The Purge (2013)

Okay, I saw a review, and it said that during the Purge, you are apparently forbidden to attack a "class 10 government official or above" or use a "class 5 or above weapon." So those guessing "ham-handed hypocrisy", award yourself a no-prize.

The "no explosives" rule makes sense, I guess. But "no assassinating top government officials" seems a little redundant. I doubt your average citizen could get close enough to kill the President even if he wanted to.

Of course, that wouldn't necessarily prevent some well-financed and armed billionaires from trying to pull an Olympus Has Fallen on the POTUS secret bunker.

Basically, no grenades or rocket launchers and no trying to overthrow the government. Spoilsports.

As for how it's anti-gun, apparently (from the review, as I've yet to see the movie) the scenario is that it's the rich who are heavily armed (a situation which is fairly true today, albeit largely due to the laws about "assault weapons" that ensure that they remain prohibitively expensive for civilians), and use The Purge to hunt down the poor, with the middle class politely ignoring the situation inside their lightly armored houses, knowing that they're safe so long as they don't raise a fuss and there are easier targets.

And yeah, the argument against guns seems a bit weak to me. Reminds me of the old joke about the Temperance lecturer demonstrating how a plant will thrive on water, then pouring alcohol on its roots and showing that it kills the tree, leading people to proclaim that you should only stop drinking if you want a tree growing in your stomach. Worse, it plays directly into the NRA line that only tyranny can come of a lightly armed populace and a heavily armed government.

^^No that's that fair. Otherwise some lunatics could take over the government and make crime illegal again.

Film Brain has posted a Projector review:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/projector/39474-projector-the-purge

I watched it a short while ago. It was fun to watch, and he made some good points.

A single pyromaniac with matches and gasoline shows the entire problem with the Purge concept. There aren't any emergency services to stop a fire from spreading from house to house.

edited 9th Jun '13 9:28:59 PM by Scardoll

As many people, I thought the movie had an interesting premise which was horribly wasted.

I had trouble accepting the premise, though: I fail to see how an America NINE YEARS from now would be insane enough to let the Purge pass.

It's also sad how the basic reasoning behind the movie does not seem to work. While the Purge -may- deter petty crimes on the long run, I do believe organised crime groups would benefit greatly from it: best moment of the year to commit freely all their felonies, without fear of official retaliation from police forces.

Even the good old 'protection' racket would get much, much more interesting and profitable: when there is absolutely no police around and any punk could come in to try and bash your skull in, steal your stuff and rape your relatives, suddenly, the crime lord's 'offer' for protection becomes much, much more interesting.

I can easily envision crime bosses establishing a firm grip on urban populations through such 'protection' schemes, and the simple fact that they already possess their own armed and organised militias.

Also, what about the Mexican frontier: since cops don't do anything for that night, does it mean Mexican drug cartels get to smuggle all their illegal merchandises that night without any opposition?

On the other hand, given the 'rules' of the purge, I very much expected covert police death squads going on to murder political activists and criminals that one night.

Presumedly it's alternative history. The purge started in the 1990s in a response to the LA riots and a logical succession to reaganomics.

I wonder how small town would be affected by it. Probably just start flogging Hooch and moonshine.

edited 10th Jun '13 12:08:37 AM by joeyjojo

The purge started in the 1990s in a response to the LA riots and a logical succession to reaganomics.

wut

You may not be using "logical" the way it's supposed to be used, there...

I can see it as part of an alternate history, but the film says that the new Founding Fathers took over "10 years ago", or in 2012. Which means that the point of divergence is probably no later than about 2008.

A little bit of trivia. The combination for the house's security system is 101382. It's probably the father's or mother's birthday.

^ At least it's not 1-2-3-4-5...

I saw it over the weekend. My feelings on it were pretty mixed. The premise had a lot of potential that went to waste on a standard home invasion story, even though the premise does give a viable justification as to why emergency services won't show up until the clock runs out. There is something of a twist ending, but it's adequately foreshadowed and it follows logically from the setting and characters. The fight scenes are short and brutal and for the most part you don't even see the invaders' faces. Most of the characters act believably, even when they do something stupid. There's some decent tension and some good jump scares. But overall I just didn't find myself sympathizing that much with the family, especially when they split up to search the house. You Never Split the Party. And of course the pop psychology idea of people needing to "purge", and living in the same neighborhood as people whom you know go out murdering once a year.

I think I'd have to chalk this up to "good idea, weak execution".

Speaking of science fiction, how would the Purge go about if the Avengers or the Justice League were around?

edited 10th Jun '13 9:32:34 AM by Demetrios

I think any "superheroes" in this universe would be powerless vigilantes who would be out vigilante-ing during the Purge.

It'd be a very busy day. But also a very successful one.

The existence of superheroes would imply the existence of supervillains. Superheroes already don't have any qualms about taking the law into their own hands, although most follow Thou Shalt Not Kill. Exploring that relationship between vigilantes and law enforcement is a good question.

Another thing I liked was the justification for how the intruders get into the house. The father sells security systems specifically for the Purge, and everybody on the block has one. When the intruders announce their intention to break in, he immediately goes Oh, Crap!. You see, the security systems are not designed to protect against people with decent resources and dedication. It's mainly there to look impressive and give the owners a sense of security. The intruders break in by chaining the front door to the back of a truck and pulling really hard. They don't even have a line to a private security company.

Hey hang, if the family is reasonably well off why not just get a rent-a-cop?

Evidently they didn't see the need. The security system was enough to discourage killers for years after all.

>_< And the director still thinks that this movie is anti-gun?

I don't know if it's anti gun but it's definitely a middle finger at US libertarianism. There are people who think enforcing the rule of law is the worst thing ever.

Anyone remember Savage Heathen?

edited 11th Jun '13 6:26:46 AM by joeyjojo

^ Vaguely, primarily that he was an advocate for anarchy.

As for Flipping the Bird at "Capital 'L'" Libertarianism, from what's been said in this thread (haven't personally seen it) it sounds more like the target is a Strawman Political caricature of Libertarianism.

We really don't get much insight as to who these "New Founding Fathers" are or how they came to power. I think I saw an interview with the writer or director where he says it was some sort of corporate cabal, maybe. But the way the people in the movie say it, it's like they're some sort of quasi-religious cult. They keep saying "America Bless the New Founding Fathers" throughout the movie.

Somebody shot wide there.

I know its just a movie but the concept is silly, if interesting.