@kabukiarmadillo said:

It would have taken 1-3 seconds for any one of them to shoot McCall outright. No matter how painful the technique applied...knowing that the pain would only be applied for another second or so... it would have been tactically smarter to shoot McCall. In that second or so, McCall wouldn't even have the time to break the wrist or do more damage.

McCall seems to enjoy the shock his audacity causes to his opponents. From the first installment, he loved walking directly into situations in which he was outnumbered, and in "their territory", yet controlled the situation.

That said, I agree with you. In this movie, this scene was not the only one in which I thought "oh, c'mon." In addition to this, the scene in the courtyard when he gave himself up to the bad guy but the villagers "fought back" was quite lame, to me. In fact, the entire opening sequence in which he's shot, ends up by the side of the road dying and, as luck would have it, he just so happens to be found by a person who cares enough to help. Too many times in this movie, he seemed vulnerable to a degree that made him seem too lucky to get as far as he did.

Also, my wife and I had a disagreement about the end. McCall poisons the older brother, and tells him he'll be dead within six minutes. I think McCall offered him the knife as a way to cut the drugs out of his own body which likely would have killed him anyway, or be excruciatingly painful. My wife disagrees as we never see McCall verbally offer him the knife up. Anyone have an opinion on this?

I can't recall that well enough to offer any opinion worth sharing. Hopefully, someone else might have a clue what was going on there.

Restaurant: I'd say that when you're in that much pain, you don't think logically. Especially if you're the sort of bully who has never faced and real resistance.

Knife: Sorry, can't remember a knife.

My "points of confusion" were over the goal of the mission that opens the movie. After being shot, McCall seems to give up on the idea of completing the mission, and then spends a lot of time recuperating and enjoying himself (as well as getting rid of a bunch of bad guys) before doing something about the bag. You could argue that he was testing out the CIA lady's integrity for the second point, I guess.

@M.LeMarchand said:

Restaurant: I'd say that when you're in that much pain, you don't think logically. Especially if you're the sort of bully who has never faced and real resistance.

I thought that too.

Knife: Sorry, can't remember a knife.

Neither can I. It must have happened when I was looking down to see if there was any popcorn left in the bucket.

My "points of confusion" were over the goal of the mission that opens the movie. After being shot, McCall seems to give up on the idea of completing the mission, and then spends a lot of time recuperating and enjoying himself (as well as getting rid of a bunch of bad guys) before doing something about the bag. You could argue that he was testing out the CIA lady's integrity for the second point, I guess.

McCall was finally getting some well deserved rest and would have continued with his mission later, until he realized that there was something/someone - very, very bad guys - there that required his immediate attention first.

It is possible that he was testing Emma: was she hardcore CIA or one with a conscience who he can trust?

Letting her get the credit for eliminating the Camorra, so that she is promoted, is good for the future when he needs someone he can trust in 'The Company'. Of course he is also doing it because she is the daughter of a good friend.

@wonder2wonder said:

McCall was finally getting some well deserved rest and would have continued with his mission later, until he realized that there was something/someone - very, very bad guys - there that required his immediate attention first.

Possibly, though his first action after he had seen off the young lad would have meant it was "Game Over". There was also some urgency with the bag but I guess the ending wouldn't have been so heart-warming if Emma had got there before things had got to he stage we saw them at.

@M.LeMarchand said:

Knife: Sorry, can't remember a knife.

When the bad guy is tied to the post, McCall waves the bear-claw style knife in front of his face before using it to cut off the rope. He follows the bad guy as he staggers away. When the brother comes to a gate and has a gagging fit, McCall silently offers up the knife again. The scene is dimly lit and my wife missed it too. I think the problem was that McCall doesn't explicitly explain to the brother, "Here's a knife for you to cut yourself open and get the pills out before you die. If you use the knife you'll still likely die from blood loss, the shock of pain, etc, but maybe... just maybe... you might live." It's all just implied by his actions.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

That said, I agree with you. In this movie, this scene was not the only one in which I thought "oh, c'mon." In addition to this, the scene in the courtyard when he gave himself up to the bad guy but the villagers "fought back" was quite lame, to me. In fact, the entire opening sequence in which he's shot, ends up by the side of the road dying and, as luck would have it, he just so happens to be found by a person who cares enough to help. Too many times in this movie, he seemed vulnerable to a degree that made him seem too lucky to get as far as he did.

I forgot this part, but, yes, I agree with you. In fact, I remember now that the gang's excuse for leaving -- "Boss, they are filming us." -- was inconsistent. If this was all it took to deter/scare off the gang, the villagers could have done this at any time earlier in the movie during any number of atrocities that they committed.

@wonder2wonder said:

It is possible that he was testing Emma: was she hardcore CIA or one with a conscience who he can trust?

Good for McCall being careful but, given who she was revealed to be, and who he was to her family, it shouldn't have really been a question.

Letting her get the credit for eliminating the Camorra, so that she is promoted, is good for the future when he needs someone he can trust in 'The Company'.

She could be the future...but he's too old to be a legitimate part of that.

Of course he is also doing it because she is the daughter of a good friend.

This ticked me off perhaps the most. After two whole movies in which I'm hard-pressed to recall ANY mention of the Plummers having a child, to all of a sudden foist her into this mix was cheesy to me; especially since, IF indeed there was a daughter who would happen to get into the very same line of work as her mom, wouldn't she KNOW IMMEDIATELY who Robert McCall was? C'mon.

It reminds me of Beverly Hills Cop II. Foley hears Bogamil was shot, he jumps on the phone, gets Bogamil's daughter, Jan. She was not in BHC1, because Foley and Bogamil don't become friends until the end of the movie but, between the end of 1 and the beginning of 2, they did become real friends. So, of course, she knows exactly who he is, they talk like he was her godfather or uncle or something. BHC2 did that right.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@wonder2wonder said:

It is possible that he was testing Emma: was she hardcore CIA or one with a conscience who he can trust?

Good for McCall being careful but, given who she was revealed to be, and who he was to her family, it shouldn't have really been a question.

It's an Intelligence Agency with a lot of misinfomation. Even if she is family of a good friend, he couldn't be sure where her loyalty lies.

Letting her get the credit for eliminating the Camorra, so that she is promoted, is good for the future when he needs someone he can trust in 'The Company'.

She could be the future...but he's too old to be a legitimate part of that.

He might not be fighting any hand-to-hand combats anymore, but she is a valuable asset, e.g. she could provide him with any confidential information in the future.

Of course he is also doing it because she is the daughter of a good friend.

This ticked me off perhaps the most. After two whole movies in which I'm hard-pressed to recall ANY mention of the Plummers having a child, to all of a sudden foist her into this mix was cheesy to me; especially since, IF indeed there was a daughter who would happen to get into the very same line of work as her mom, wouldn't she KNOW IMMEDIATELY who Robert McCall was? C'mon.

It reminds me of Beverly Hills Cop II. Foley hears Bogamil was shot, he jumps on the phone, gets Bogamil's daughter, Jan. She was not in BHC1, because Foley and Bogamil don't become friends until the end of the movie but, between the end of 1 and the beginning of 2, they did become real friends. So, of course, she knows exactly who he is, they talk like he was her godfather or uncle or something. BHC2 did that right.

That is something they often do. I had even considered the possibility of a son or daughter of McCall making a surprise appearance. Or perhaps Vivienne had a child from a previous relationship. Something to think about if they want to continue the franchise without Denzel Washington?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

That said, I agree with you. In this movie, this scene was not the only one in which I thought "oh, c'mon." In addition to this, the scene in the courtyard when he gave himself up to the bad guy but the villagers "fought back" was quite lame, to me.

@kabukiarmadillo said:

I forgot this part, but, yes, I agree with you. In fact, I remember now that the gang's excuse for leaving -- "Boss, they are filming us." -- was inconsistent. If this was all it took to deter/scare off the gang, the villagers could have done this at any time earlier in the movie during any number of atrocities that they committed.

I thought this was supposed to show that, if the townspeople all stand up to the bad guys together, they are strong enough to make a difference. The way that McCall, an outsider, was prepared to martyr himself for them was the catalyst.

OK, not necessarily realistic - but this is happening in a geriactioner, not the most grounded of genres.

@M.LeMarchand said:

Restaurant: I'd say that when you're in that much pain, you don't think logically. Especially if you're the sort of bully who has never faced and real resistance.

Knife: Sorry, can't remember a knife.

My "points of confusion" were over the goal of the mission that opens the movie. After being shot, McCall seems to give up on the idea of completing the mission, and then spends a lot of time recuperating and enjoying himself (as well as getting rid of a bunch of bad guys) before doing something about the bag. You could argue that he was testing out the CIA lady's integrity for the second point, I guess.

The movie obviously isn't trying to be a documentary, but the median nerve compression was just silly. It's just not realistic in any way and median nerve compression a.k.a. carpal tunnel syndrome is something you very commonly see in medicine and one diagnostic test is actually squeezing the nerve. Probably not very surprising to you guys that I haven't ran into a person pooping their pants from the test nor the ailment itself yet. There's also a reason "pressure point" artists wouldn't last very long in a real fight or even in a MMA match. If you happen to practice BJJ or SW it's pretty much a certainty you will sooner or later run into a person trying to squeeze some nerve either intentionally or unintentionally, but you can work up quite a pain tolerance doing said hobbies and it won't even faze a seasoned fighter/grappler. Not to mention in a real situation like the movie is supposedly portraying with adrenaline kicking in you'd be doing your darndest to get out of the situation no matter what.

The knife scene I think he was just taunting the guy with knife and I don't there was any more to it than that.

Anyways while not terrible the movie wasn't that good either. Just too many silly and inconsistent scenes like the one mentioned above where they are ready to execute McCall on the street and suddenly start going "They called the cops boss!". You mean the same cops you repeatedly show being corrupt and under your rule and the same cops whose boss' hand you just cut off without a worry in the world? Oh no it's the cops!

@aholejones said:

Anyways while not terrible the movie wasn't that good either. Just too many silly and inconsistent scenes like the one mentioned above where they are ready to execute McCall on the street and suddenly start going "They called the cops boss!". You mean the same cops you repeatedly show being corrupt and under your rule and the same cops whose boss' hand you just cut off without a worry in the world? Oh no it's the cops!

Lol yeah I noticed when they said the cops were coming during that villager revolt scene too. Why would they care, they were beating and blowing up cops in broad daylight!

Overall I enjoyed this though, better than the second one, and seems like I'm in the minority but I liked the reveal of the CIA agent being the daughter of the Plummers. OK didn't make sense thinking back, but at least there's a connection from the previous films and a reason why he was specifically helping her.