Mainstream films with questionable morals?

johnny_ultimate

humanji wrote: »

With regards the Breakfast Club (and admittedly, it's been years since I watched it), but isn't that girl not being herself, and that's the problem? She's withdrawn into herself because of her abusive parents. In the end she's shown that she can be who she wants and not shy away from things. And once she's able to start living the way she wants to, she gets noticed by the other guy.

That's the way I read into it. Each character starts off thinking they know who they are, but learn that they're not those people at all.

Certainly an alternative reading of it. For me though it showed everybody conforming to the norm, individuality abandoned. That's just the way I read it when I watched, and your reading's definitely another way of looking at it. But like any big 'makeover changes life' film, it preached a morality I wasn't comfortable with. It was the reaction of Estavez's character - who hadn't even thought of the goth/nerd as attractive until she made herself up. In the end, surface attraction triumphs over personality. Realistic? Maybe, but I for one couldn't get on board with the 'happy ending'.

DrumSteve wrote: »

43 posts in and no one has mentioned Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen.

Can be summed up just in the part

where they throw Obama's advisor from a plane.

Revenge of the Fallen is the first film that sprung to mind, but I have to stop giving out about that film :pac: Bay makes it too easy!

Phony Scott

The King of Moo wrote: »

[...] I felt like the film was trying to manipulate viewers into supporting the father.

My recollection is that everyone who sides with Carl Lee is drawn in a positive light, even Donald Sutherland, a drunk, who is redeemed at the end when he appears at the courthouse to support our heroes.

Matthew McConaughey is not only portrayed as a great lawyer, but as a hero who also thinks he can dismantle a bomb. I don't think there is a flaw to this character.

hidinginthebush

Phony Scott wrote: »

My recollection is that everyone who sides with Carl Lee is drawn in a positive light, even Donald Sutherland, a drunk, who is redeemed at the end when he appears at the courthouse to support our heroes.

Matthew McConaughey is not only portrayed as a great lawyer, but as a hero who also thinks he can dismantle a bomb. I don't think there is a flaw to this character.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but IIRC his unstoppable quest for justice is shown as a fault-

his wife moves out, his house gets burned down

. I remember these events being shown that he was hurting his own family but wouldn't walk away from the case.

Mellor

Also the whole temptation to have an affair is a pretty big fault too imo

Phony Scott

Mellor wrote: »

Also the whole temptation to have an affair is a pretty big fault too imo

That's a fair arguement, I'd competely forgotten that.

Outkast_IRE

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's been a while since I saw it, but at the time I thought it's portrayal of race was very simplistic even if based on reality. When it turned to action film 101 at the end, I also felt uncomfortable about how it portrayed complex issues in a simplified manner.

As said, don't remember details, and I'm happy to be proven incorrect!

ya the action scene before at the end seems like it was thrown in to keep a certain proportion of people happy.
I am friendly with a south african who was in various african countires as a mercenary during the 80s and 90s and he thought generally it is very spot on as much as you can be in the length of a mainstream film , at the begininng it shows people in small villages just trying to get on with their lives , while militia and warring factions are all trying to grab their own piece of the pie, a lot of which use child soldiers, drugs and violence slavery to keep control .

strobe

ziedth wrote: »

No I don't think so, I took it as Kevin Spacey knocked down the insanity defense because he got Jackson to say that they deserved to die on the stand. the closing argument was his last ditch attempt to get the jury to change their minds remember Jackson said something to the effect of "what would the lawyer have to say to convince you if you were on the jury"

No Mellor was right. Jackson was found not guilty by reason of insanity. I suppose you can look at the jury's decision in two ways. Either they agreed with the lawyer's argument that what happened to SMJ's daughter would be enough to drive you temporarily insane (that was what he was arguing for). Or that he played on the jury's sense of outrage/sympathy/whatever to set SMJ free on the pretense of believing he was temporarily insane. I think that is played back to the audience as well, as with lots of courtroom dramas, it attempts to put you in the place of the jury.

I don't really think it's fair to criticise the morals/message of the film as it is about asking questions in regards whether or not the verdict should go one way or another not about saying it should go one or the other. The only message it really pushes is "why can't we all just get along" with the smaltchy "I thought our kids could play together" scene at the end.

The King of Moo

I think I'm going to have to watch A Time to Kill again, I've been interested in the various comments on it here.
I was quite young when I saw it and I don't remember temporary insanity being an important element of the trial.

Chuck Stone

yammycat wrote: »

Saving private Ryan, the guy who killed Hanks was the prisoner he saved

moral of the story is execute your captives, no mercy

Not quite as simple as that.

The German prisoner guy was saved by the US soldier secretary guy who was brought along because he had fluent German. The German prisoner after release rejoined the German troops and went on to kill the Jewish US soldier.

I think it's saying something about the appeasement of Hitler or perhaps not fishing the job properly after WW1 (or a combination of the two) - the holocaust being one of the by-products.

From a purely practical point of view I cant understand why they didn't just break the German soldier's arm if they didn't want to execute him.

ziedth

I just thought of a crazy one (although a very good film):

American history X, I'm not on the full site so I won't say the ending but I can only take it that they have shown (and I'm sure it might have been an accident) that Danny was right being a racist thug all along with what happens at the end.

Mickeroo

ziedth wrote: »

I just thought of a crazy one (although a very good film):

American history X, I'm not on the full site so I won't say the ending but I can only take it that they have shown (and I'm sure it might have been an accident) that Danny was right being a racist thug all along with what happens at the end.

I think it was supposed to be ironic?

efb

Crank, It appeared to me Jason Statham had sex with the women against her will (rape) but it was OK because she enjoyed it in the end...

I was really put out by that scene - dont ask why I was watching the film in the first place...

FortuneChip

Got to agree with Twilight, I'm sure I've mentioned it before about this movie. Given the target audience (teen girls, even younger), to get you to root for this girl that abandons her family, friends etc, in some attempt to win over this mysterious guy, that she knows for a fact is dangerous, is a horrible message to send to young girls. He's dangerous, his circle are dangerous (not to mention, he's a lot older than her), then when she loses him in the 2nd (yes, I have seen one and a half twilight movies), we go through her over to top emotional breakdown which leads to a climatic suicide attempt - method - jump from cliff... Great message to send out alright. Plus, she's saved by an equally dangerous person, who straight up tells her he's dangerous, and yeah, she has a crack at him so.
Arg...

Mickeroo

efb wrote: »

Crank, It appeared to me Jason Statham had sex with the women against her will (rape) but it was OK because she enjoyed it in the end...

I was really put out by that scene - dont ask why I was watching the film in the first place...

Mandy: Your father isn't Mr. Cohen.
Brian: I never thought he was!
Mandy :Now none of your cheek! He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurion in the Roman army.
Brian: You mean... you were raped?!
Mandy:Well... at first, yes.

krudler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not quite as simple as that.

The German prisoner guy was saved by the US soldier secretary guy who was brought along because he had fluent German. The German prisoner after release rejoined the German troops and went on to kill the Jewish US soldier.

I think it's saying something about the appeasement of Hitler or perhaps not fishing the job properly after WW1 (or a combination of the two) - the holocaust being one of the by-products.

From a purely practical point of view I cant understand why they didn't just break the German soldier's arm if they didn't want to execute him.

The German soldier they let go

isnt the one who kills Mellish, (I'm assuming you mean the slow stabbing scene) its a completely different soldier, he is the one who shoots Hanks but its a different guy who walks past Upham on the stairs after he kills the Jewish guy, the soldier they let go is regular german infanty, the guy who stabs Mellish is SS

HavingCrack

Revolution9 wrote: »

Grease - You gotta tart yourself up, act supremely confident in contrast to your usually reserved behaviour and start smoking cigarettes to make the guy want you!

Actually, you've made a common mistake here. According to the director and cast, the character of Sandy didn't have this radical transformation included in the original script. Apparently Olivia Newton-John had become bored of the 'good girl' look herself and just turned up on the set when they were filming the final scenes dressed like that. The director asked her to change and she refused so they just went with it. :pac:

Galvasean

ziedth wrote: »

I just thought of a crazy one (although a very good film):

American history X, I'm not on the full site so I won't say the ending but I can only take it that they have shown (and I'm sure it might have been an accident) that Danny was right being a racist thug all along with what happens at the end.

Woah, no way is that what the ending means!

By becoming a racist thug he ended up getting himself killed. Moral of teh story - being a racist thug is bad for your health.

Rachiee

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually, you've made a common mistake here. According to the director and cast, the character of Sandy didn't have this radical transformation included in the original script. Apparently Olivia Newton-John had become bored of the 'good girl' look herself and just turned up on the set when they were filming the final scenes dressed like that. The director asked her to change and she refused so they just went with it. :pac:

Dont believe that for a second sure it was a stage play for years before it was a movie

HavingCrack

Rachiee wrote: »

Dont believe that for a second sure it was a stage play for years before it was a movie

No, they really did say that. I actually had no idea it was based off a stage play so clearly they were just talking ****e.

HavingCrack

The Girl Next Door always made me feel very uneasy at the end. I can't quite put my finger on it but something just doesn't sit right with me.

ziedth

Galvasean wrote: »

Woah, no way is that what the ending means!

By becoming a racist thug he ended up getting himself killed. Moral of teh story - being a racist thug is bad for your health.

I dunno, it's been ages since I saw it but I always took it that younger brother was more of a misguided kid then anything. The only thing he does in the film is stick up for the kid in the toilets. We don't IIRC see him doing anything else. Also, seemingly the original ending shows

Edward Norton shaving his head presumably rejoining the DOC(I think that was there name) after the shooting

You could well be right and you more then likely are but it really could have been a bit clearer.

Delirium

40 days and 40 nights

It's basically ok to rape someone to win a bet. If the genders had been reversed in that scene, the movie would never have seen the light of day

ziedth

koth wrote: »

40 days and 40 nights

It's basically ok to rape someone to win a bet. If the genders had been reversed in that scene, the movie would never have seen the light of day

I was actually going to mention that scene too, I saw it in the cinema and I could hear pretty much everyone going "Eh? WTF"

liah

ziedth wrote: »

I dunno, it's been ages since I saw it but I always took it that younger brother was more of a misguided kid then anything. Then only thing he does in the film is stick up for the kid in the toilets. We don't IIRC see him doing anything else. Also, seemingly the original ending shows

Edward Norton shaving his head presumably rejoining the DOC(I think that was there name) after the shooting

You could well be right and you more then likely are but it really could have been a bit clearer.

You're not the only one who got that impression - as much as I like the film and no matter how many times I've seen it (at least 15 times over the years), I've just never been able to shake off that particular notion.

I've also heard neonazis in America use that ending to justify why they like the film and why they're neonazis. Always makes me feel a bit funny.

The rest of the movie is solid, though.

ziedth

liah wrote: »

You're not the only one who got that impression - as much as I like the film and no matter how many times I've seen it (at least 15 times over the years), I've just never been able to shake off that particular notion.

I've also heard neonazis in America use that ending to justify why they like the film and why they're neonazis. Always makes me feel a bit funny.

The rest of the movie is solid, though.

Thank god I'm not the only one, I thought I might be a neonazi deep down or something

It is one of my fav films as it doesn't make the race storyline as (excuse the pun) black & white as films like Crash or Remember the titans. Like even when Edward Norton is at his worst there is something kinda charismatic about him.

krudler

liah wrote: »

You're not the only one who got that impression - as much as I like the film and no matter how many times I've seen it (at least 15 times over the years), I've just never been able to shake off that particular notion.

I've also heard neonazis in America use that ending to justify why they like the film and why they're neonazis. Always makes me feel a bit funny.

The rest of the movie is solid, though.

Its one of those endings that I've never been quite sure what I'm supposed to feel about it,

is it basically saying the skinheads are right to feel the way they do because the black kid winds up murdering Danny, or that life isnt as simple as a race thing and these things happen regardless

Norton is great in it though, I love the scene at the dinner table where he's arguing with Elliot Gould who asks him a question about Jews and Norton just gives him this look that basically says he agrees with what was said but doesnt actually say it, I cant remember the exact line of dialogue it might be about the holocaust. I might rewatch this tonight actually been a while since I've seen it.

Also that fat dude Seth, he's easily one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen in a movie, just an obnoxious fcuk the whole way through, wanted to punch him the minute he opens his gob in it.

liah

krudler wrote: »

Also that fat dude Seth, he's easily one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen in a movie, just an obnoxious fcuk the whole way through, wanted to punch him the minute he opens his gob in it.

I love that actor, though. And that goddamn song he's singing while driving near the beginning ("..and all the mongrels too!") gets stuck in my head EVERY. TIME. I don't think I remember the legitimate lyrics to that song anymore - just the horrible, politically incorrect ones :pac: Awful.

ziedth

krudler wrote: »

Also that fat dude Seth, he's easily one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen in a movie, just an obnoxious fcuk the whole way through, wanted to punch him the minute he opens his gob in it.

Funny you should say that, there is a great deleted scene with him and Cam (the leader) after Edward Norton pulls the gun on him in which Cam is trying to get Seth to kill Edward Norton and he flat right refuses out of loyalilty to his friend then bizarrely Cam asks him to lead the group and Seth says something like "I'm working on a musical can I incorporate that?" basically showing he is a complete idiot. I'd imagine they cut it because he works much much better as the vile character that he is. It's just funny how things change with editing.

PeakOutput

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Most recently, Source Code. The ending is supposed to be happy, but there's very creepy undertone.

I guess it is open to interpretation but that is not what happened in sourcecode

PeakOutput

ziedth wrote: »

I dunno, it's been ages since I saw it but I always took it that younger brother was more of a misguided kid then anything. The only thing he does in the film is stick up for the kid in the toilets. We don't IIRC see him doing anything else.

Didn't he embarrass the guy that killed him at basketball or something while he was still a racist prick? iirc thats why he got killed. him and all his nazi mates beat them at bball and forced them to leave the park or the courts or whatever

It is a great film and I have seen it numerous times and never thought man they were right to hate those blacks. I did think that all the hate is just a perpetuating cycle that will never end without tolerance

Galvasean

PeakOutput wrote: »

I did think that all the hate is just a perpetuating cycle that will never end without tolerance

That was certainly my reading of it. Hatred breeds more hatred and eventually comes back to bite you in the ass.

ziedth

PeakOutput wrote: »

Didn't he embarrass the guy that killed him at basketball or something while he was still a racist prick? iirc thats why he got killed. him and all his nazi mates beat them at bball and forced them to leave the park or the courts or whatever

It is a great film and I have seen it numerous times and never thought man they were right to hate those blacks. I did think that all the hate is just a perpetuating cycle that will never end without tolerance

I'm working off memory but I think that basketball match was a flashback and the younger brother was only watching.

Also, just to be clear I didn't think they were "right" to be racist or anything. I just took it that it's what the film could be put across as saying.

I think what would stopped any debate would be that if

the kid who shoots the brother at the end was involved with the gang that tried to steal Edward Nortons car

. His actions directly caused the ending like.

krudler

liah wrote: »

I love that actor, though. And that goddamn song he's singing while driving near the beginning ("..and all the mongrels too!") gets stuck in my head EVERY. TIME. I don't think I remember the legitimate lyrics to that song anymore - just the horrible, politically incorrect ones :pac: Awful.

I like him too,hes great in My Name Is Earl, guess hes doing his job playing an irritating gobsh1te and doing it really well :pac:

yammycat

krudler wrote: »

The German soldier they let go

isnt the one who kills Mellish, (I'm assuming you mean the slow stabbing scene) its a completely different soldier, he is the one who shoots Hanks but its a different guy who walks past Upham on the stairs after he kills the Jewish guy, the soldier they let go is regular german infanty, the guy who stabs Mellish is SS

No, it's the same guy, he just joined a new outfit after walking back to German lines, compare facial wounds if you can't spot they are the same from pics.

So the prisoner hanks freed went back to join the germans just as the guys who were going to execute him said he would then he kills the jewish guy and hanks (in combat) and the interpreter wises up to his error and executes him when caught again, really disgusting film

Handsome Bob

krudler wrote: »

Also that fat dude Seth, he's easily one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen in a movie, just an obnoxious fcuk the whole way through, wanted to punch him the minute he opens his gob in it.

It's funny as he plays a polar opposite character in Remember The Titans, someone you can't help but be endeared by. He's a very reliable actor (he's lost a tonne of weight as well since AHX).

In regards to the ending, I just saw it as a means to show that life is always a struggle, and it's never easy to completely change the person that you are.

Derek drastically changed his whole life while in prison, but what happens at the end could have easily provoked a relapse into his old ways.

Look at it this way;

when their father dies it changes Derek into a completely different person. It would have been easy for him to have a similar reaction to his brother's death. I really like how they left that one up to the viewer to decide.

I really loved the ending simply because up until then, Derek turning his life around was too perfect.

fontanalis

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually, that reminds me: Blood Diamond. Been a while since I saw it, but remember thinking it bordered on the racist.

Really, how?

Fysh

ziedth wrote: »

I'm working off memory but I think that basketball match was a flashback and the younger brother was only watching.

Also, just to be clear I didn't think they were "right" to be racist or anything. I just took it that it's what the film could be put across as saying.

I think what would stopped any debate would be that if

the kid who shoots the brother at the end was involved with the gang that tried to steal Edward Nortons car

. His actions directly caused the ending like.

But the film most emphatically doesn't suggest they were "right" to be racist; the entire film's theme is that bigotry and hatred will beget violence and cause further bigotry and hatred. That's why we get

the scenes showing Derek as an eloquent racist and anti-Semite explained in the context of his father's bigotry and subsequent death during the incident at the crackhouse

. Like Derek before him, Danny is blinded by admiration for his brother/father figure and doesn't question the dubious morals he picks up along the way, even when he's trying to justify writing a paper on Mein Kampf. He's far from innocent - he's already attending the rallies and hanging out with the same neonazis as Derek. The ending was very much a tragedy in the tradition of "the sins of the father" - Derek is lucky enough to be saved from the repercussions of the hateful world he's chosen for himself by the actions of the inmate who befriends him on laundry duty in prison, but walking away from his past life or the influence it's had on his brother's life just isn't that simple.

If you want a scene from the film that sums up what the entire thing is about, try the conversation Derek has with his high-school principal after he's been raped in the showers by the neonazi gang - specifically when he's asked the question "Has anything you've done made your life better?".

Little Acorn

Galvasean;72291426]That was certainly my reading of it. Hatred breeds more hatred and eventually comes back to bite you in the ass.

That is word for word what I was going to reply when I saw American History X being discussed. Hatred breeding more hatred was the main message I took away from that film.

Just watched A Time to Kill tonight on RTE, it's been years since I last saw it.
I agree that whilst it does try to make the viewer question their own sense of morality and perception of what behavior is justified, it's overriding theme is the one of prejudice.
In his closing speech, after describing in detail the horrific rape, beating, and attempted murder of the little girl, his final words are

"Now imagine she's white"

Imo it also shows the prejudice from Carl Lee against white people as well. When Carl Lee tries to point out Jake's hidden prejudices by saying

"you don't look at me and see a man, you see a black man, you see me as different", he also shows his own prejudices by saying things like "I picked you because you are one of them" [white people], "our children will never play together", "you are one of the bad guys" etc

, this imo also shows that he doesn't just see Jake as a man, he sees him as a white man,he sees him as different too, and therefore possesses some of the same prejudices that he accuses Jake off.

In the scene at the end, when Jake arrives with his family to Carl's house, the wives, and the little girls get talking, and Jake says "just thought our kids could play together", Carl and Jake then end up smiling at each other.
This in my mind is an attempt or the start of both men overcoming their prejudices.

dark crystal

mike65 wrote: »

Sex and the City 11 2

Mark Kermode explains why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc

Now, I'll admit I'm a Sex and the City fan (I have the entire series on box set) and I loved the first movie.

However, the second movie was such a crock of offensive ****e, I would happily charge all those involved with crimes against film.

The depiction of the arab women was so offensive, it defied belief. Because the women aren't throwing it about with any man who crosses their path, they are seen as opressed. Because they don't own a Gucci bikini, they're opressed. Because they don't have a mountain of condoms in their Dior purses, they're opressed.

The characters were moaning about such trivial crap, I wanted to hit them. At one point, Carrie admonishes her husband for daring to watch telly in bed. The huge, flatscreen TV he bought her. She moaned about it. She says he has become boring, yet fails to realise, he's probably watching the telly just to escape her constant nagging about putting his feet up on the $10,000 couch.

Charlotte, who has been trying for a baby for years, finally has one and then moans and wails that she has trouble coping with her, even though she has a full time nanny on hand 24/7 to do the lion's share of the childcare and doesn't work outside the home.

The characters were written so differently to how the series started out, it's puke inducing. Shallow, materialistic, nagging shrews. I don't know a single woman who would identify with any of them.

losthorizon

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Black hawk down is a very accurate retelling of a true story , its in bloddy moghadishu , and for the most part it did accurately portray what living in a semi-warzone , gang controlled kip of a country is like with normal people just trying to hide from the violence .

And then they had to go to Somalia!

ziedth

As a final note from me on the American history x debate I agree I was wrong and that hate breeds hate message is the message the film was trying to put across. But, I still think that Danny was just a misguided kid who hero worshiped his brother. At no point did he express hate to anyone in fact the act that

gets him killed

was defending a another guy getting bullied. I'm not saying he wasn't racist wasn't anywhere near as bad as the other characters.

I think personally it would have been a clearer ending to make that point if Danny was as much as scumbag as Derek or if the Black kids reason to

shoot Danny was caused by Derek killing the guy at the start

In any event it was a good film and thank god I posted cause it wasn't an ending that sat right with me the way I took it up.

As another option, anyone see limitless? It's ok to take performance enhancing drugs and that's it

Fysh

ziedth wrote: »

As a final note from me on the American history x debate I agree I was wrong and that hate breeds hate message is the message the film was trying to put across. But, I still think that Danny was just a misguided kid who hero worshiped his brother. At no point did he express hate to anyone in fact the act that

gets him killed

was defending a another guy getting bullied. I'm not saying he wasn't racist wasn't anywhere near as bad as the other characters.

I think personally it would have been a clearer ending to make that point if Danny was as much as scumbag as Derek or if the Black kids reason to

shoot Danny was caused by Derek killing the guy at the start

In any event it was a good film and thank god I posted cause it wasn't an ending that sat right with me the way I took it up.

As another option, anyone see limitless? It's ok to take performance enhancing drugs and that's it

The "clearer" ending you're talking about would've been a trite over-simplification of the theme to the point that it wouldn't work. Aside from anything else, tying the ending into the beginning would be to pretend that, even in a film world with gangs and racist militias on the streets, all the bad stuff could've been avoided if the events of one simple scene had gone differently. Danny's father's racism, the gang problems in the area, the spreading influence of the neonazi groups, all those things would have to be treated differently - because everything in the film would have to stem from that curbstomping scene.

Danny wasn't just a misguided kid. He's going to neonazi rallies & meetings, he's hanging out with active neonazi militiamen (who are actively involved in both violent crime and probably, through the head of the group, more subtle organised crime) and being groomed to be one of their public speakers - he's viewed as having the pedigree to go far in that circle. Heck, at the start of the film he's hauled in front of his principal for submitting an uncritical paper on Mein Kampf in his history class.

When he steps in to defend the kid being bullied, there's a deliberate ambiguity as to whether he's sticking up for the kid just because the kid is white and the bullies are black, or whether he's just doing it to make a stand against bullies. There are probably elements of both in his motivations, but it's very difficult to make a proper case for Danny being completely innocent.

ziedth

Ah ya I know your right I'm just explaining how I took the ending the way I did and like I mentioned I'm delighted to be proved wrong as I really do like the film.

With regards the bully scene (and I'm working off memory so I'm sorry if I'm wrong) but I always thought he says to the guy getting bullied "you can't let yourself get pushed around like that" as opposed something like "don't let them blacks push you around" ya know what I mean? and that's what led to the ending.

In any event I always knew what I thought couldn't be the intended meaning but as a shut out from the real world teenager watching it years ago for the first it is what I thought.

OniKen

ziedth wrote: »

I just thought of a crazy one (although a very good film):

American history X, I'm not on the full site so I won't say the ending but I can only take it that they have shown (and I'm sure it might have been an accident) that Danny was right being a racist thug all along with what happens at the end.

It was showing how wrong racism is on both sides. It wast just about the nazi side, just showed it from that point of view coz thats the side the lead charicter got out of, if nether side was like that none of it would have happened. Lessen is don't be recist or ya get shot.