I thought that I answered it with my last spoilerized paragraph?

Not really, it just said that the red dots matched up with his scars. Pita asked him early in the film how he got them and he never answered. Does that mean he was shot in the hand? I just didn't get that aspect.

Yes, the marks were where he had been shot in the hand before. By covering his chest, he took bullets in the hand that were meant for his chest.

Wait what? They didn't shoot at the end of the film. They simply targeted him. The red dots where on the scars. They didn't fire at him at the bridge and I don't recall him getting shot in his hand at all. He took one in his right side of his chest in the whole "revenge" part of the film.

Was there a flash back to him getting shot in the hand before?

No, there were no such flashbacks. To add to this, I do not think they were bullet wounds. If I remember correctly, there were several wounds in a rather small area. Had they been gunshot wounds, his hand would have been mutilated. Even if they had been seperate incidents, I don't think someone can get shot in the hand on several occassions and still have complete use of all the fingers.

In the book he tells her the scars are from

Much grass, MrX.

The scars were not from being shot during any part of the movie. They were already there when he started working for Pita, and refused to tell her what caused them. There were no flashbacks showing him getting shot. The inference was that by showing the red dots on the scars of his hand, the marks were made by bullets (or perhaps the "lasers").

Nowhere in the movie does he tell anyone how he got the scars on his hand. There was never any mention of cigarette burns. How he got the scars in the movie is different than the books. The ending is different as well. Why have the scene that points out the dots on the hand that match the scars, and not have an explanation of the scars, which obviously would have to be revealed in the movie since it was a bit of a plot point?

What? You are getting me all confused again.

I don't think the laser dot on the hand is any real sign that it was bullets or a laser, I will say that burns sound more logical. I don't think it would have been more of a revelation on how he got them.

I'm sorry movieking, but I just think you're wrong. You're inferring way too much from the laser-on-his-hand scene.

I think Creasy was a replicant...

I think that I am right and you are wrong, Corvin. I can't see having a scene like at the beginning of the film with Pita asking how he got the marks on his hand, and continuously showing closeups throughout the movie, not to have them answered. Why have the slow motion scene showing the laser guide pointed at his hand?

Regardless, we can agree to disagree.

It's just a nervous directorial tic that Tony Scott has.

Yes it was way too long, the jerky cutting in and out was used too much, but i still thoroughly enjoyed it.

The only reason it takes over an hour to "get going" as people say, is the relationship between the characters by Denzel and Dakota Fanning have to be established. They do that and very well i might add. She never ceases to amaze me for a 9-year-old or whatever.

The second half could definitely be trimmed, but i thought the graphic violence was necessary.

It's about time people got to see violence as it really is, horrible. Too much random gunfire PG-13 action makes it out like getting shot or whatever is no big deal.

Walken and Marc Anthony didn't have much of a part either.


anyway, too long but very enjoyable.

The laser over his hand (the hand over the chest) I took was to show the frailty of the situation, and how close Creasy really was to the end. It was him accepting his fate.

But yes, we can certainly agree to disagree.

Just got back from the show and I really liked it. I will definitely buy it on DVD when it comes out. It was well acted and the use of words and visuals was interesting.

I also just got back from seeing it, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I really enjoyed the way he used the subtitles, now I just hope they don't make them removeable on the dvd, ruining them.

Saw it last night and thought it was a frantic movie with some solid acting (definitely style over substance, but it worked). Parts were predictable, but I was so into Scott's intense visuals to overcome the shortfalls. The way they did the subtitles was great, really interesting.

It was also nice to see a movie that takes it time. Having that first hour almost entirely devoted to the relationship building between Washington and Dakotta Fanning (she was great) is something of a rarity in a lot of films.

While it was no Crimson Tide (probably my favorite Tony Scott movie), I still enjoyed it enough mostly because of the bang up direction and editing gimicks. I'd give it a B-.

I dont see how they could do that... there were too many differences in the subs. Different locations, speeds, fading, etc. I am sure it will have to be burned in subs. I hope this gets the full SE treatment on DVD. I would like to see some insights into the editing, visuals, etc. I would like to hear Scotts comments on why he choose the subs the way he did, etc.

Great movie, definately what the Punisher shouldve been.

i just saw this last night and enjoyed it. But i thought tony scott's direction was at times to showy, too look at me I'm directing. A little too much style. for a professional cressy seemed to never heard of kevlar.

Yeah that's what got to me as well. Too much jerky camera moves, jumpy edits, pan-around-the-actor type shots, etc. But good movie. Dakota Fanning is adorable.

You're confusing me. THE PUNISHER was already great.

Your post doesn't make sense.

It does, actually. The Punisher was very tame in comparison. Frank Castle wasn't a brutal killer bent on revenge, but just an alcoholic who liked to play Riddler games. It could have been a lot better.

Creasy was a brutal killer bent on revenge, dispatching the bad guys with cold efficiency.

Question about the book:

The DVDTalk review for this film seems excessively harsh. Half a star for a film like this? Come on.