lmv@houxa.UUCP (L.VANDERBILT) (12/18/85)
In article 681@dicomed.UUCP, houxm!ihnp4!dicomed!stryker writes > I do see that some attempt at meaning was made by the movie. Here goes: > > All of the characters, the good guys, the bad guys, the good guy's lovers, > the bad guy's lovers, the bad guy's lover's lover, were absolutely dispicable. > Yechh. The point of the movie was to ask if we are all a bunch of morally > bankrupt baddies, whether our object of desire is money, power, prestige, > etc. The cops and the lawyers are really no better than the crooks. > To which I say: You better add Hollywood movie producers who make crocks of > monkey drool like 'To Live and Die in L.A.' to your list of bad guys. > > don I don't agree, I think the movie was saying that the world is full of "morally bankrupt baddies" and the longer we hang around them, we accept them and in the end we become just like them. One other reviewer on the net commented he liked the movie except that in the end, the only good guy turned out to be a bad guy all along. I think he was a good guy, but by being around all these corrupt people he started to accept them. When his partner got shot in the face, he saw that it could've been him and he figured what the hell, what do i have to lose, i could be dead tomorrow so why not go for it?? I think the movie was good and I liked it. I know a lot of people who didn't but everyone I talk to seems to have a different reason for not liking it. One person I talked to here at work said he couldn't stand the movie because it was "too sleazy" and the people didn't seem real to him. I told him that people that sleazy and unmoral really do exist, but he said no way. So I guess if you can accept the characters you might like the movie. Lynn houxm!houxa!lmv