all the travel stereotypes. Yes, some Australians seem to spend their travels drinking, but then so do some Brits, Americans & others. Yes, I've seen obnoxious American travelers, but then I've seen obnoxious Canadians and Russians too. Yes some people are shallow and they just want a souvenir made in China, some people are culturally insensitive, some people just want to shop & eat ice cream, some are just looking for one- night stands- however relying on just those stereotypes was lazy and not that funny. Maybe it's because I've travelled a lot (26 countries or so) but the first thing you should b e learning is to get over those kinds of stereotypes.

-The entire concept that Georgia being "fun" and flighty was better than her serious intelligent side really annoyed me.

-That a tour group should be fun, at the expense of educational.

If my tour group skipped a major museum & famous sites in a country because a sullen teenager wanted to see a beach, I'd ask for my money back. That was not cute/touching. -I travel to see the historical places & learn about them.

(as Georgia said, I "could go to a beach anytime"). I've been on a "fun" tour where the tour-guide did not provide any background or information (luckily I had a guidebook) and it was a waste of money, I gave the tour negative reviews. If I was visiting the oracle of delphi and someone kept going on about Virgins in the sophomoric way Irv kept trying to urge on Georgia, I'd be seriously irritated.

-making it seem like people stuck on a bus all day in 90+ degree whether are being obnoxious/unreasonable for wanting air-conditioner. In reality you'd probably have someone suffer heatstroke and the company would have to replace that bus immediately.

-They didn't seem to know what to do with Irv. One minute he's lustily boinking 2 women several decades younger than himself, then he's dying and meeting his long lost wife (who also looks several decades younger than himself). I'm pretty sure someone in your tour group dying (or nearly dying) on your trip would kind of spoil the vacation.

-The sophomoric 'poop' related names. Really?? Not only is it culturally insensitive, it shows a poor understanding of your audience. You're not making a teen film where all the jokes need to rely on farts, virgins, sex, boobies, etc.

SPOILERS ahead: And finally - the thing that most soured me on the film: Georgia gives up her academic career for a man she meet like a week ago & to do work she doesn't seem to enjoy or be good at? Pathetic.

I really don't get the the Jonah Hill thing, I don't find him/his movies very funny nor am I into the raunchy teen sex films that seeem all the rage, so I avoided this in the theater. Then, one day, I was on a plane, and since I loved the original series, I decided to watch it......

If you think of it as a satire of the original show and remember that it's probably aimed at 14 yr old boys, yes it's kind of funny.

However, since what I really liked about the original show was that they took these matters (homophobia, bullying, teen prostitution, drugs) seriously -- turning it into a comedy was rather jarring.

Things I was disappointed in: the other 2 main characters, Holly Robinson & Dustin Nguyen's characters were not mentioned at all, I guess the two other sneering officers shown for about a minute were supposed to represent them? Ice Cube's role was turned into nothing but gratuitous swearing that added no value to any of his scenes. (were they trying to say that's all that Cpt Fuller did?)

Things I was creeped out at: Jonah Hill's character falling for an underage HS girl was super creepy. Gratuitous sex scene at party of supposedly underage kids being show - ultra creepy. The fact that these supposed officers of the law would raided the lockup to then provide alochol & drugs to kids. I know they're portrayed as stupid & that they were just trying to fit in, but it was so unrealistic & stupid it was jarring.

Parts I liked: When they discovered that values at school had changed and dumb jocks were no longer popular and that intelligence and environmentalism were valued. The cameo by "Tom" & "Doug" (even though it was during a very dumb scene) The inside jokes to keep an old-school fan amused (naming a character Jenko, Korean Jesus, etc.)

Negatives: Too much CGI. Too much product placement.

Negative a couple of stars for 1.) Larry Ellison 2.) Oracle product placement and name- checking. Ugh, made me want to barf.

I can forgive the FAUX news/ Bill O'reilly segment, since I felt it was almost sort of mocking his usual negative spin on any news.

Postives: Loved seeing Monte Carlo, though it was way to over saturated and doesn't look like it does in real life. Pepper getting to be CEO. Getting the details right -- the programming and message in the 2nd suit were in Russian. The snide comments in Russian were actually said correctly.

Avoided this for a long time because I was afraid this was going to be some religious rant about taking "Christ" out of Christmas sort of lament of gifts overriding the message of Christmas.

But while watching a rerun of the show Sliders (episode from 1998 entitled "Seasons Greedings") - I was reminded of this documentary and told it contained a similar message against credit card debt/overspending and equating presents iwht love.

I was pleased to see the documentary was more of a satirical take on rampant consumerism, the critique being about buying people's love's with gifts, about the costs (in poverty, body parts, etc.) of the products you buy in Walmart or Disney that are made with slave labor.

While some real reverends were interviewed, I was more interested in the fake "reverand" billy whose message resonated quite strongly.

NOTE: Submitted to IMDb goof section, 40 minutes into the film they're at the Shattuck Safeway in Berkeley but it's identified in the film as Oakland.

I have different expectations of kids films so I give them a lot of breaks that I wouldn't give a film aimed at adults.

I did not expect this film to be very good, how do you turn a short Mickey Mouse cartoon into a full 2 hr film?? However, when offered a chance to see it while traveling I tried it out. It was mildly amusing and had a good message.

Alfred Molina is always a pleasure. Nic Cage wasn't bad.

I was pleased that they incorporated the unstoppable cleaning scene.

As usual these days a little too much CGI for my taste but over all pretty good.

Even though this film is about magic/wizardry, I really enjoyed the way they played up the importance of science and physics as elements of the magic.

I's "yellow-face" like many Hollywood films before it & after it. Even knowing the history of all-Caucasia casting for films, I just could not get over it. It was not just one character. It was ALL of them. And the accents were just so horribly East Coast I couldn't get over it. I kept trying to pretend that maybe the merchant had married into the family which is why he had a Russian accent & look more like he was from Manchuria.

Every time I saw a non-Asian person or heard them speak it jarred me from the picture.

That said, it was an interesting piece about war, the horrors of war. The showing of how the brothers reacted (killed only because he had to whereas the other killed because he grew to enjoy it). Showing the "collateral damage" consquences of war - it's more than the killing or bombing. It's the raping of women, the starvation of children, the looting, the wanton destruction, the submission & humiliation of everyone. Also interesting to see were how people react: isolationist -not wanting to know/get involved; actively involved in resistance and appeasement and currying favor with the enemy.

It was interesting as a piece of propaganda to demonize the Japenese and to drum up support for the Chinese. (Note that while the main Chinese characters (the heroes) are all Caucasians, the Japanese (evil -doers) Hollywood managed to find enough Asians to cast).

The movied earned itself several stars for it's feminist portrayal of a "modern" Chinese woman who wanted to read and be the equal to her husband. Something that was probably pretty radical in '37. This is why I still feel the film is worth watching (IMO). But only if you are fore-warned about how truly painful the miscasting is!

It was OK, but it loses -1 star for product placement. -1 star for the product to be a sexist & offensive product and the gratuitous scenes featuring it were nothing more than ads.

Otherwise, it's about as exciting as you might think a tale of a "runaway" train carrying chemicals speeding towards town can be.

I admit it, I watched it because Denzel Washington was in it, and because I've liked some of Tony Scott's other work - but I'm not a huge fan of the disaster genre.

Characters are pretty lightly developed - older experienced guy being forced out so company can make money by not paying him full retirement & using lower paid people. Earnest & smart people vs. the greedy corporates who are making decisions based on profit/loss calculations alone.

The only mildly interesting character development subplot was the Chris Pine character who started out presented as a possible stalker/abuser.

I have pretty much hated anything by Steinbeck I was forced to read in school, so I would probably have avoided this film if I had known it was adapted from his work.

An interesting film. A young man who tries to figure out how to be "good" like his brother supposedly is, seeking his father's love & approval - but lacks any impulse control and is too 'wild"

However, he keeps trying to find the easy way out & only seems to consider the short-term consequences of his actions. He steals a chute to make work easier. He dates the "easy" girls who come on to him. He tries to buy his father's affection by getting into war profiteering and commodity speculation - seeing only his gain of money but not the consequences of his actions on the farmers & people who have to pay the higher prices.

He has no self-control- he lashes out, he throws rocks at windows, he tries to wreck his father's purchase of an ice-house, he sneaks in to confront his mom, he poaches his brother's girlfriend, he leaps into fights, he tries to hurt his brother and ends up driving him off to a war he doesn't support (that will mostly likely lead to his death), this action ends up probably killing his father who has a stroke.

I was going to give it a bad rating. Anything with a product placement generally doesn't get above a 5. And despite the big name comedians I was not finding it funny. The premise of truthfulness was actually more like "unable to filter what I say" and seeing only the superficial.

And then about half way in there was the very clever critique of religion and it was so well/amusingly done, it saved the movie for me. In fact, if there hadn't been product placement I would've put it on par with "life of Brian".

So, it's not perfect, but well worth watching - I don't buy the products that were being pushed anyway.

I had a hard time getting over the the fact that that the GIRL that Anton & Anthony were drooling over was 15. At least Anton was presumable her age, but seeing a 16 year old have sex with a 30+ year old was icking me out too much. The dad asking/allowing her to pose naked onstage also creeped me out.

Other than wishing they had made her 18, the film was interesting. I was worried there would be too much CGI, but it was't too bad. All the actors were good though I feel like Anthony wasn't fleshed out very well. I was wondering how they wold handle Heath Ledger's death part way through filming and they used a clever device to deal with it that I don't think detracted from the film at all.

As with all Gilliam films, don't expect a coherent plot, just enjoy the journey.

I was enjoying it until he begins a sexual relationship with an adult woman. And what does she do when she finds out he's 13? Not feel like a pervert, but check to see if he's of consenting age (16) as if she wants to continue the relationship. I was pretty disturbed by that.

If I'd seen it in the 80's as a teen I probably would've liked it. However, seeing it today as an adult, having seen other movies that encourage an embrace of innocence, that cover body- swapping/dealing with sudden adulthood (I'm thinking particularly) the original Freaky Friday - I'm just not that impressed.

Worth a watch I guess for the early scenes.

I know someone with schizophrenia. He needs to be medicated in order to function. While medicated he can function normally (work, play music, be married), when unmedicated he becomes paranoid, self destructive & suicidal.

Therefore it really saddened me that the LAMP director argued against medicating Nathaniel (of course he doesn't want it, he can't tell he's crazy!) and even after a violent attack against Lopez, he doesn't take the steps necessary to get help for Nathaniel.

Yes, support and friendship are important, but when you can't differentiate between reality and delusion, when voices in your head control your actions, you do need medical intervention.

Saw this film in Jr. high french class decades ago. At the time we thought the "Gregory go boom" scene was the funniest we had ever seen and we quoted it for years afterwards.

I checked this film out from the library because it was Truffaut and had seen it on some the Friends section of Netflix. I didn't even realize I'd seen it until Gregory appeared using his baguette as a walking stick - and then that scene came rushing back to me.

The film is a bit slow. But an interesting coming of age vignettes combined with a view of 70's small town France.

Worth watching if you like French films or coming of age stories.

Fascinating exploration of the topic, I learned a lot.

Made me think about what I put on my hair when I relax it and reminded me what beauty standards I adhere to and the racial issues around expecting everyone to have the same kind of straight hair.

Touches on the further complication of being expected to be more like another race, in order to be "beautiful". I never even thought about the fact that these women are buying hair from women in India (who don't even know their hair is being sold sometimes) in order to wear it on their heads in order to look "less black". Some people even ironically called it a more "natural" look. I was really sad to see that only 1 woman defending actual "natural" unrelaxed/no weave hair. And even sadder to hear a group of African-American women say they would not take another woman seriously on a job interview if she had 'nappy hair' - that "nappy" hair with a suit is a contradiction!

I'd have liked more historical context (less focus on the contest). Especially as they lamented that the industry was not run by African Americans, I was a little surprised there was no mention of Madam Walker's (first self made female millionaire) relaxers but I guess he was focusing on current day issues, not the history of hair products for African hair.

My only real complaint is that I wish he'd kept the focus on women.

There was too much sexism & judgement from the men. It's very easy for them to judge when they're not req'd to maintain their own hair. They can just go bald or very short. If they were required (for the sake of good looks) to have long hair, I'm sure they would do the same thing. And the assumptions that the men are paying for women's hair maintenance was annoying. The hypocrisy of expecting women to maintain this hair but complain about the price and that it couldn't be wet or touched was a bit annoying. And Ice-T just reminded me why he's a douche, still thinking like a pimp. And the music executive with the goat hair looking goatee points & some serious sexist comments just came off as a huge loser.

wish I had watched this when it came out. Made soon after we invaded Iraq. Released in the same year Bush nominated someone (Bolton) to the UN who had publicly stated his contempt for said institution. This film not only tried to answer why the UN is important, why diplomacy is important, and counter the message that Bush n Co. were putting out at the time. If that wasn't enough it also tried to address some of the ethnic cleansing, child warriors and dictatorial regimes in Africa. Thats a lot to cover in a film while still trying to make an interesting thriller. No, it doesn't always work. (The safe room scene) There are some issues (for example is this is a commentary on Africa, why does the movie revolve around 2 Caucasians in NY?) The ending is probably too idealistic (but you know Americans want happy endings). In all, I give it credit for being interesting, engaging and for covering some very interesting topics. The discussions of revenge being lazy grief was interesting. The glimpse of the inner workings of the UN were fascinating. All in all well worth watching.

The more I think about this film, the more the way this message movie was presented and the way it has been received by many really annoys me. I'm especially sensitized, given that Bush n' co. spent most of the last decade taking away our rights in the name of "security" & "safety". They must've loved this film!

The message seems to be a very reactionary one. Rights/legal protections are bad. Rule of law is useless. Vigalante abuse of power is great.

This movie is full of several logical fallacies, generalizations and other issues. It sets up a False Dilemma -either ignore the laws & get to kill the guy OR he goes free. It also sets up a Straw Man argument of picking a very rare/unlikely instance of a super psycho as an argument of why honoring the rights of criminals is bad.

Sure, it's really easy to set up a grossly exaggerated portrait of an inhumanely disturbed racist monster who killed at random, raped & threatened children, threatens priests & had no redeeming values. Then show how all those pesky civil rights helped him go free and kill again. Blame the civil rights!

Showing the rare instance when something that GENERALLY is a good thing failed (NOTE: it didn't work because HARRY did not follow the rules- not because the rules were there!) and then use that as an excuse to rant about the rules and make it seems as if there is no point to them.

No grey areas. No thoughts as to what argument means if you carry it out the whole way through. No consideration on why those rights exist or the positives of protection, especially for someone who may be innocent.

Think about it- how often does SF suffer at the hands of a madman serial killer? Not since the 70's. I just checked the crime stats for SF for the last 2 months. Not a single murder. Sure, SF isn't crime free there were probably a thousand or so burglaries, robberies, etc. But I'd much rather have strong rights and let a few people (mostly non-violent offenders) get to go free because their rights were protect then to not have Miranda rights or the 4th amendment. I'll take my chances that a psycho killer may come if it means I don't have to live in a fascist state with no expectation of privacy.

I don't want some admittedly racist misanthropic cop who feels that he can doing anything he want & shoot anyone he wants if he even *thinks* they're being bad. What happens when Harry shoots an innocent person? What would have happened if that guy at Kezar stadium had been innocent and Harry had beat the crap out of him? Is that OK because Harry's *usually* killing bad guys?

To be fair, I did check and it looks like "exigent circumstances" that allow for a LEGAL warrantless search if "necessary to prevent physical harm" doesn't appear to have become solidified until after the film (in '76)

And what was the point of the lingering shot of the killer wearing a peace sign belt buckle? Was it merely supposed to be ironic because he was a killer? Or was it meant to equate a merciless killer with those stupid"peace-loving hippies" who are causing murders to go free by advocating for rights and opposing oppressive police practices?

In the end, I chose to read the final scene as Harry goading the killer into an action so that he had an excuse to shoot him. Then Harry realizing he had no right to uphold the law as an officer if he could not follow the laws. So he threw away the badge as an admission of his failure. However it seems to me as though many reviewers saw his action in an opposite light, of choosing to reject the rule of law and embrace his vigilante ways.