What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FBG Movie Club: We're Getting the Band Back Together: Metallica vs Nina Simone Movie Docs (1 Viewer)

I currently have

  • Netflix

    Votes: 9 90.0%

  • Amazon Prime

    Votes: 9 90.0%

  • HBO Max

    Votes: 8 80.0%

  • Hulu

    Votes: 8 80.0%

  • Disney+

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Criterion

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • TCM Chanel

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Charlie Steiner said:
Finished Lethal Weapon. Will only say now it was better and worse than I remember.  On to Bad Boys next.

Bad Boys pre-ramble:

I've always felt more 'culturally' connected to the 80's than the 90's; maybe because the transition in the popular culture didn't appeal to me the way it did 10 years earlier, and maybe that was a function of my age.  Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike most things (other than most hip-hop and some rap), I just wasn't into it.  As a result, a lot of it went right by and stars like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence didn't do much for me.  By the time Bad Boys came out, I felt completely out of step with pop culture and didn't feel like I was missing much.  Fortunately, time and reruns have given me the chance to do some personal revisionist history and while I don't regret my feelings about that era, I certainly am willing to go back and look at things I dismissed too easily.  Anyway, that's my perspective going into Bad Boys. Going into it, my gut reaction is much like it was 25 years ago when it came out, that it was a movie that 'had to be made' for 'cultural' purposes, but I'm also hoping to see some level of 'universal' appeal. Wish me luck...
Click to expand...
I agree with your "had to be made" comment.

 
Started Bad Boys last night.  I thought I had seen it before but I must have been mistaken.  I've seen a bunch of movies that follow the same formula though.

 
prosopis said:
Maybe and you better have a good reason for it. 😜
Click to expand...
Sure do: Riggs, Martin. 

That and hinted at in the other discussions LW had the unfair disadvantage of being ranked along with the best 80s action movies.  Bad Boys is a Michael Bay movie.  

I will also say I was surprised that both movies limped to the finish line a bit.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watching LW this AM and our introduction to Murtaugh was awkward. He's taking  a bath and his whole family come in to wish him happy birthday and hug him. This includes what appears to be a teenage daughter. 

Also the use of saxophone on this is a tad dated. 

 
Walking Boot said:
Couldn't help but notice Martin Lawrence got top billing over Will Smith in the first Bad Boys, having not seen the others, I assume that must have changed, no? Marcus is only just barely the "lead" in that film, but that must have been reversed in the later installments.
Click to expand...
Based on my limited research of looking at the movie posters, it looks like Will Smith was only top billed for part 3 (which just came out a couple months ago)

 
Ilov80s said:
Watching LW this AM and our introduction to Murtaugh was awkward. He's taking  a bath and his whole family come in to wish him happy birthday and hug him. This includes what appears to be a teenage daughter. 

Also the use of saxophone on this is a tad dated. 
Click to expand...
I couldn't wait to make daughter comments throughout. Love the awkwardness of everything involving the teenage daughter, including her and Riggs. So uncomfortable, both in real life and cinematically. Yeah, I'm that dude.

Riggs! Riggs!

 
rockaction said:
I couldn't wait to make daughter comments throughout. Love the awkwardness of everything involving the teenage daughter, including her and Riggs. So uncomfortable, both in real life and cinematically. Yeah, I'm that dude.

Riggs! Riggs!
Click to expand...
I noticed in the opening credits that she got "Introducing" added to her name, which not everyone gets for their film debut. Not sure how that happens, but to me they would save that for actors they expect great things from...? 

 
Charlie Steiner said:
I noticed in the opening credits that she got "Introducing" added to her name, which not everyone gets for their film debut. Not sure how that happens, but to me they would save that for actors they expect great things from...? 
Click to expand...
Really? Something tells me there's a lot of what happened with the rock group Bow Wow Wow going on. She didn't have the chops to pull it off, I guess.

 
rockaction said:
Really? Something tells me there's a lot of what happened with the rock group Bow Wow Wow going on. She didn't have the chops to pull it off, I guess.
Click to expand...
Maybe she got that as a form of compensation for running around in her underwear so much.  As for her acting chops, they didn't recast her part in the sequel, so they must have felt she was adequate.

 
Ilov80s said:
Watching LW this AM and our introduction to Murtaugh was awkward. He's taking  a bath and his whole family come in to wish him happy birthday and hug him. This includes what appears to be a teenage daughter. 

Also the use of saxophone on this is a tad dated. 
Click to expand...
Yes the bath tub scene was awkward as hell, LOL. 

 
prosopis said:
Maybe and you better have a good reason for it. 😜
Click to expand...


rockaction said:
I couldn't wait to make daughter comments throughout. Love the awkwardness of everything involving the teenage daughter, including her and Riggs. So uncomfortable, both in real life and cinematically. Yeah, I'm that dude.

Riggs! Riggs!
Click to expand...
This would be another one.   IMO when 80s go awkward it feels worse than with 90s movies.  Usually cringey stuff like this, dropping the three lettered F word, etc..  

 
Sorry - completely whiffed on posting the upcoming pairings.   

We looked at sports movies, but I will be honest - I didn't think there were many available that were that great or might give us much to talk about.  Either over the top like Waterboy or Necessary Roughness,  ones that everybody has probably seen like Miracle.  Anyway we are going "sports adjacent" and doing a sports agent double feature! 

Discussion starting on May 11th:     Jerry Maguire + High Flying Bird    [both of these movies are on Netflix]

Extra Credit movie for those looking for a sports movie to watch = Murderball [on Prime].  Not related to the discussion, I just love that doc but couldn't think of much to pair with it so I will just make that recommendation.  

When we do the every other Monday starting a movie discussion schedule, that puts the next one right on Memorial Day.  We will still keep that, and if people are doing something they can start their discussion the day after, but that also makes it topical for a couple war movies.   We tried to stay away from the really heavy ones like Paths of Glory and The Pianist, so we are going to be going with a couple POW movies that should keep it a little lighter for people.  

Discussion starting on May 25th:   The Great Escape + Stalag 17  [both of these are on Prime]

I think most will like June pairing, but we will wait until later to post those to see what comes and goes on the services.  Even these are risky, so if one gets taken off in May I will post the replacement.  

 
I want to start by saying that I almost always feel bad criticizing any form of art. Just because I did not like it does not mean its bad and vice versa. I feel very strongly about this regarding music. Whenever I hear - country sucks, disco sucks, classical sucks, Christmas sucks, whatever your genre is that you think sucks, it really sets my spidey sense tingling. Not all art is for everyone. One persons trash is anothers treasure, right?

Anyway, in real life I try not to criticize art. I use words like "It's not for me" 

For me to criticize art it has to be egregious behavior. Something that in my opinion is being done for shock and primarily to poke people with a stick-  Virgin Mary in a jar of piss would be an example of this.

Real life- Bad boys was not for me, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Movie club- Bad boys was horrendous. Lethal Weapon was good.

Lethal Weapon- We see Riggs and Murtaugh form a relationship that in my opinion was well done and in the world of movies was believable.

Bad boys (just the name kind of gets my BP up)- We see no relationship formed and we are expected to just accept it. It did not help that they had very little chemistry together and I never believed they were or could be friends.

Lethal Weapon- Riggs is crazy and suicidal. We are given a reason for this and while it is definitely over the top I was buying it.

Bad boys- I think Martin was supposed to act crazy by bugging his eyes out every once in a while and getting loud. I never cared and was hoping someone would shoot him. I also feel he was acting very stereotypical which I am blaming Bay for.

Lethal Weapon- For me was the blueprint for buddy cop pictures after it.

Bad boys- poor job of following the blueprint

Acting in my opinion was far superior in LW. I remember being excited about that guy from Road Warrior being in it. Strange career path for Mel.

Last but certainly not least- This is absolutely not something I would say in real life. I did not realize this was a Michael Bay movie but when I found out it all made sense. Half way through the film I was thinking this is as bad as a Michael Bay movie and lo and behold it was a Michael Bay movie. I just don't care for his style unless it is something that is supposed to be ridiculous such as transformers.

* My Michael Bay feelings are exactly what I am talking about in my opening paragraph. I have to stop myself and say it's just not for me. If it brings joy and happiness to people then it is a good thing. Just not for me.

Looking forward to Jerry Maguire. It's been a long time since I have seen that. I liked the kid asking if you know how much a human head weighs. 

 
prosopis said:
For me to criticize art it has to be egregious behavior. Something that in my opinion is being done for shock and primarily to poke people with a stick-  Virgin Mary in a jar of piss would be an example of this.
Click to expand...
I came from a different angle but hopefully aimed at the same points you make about criticism.  That said, Smith and Lawrence acting 'stereotypical' was low on my list of issues, and like you, I wasn't a fan of how their dynamic was treated.  This part, however, bothers me to say; from the opening sequence I got the feeling they were going to be a couple of "mary sues" and the rest of the film pretty much proved my instinct was right this time.

 
Speaking to the cultural aspect, outside of Coming to America, had there been another massive hit starring two black people before Bad Boys? 

 
I have to agree with KP that Lethal Weapon is a tier below the best 80s action movies like Die Hard, Raiders, Bev Hills Cop, Top Gun and Terminator. More on par with Predator ad Robocop IMO. Very entertaining though. 

Ditto for Bad Boys. 90s tier action movies of Matrix, T2, Point Break and True Lies. More on par with Con-Air, Air Force One, etc. 

Both are incredibly representative of their decades. Maybe the most representative and with it dated action movies of their decade. 

 
Lethal Weapon is a classic, but in revisiting it, I was surprised at sloppy it is.

That opening shootout with Riggs and the coke dealers is really poorly done in an action sense (that one guy gets shot 4-5x, and just clutches his chest to make up for the fact they used no blood/makeup for him), but you don't remember it because of the chaos of the whole "go ahead shoot me" while the bad guy has a gun to Riggs head - that's the part you remember.

Then the  jump scene... when they jump in slow motion, you can see pretty clearly they aren't cuffed.  Plus, that was really anti-climatic - jumping into the giant pillow was... silly? 

The big plan involved Roger with a fake grenade and Riggs with a sniper rifle - against 20 guys and a helicopter? Ok then. 

I still loved it. But in 2020, it's much easier to notice this stuff than it was in 1987.

Still finishing Bad Boys.

 
jwb said:
Lethal Weapon is a classic, but in revisiting it, I was surprised at sloppy it is.

That opening shootout with Riggs and the coke dealers is really poorly done in an action sense (that one guy gets shot 4-5x, and just clutches his chest to make up for the fact they used no blood/makeup for him), but you don't remember it because of the chaos of the whole "go ahead shoot me" while the bad guy has a gun to Riggs head - that's the part you remember.

Then the  jump scene... when they jump in slow motion, you can see pretty clearly they aren't cuffed.  Plus, that was really anti-climatic - jumping into the giant pillow was... silly? 

The big plan involved Roger with a fake grenade and Riggs with a sniper rifle - against 20 guys and a helicopter? Ok then. 

I still loved it. But in 2020, it's much easier to notice this stuff than it was in 1987.

Still finishing Bad Boys.
Click to expand...
HE CONTROLLED THE JUMP!

Just like Bad Boys has Michael Bay's fingerprints all over it, Lethal Weapon has Richard Donner's fingerprints all over it, and looking through his body of work, there's a certain lack of attention to detail in some places that I have to think  must come from his days of working in TV, where he had to worry about speed and cost-cutting tricks more than movie directors do.

As for the storywriting, while it was as consistently uneven as the direction, not every action movie can be Conan the Barbarian-level perfection. Speaking of which, one of the Shadow Company goons was in Conan as well--Sven-Ole Thorsen.

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: jwb
Walking Boot said:
The actors were wearing fake plastic handcuffs that broke when they pushed off. The jumper had the presence of mind to realize that and grab Mel's wrist to keep them close enough to not ruin the shot. 

But otherwise, they only had the ability to do one take, so, that was it. They decided to go with imperfect continuity over cutting around it for the impact of the rest of the shot. 

It's surprising how much of movie production is like that. You have to deal with what's practical and possible and have to accept a lot of imperfections because you can't wait for it to be just right. 

I wouldn't ding the movie for one shot like that. It wasn't intentional. And the result was probably better than the alternatives. 

I've been on set when stuff like that happens. A director will just shrug and say "if that's what most people notice in the two seconds it's visible, they aren't paying attention to what we want anyway, and if that ruins this for them, we never had them to begin with". 
Click to expand...
Great post. 

Yea, I totally get it. And not really dinging it, just something that always bugged me. I love the movie in general, so they had me. 

 
Walking Boot said:
The actors were wearing fake plastic handcuffs that broke when they pushed off. The jumper had the presence of mind to realize that and grab Mel's wrist to keep them close enough to not ruin the shot. 

But otherwise, they only had the ability to do one take, so, that was it. They decided to go with imperfect continuity over cutting around it for the impact of the rest of the shot. 

It's surprising how much of movie production is like that. You have to deal with what's practical and possible and have to accept a lot of imperfections because you can't wait for it to be just right. 

I wouldn't ding the movie for one shot like that. It wasn't intentional. And the result was probably better than the alternatives. 

I've been on set when stuff like that happens. A director will just shrug and say "if that's what most people notice in the two seconds it's visible, they aren't paying attention to what we want anyway, and if that ruins this for them, we never had them to begin with". 
Click to expand...
The chances of someone noticing something so small in such a big shot is small. I certainly didn't notice. Good info though, love that detail.

 
Walking Boot said:
I realize I've only seen three Michael Bay films, all from the 1990s: Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon. I haven't seen any of the movies he's directed in the 2000s. So when people talk of "The Michael Bay style", I can only assume it got louder, faster, and more incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
i'll never forget a review Roger Ebert gave of a 2000s Michael Bay movie, Pearl Harbor or one of the Transformers, where he said to not only dont see it but dont go to any movie playing in an adjoining multiplex theater because the noise was so oppressive

 
Walking Boot said:
I realize I've only seen three Michael Bay films, all from the 1990s: Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon. I haven't seen any of the movies he's directed in the 2000s. So when people talk of "The Michael Bay style", I can only assume it got louder, faster, and more incomprehensible.

But based on those three films he's directed that I have seen, I don't hate the guy. What strikes me most is: he's a Storyteller. I mean that in the oldest possible sense of the term. The prehistoric, "sitting around the fire, watching shadows dance on the cave walls" kind of way. 
Click to expand...
Oh God, yeah.  The the action in the Transformers movies are basically just a blur of color.  

 
Walking Boot said:
I realize I've only seen three Michael Bay films, all from the 1990s: Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon. I haven't seen any of the movies he's directed in the 2000s. So when people talk of "The Michael Bay style", I can only assume it got louder, faster, and more incomprehensible.

But based on those three films he's directed that I have seen, I don't hate the guy. What strikes me most is: he's a Storyteller. I mean that in the oldest possible sense of the term. The prehistoric, "sitting around the fire, watching shadows dance on the cave walls" kind of way. 

His approach, to me, seems to be that his job is, primarily, to entertain. He's like an eight-year-old writing a short story. He's focused entirely on Plot. He wants to present a Plot in the most fun way possible. He's not concerned with anything else... backstory, motivation, continuity, logic... whatever happens, happens, because that's the Plot. You shouldn't be asking "but why?", you should be along for the ride as it is.

He also seems to tell the story with the broadest strokes possible. He's not worried about detail. You can't take the modern arsenal of movie critique and aim it at his films, they're not built for that. It's pointless.

It's, very simply, a Story. Just like when you hear a campfire tale and the storyteller leaves it up to you to fill in the blanks. He can tell you the story of the Great Battle or the Epic Hunt, and some kid might interrupt to ask "but what was the hero wearing?" or "does he have children at home?" or "how old/tall/whatever is he? Did he have a beard? Was his spear tip flint or iron?" and the storyteller would just say "Whatever kid, it doesn't matter, this is the Story" and go on with the tale... that's how I view the Michael Bay movies. I'm not going to get bogged down in minutiae. In some ways, the film medium doesn't help him, by taking minor background details he doesn't care about and blowing them up to be twenty feet tall, but, he's doing what he's doing regardless. 

He's just working on presenting the most fun ride possible. The boldest stunts, the brashest characters, the wildest story... he's taking some of the biggest budgets in history and using a cleaver, not a scalpel, to act out one of mankind's oldest rituals in storytelling in the most superficial way. He's leaving lots of blanks because it doesn't matter to the story. In my mind, you shouldn't be nitpicking, you shouldn't be digging any deeper than the surface. Plots don't have to make sense, they just have to be fun. Don't worry about why things happen, why the characters do what they do, what happened between scenes that you didn't see. You should just accept that you're on the ride and let it happen in front of you.
Click to expand...
All fair points, and all remind me of why I avoid Michael Bay movies for the most part, though I admit I liked Armageddon and didn't have nearly the issues with its quality as I do with most of his other films. I'm not against pushing the envelope per se, but are you telling me a story, or just showing off how technologically advanced movies are now? Some people see Bay as dazzling them with brilliance but I see him as baffling them with bullsh*t. In Bad Boys for example, neither lead was particularly bold nor brash, the story wasn't wild; the stunts, props and scenery were, because they were what was loud and wild. As the financial success of his movies demonstrates, there is a market for his approach, I just think he leaves a lot of meat on the bone in favor of shock and awe.

In the end, I think while Will Smith and Martin Lawrence have benefited greatly from this movie and its sequels, I also think they should feel a bit insulted, as they were more like props and didn't get to really showcase what they could do, even when they switched identities. The same can be said about Tea Leoni. She couldn't figure out whether or not she was supposed to be the pixie dreamgirl or the comic relief, and instead was the worst of both. The way those three were in the film to me is Bay's fault.  He didn't seem to give them much guidance as how to do any particular scene; he was probably more engrossed in setting up the next shootout or exploding car/building.  This is also where Lethal Weapon outclasses Bad Boys: the entire cast seemed to 'get' their roles much better.  I expect that from Gibson and Glover, as both were more seasoned actors than Smith and Lawrence, but so was the rest of the supporting cast of Lethal Weapon, and it showed. 

Something I just thought about was the idea of how the 2 films would have been different if the directors were switched.  While I can't presume to know how Donner works with actors, I do know that he comes from a time when films showcased their stars doing what they were good at instead of using them as props. As such, I think Donner would have at least gotten more memorable performances out his three main characters.  Will Smith and Martin Lawrence aren't as similar as they were made out to be in the movie, yet when the best opportunity for them to really show their differences occurred in the movie, they each acted too much like the other, or were at least too comfortable in the other's situation.  It was built into the plot, yet it was mostly wasted, either because they didn't want to take the time to do it right, they didn't know how, or Smith and/or Lawrence would have been out of their depth. As as for Tea Leoni, her performance was just a trainwreck, IMHO. She couldn't decide between plucky comic relief or pixie dream girl, and instead was the worst of both types. A director like Donner, who treats actors like actors and props like props instead of the other way around (like Bay, IMO), would at least give some sort of clear guidance for Leoni and would have at least tried with Smith and Martin to milk some comedy out of their predicament.  And if Bay were to have directed Lethal Weapon, he would have been blessed with a talented and more importantly seasoned cast who would have been able to figure out what worked and what didn't, while Bay figured out how to make a bus explosion even more explode-y.  I think both movies would have been better for it, as they each ultimately were missing what the other director would have brought to the table, or at least, Lethal Weapon wouldn't have suffered and Bad Boys would have been better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people know it's coming, but my take is basically the opposite of @prosopis' post above.  

As I posted before, I fully admit that I had different expectations going into these movies.  Bad Boys I knew was a dumb loud maybe 2nd tier 90s action movie (I agee with 80s' post about stuff like Point Break, T2, True Lies, etc.. being in the top tier).  LW is frequently on lists of being one of the best action movies of the 80s and I was looking at it more in the sense of if this is something that holds up and I would be able to tell my son is good enough to watch.  

I don't think it was, and I was kind of bored with LW about 1/2 way through.  Just about all of it was because of the Riggs' character.  IMO they took something that could have been an interesting and dramatic thing for him and handled it in the typical over the top 80s way that made it pointless.  They had a scene or two about his wife and why Riggs was the way he was, but mostly I was just annoyed by the representation of that being he just does crazy eyes and shakes his head a lot.  It was just annoying to me.   Again with the comparison to what I think is a much better 80s movie in Die Hard - and they were able to inject some real drama in there with Bruce and the backstory about Carlton shooting the kid.  It makes them real and adds to the tension of the movie.  Riggs was just cartoonish.  Then you add the typical 80s cheese, the creepy daughter stuff, and the silly fistfight for the climax of the movie and like I said before - I think it's just an OK 80s action movie.  But there were 15-20 I listed that I would easily rather watch again over this one.  

Bad Boys was exactly what I remembering it being, and I had a little more fun watching it because of that.  At any rate- at least I laughed a few more times.  Some is the absurdity of the movie, but I actually like chemistry of those two more than Glover and Gibson.  

I would say both are 2nd tier action movies for their respective decade, I just had a little more fun with Bad Boys.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
I think people know it's coming, but my take is basically the opposite of @prosopis' post above.  

As I posted before, I fully admit that I had different expectations going into these movies.  Bad Boys I knew was a dumb loud maybe 2nd tier 90s action movie (I agee with 80s' post about stuff like Point Break, T2, True Lies, etc.. being in the top tier).  LW is frequently on lists of being one of the best action movies of the 80s and I was looking at it more in the sense of if this is something that holds up and I would be able to tell my son is good enough to watch.  

I don't think it was, and I was kind of bored with LW about 1/2 way through.  Just about all of it was because of the Riggs' character.  IMO they took something that could have been an interesting and dramatic thing for him and handled it in the typical over the top 80s way that made it pointless.  They had a scene or two about his wife and why Riggs was the way he was, but mostly I was just annoyed by the representation of that being he just does crazy eyes and shakes his head a lot.  It was just annoying to me.   Again with the comparison to what I think is a much better 80s movie in Die Hard - and they were able to inject some real drama in there with Bruce and the backstory about Carlton shooting the kid.  It makes them real and adds to the tension of the movie.  Riggs was just cartoonish.  Then you add the typical 80s cheese, the creepy daughter stuff, and the silly fistfight for the climax of the movie and like I said before - I think it's just an OK 80s action movie.  But there were 15-20 I listed that I would easily rather watch again over this one.  

Bad Boys was exactly what I remembering it being, and I had a little more fun watching it because of that.  At any rate- at least I laughed a few more times.  Some is the absurdity of the movie, but I actually like chemistry of those two more than Glover and Gibson.  

I would say both are 2nd tier action movies for their respective decade, I just had a little more fun with Bad Boys.  
Click to expand...
Now we have the benefit of hindsight to know that basically every Mel Gibson character is some shade of Mad Max, and Lethal Weapon is an interesting mile marker in that journey, if for no other reason than to see the progression.  Riggs is basically Mad Max but not in a post-apocalyptic world, but yeah, Mel didn't seem to know what Riggs' PTSD should look like and just went manic when all else failed.

 
Walking Boot said:
Yeah I think that we know more now about mental illness than most people understood in the 80s and so Riggs' character's actions no longer ring true. He is far too manic to be realistic, and his swings are too wild and random. Someone with the same background issues would be portrayed a lot differently -- more consistently -- today.
Click to expand...
Joaquin in a LW remake?? 

 
Walking Boot said:
Yeah I think that we know more now about mental illness than most people understood in the 80s and so Riggs' character's actions no longer ring true. He is far too manic to be realistic, and his swings are too wild and random. Someone with the same background issues would be portrayed a lot differently -- more consistently -- today.
Click to expand...
It's almost like a superpower. "ok Riggs, time to go crazy"

 
Walking Boot said:
Yeah I think that we know more now about mental illness than most people understood in the 80s and so Riggs' character's actions no longer ring true. He is far too manic to be realistic, and his swings are too wild and random. Someone with the same background issues would be portrayed a lot differently -- more consistently -- today.
Click to expand...
Maybe he wasn’t crazy and really was faking it the whole time

 
KarmaPolice said:
I could buy that more if not for the scene by himself with the gun.  
Click to expand...
I was kind of joking- the movie definitely wants you to believe he has some kind of PTSD from the war but he also could just be some kind of thrill junkie, adrenaline addict and substance abuser who does crazy #### for inexplicably. He seems to love being in situations where he begs people to kill him.

 
Walking Boot said:
I could buy that if not for the scene after the jump, where he actually pulls the trigger to kill himself only Murtaugh's finger stops the hammer from hitting the firing pin
Click to expand...
There are also people who we consider perfectly sane who scale skyscrapers with no safety nets or walk across buildings on a wire or free climb mountains or swim with sharks. Some people are just always looking to live on the edge. Maybe he wanted to see how far he could push Murtaugh know Murtaugh wouldn't let him do it? 

Still I think the movie wants us to think he has PTSD. 

 
Ilov80s said:
I was kind of joking- the movie definitely wants you to believe he has some kind of PTSD from the war but he also could just be some kind of thrill junkie, adrenaline addict and substance abuser who does crazy #### for inexplicably. He seems to love being in situations where he begs people to kill him.
Click to expand...
Well ya know, they say that with a thrill-seekin' personality, what goes up must come down. Top of the world one minute, haunted by megrims the next. Yep, it's like our friend Riggs is a alley cat and his own damn humors're swingin' him by the tail.

 
Also funny these were considered light and fun given that there must have been 40 people killed between the 2 movies. Which movie had a higher body count?

 
Ilov80s said:
Also funny these were considered light and fun given that there must have been 40 people killed between the 2 movies. Which movie had a higher body count?
Click to expand...
Gotta be Bad Boys; the bad guy had more henchmen.

Fun fact about Lethal Weapon: The actress playing Murtaugh's teenage daughter was 27 at the time.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KarmaPolice
FBG Movie Club - DotM: Richard Linklater
2 3
Replies
132
Views
7K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
KarmaPolice
FBG Movie Club: DotM: Billy Wilder
2 3 4
Replies
195
Views
12K
Bracie Smathers
Bracie Smathers
grateful zed
bored followers: the comprehensive list
Replies
9
Views
760
Mr. Pickles
Mr. Pickles

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top