Was it really necessary for the bad guy in Rambo (2008) to be a molester?!
Question: He was already a mass murderer. Isn't that enough?
Answers: He was already a mass murderer. Isn't that enough?
Was it necessary? Probably not..but he's the "bad guy" right? In most people's minds there's nothing worse than a child molester and Stalone probably wrote that in just in case anyone thought the guy might have some virtuous qualities to him.
i thought killing all the people was enough. but when he mallested the kid or who ever thet was, was over doing it
I'm pretty sure that all sorts of serial killers have been child molesters, too. Ed Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. etc.
If you're willing to murder someone, chances are you're willing to sexually abuse them as well. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the new "Rambo" yet, but I'm sure that part doesn't exactly toss the apple far from the tree.
Even so, it couldn't be worse that what I've already seen in "Monster", "Boys Don't Cry", or "The Butterfly Effect." All terribly disturbing movies that either made me feel physically ill or gave me nightmares.
I don't think it was over doing it. Most villians in movies kill people so its not viewed as a big thing, but if the main villian is a killer and a molester it makes the audience hate the main villian even more so they will feel good about Rambo bringing down a real scumbag instead of another overseas warlord.