Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LonePirate

(13,993 posts)
6. I didn't miss the anthrax references or the deliberate focus on the cut on Phil's hand.
Sun Jan 23, 2022, 11:29 AM
Jan 2022

My focus was on the long game being played by Peter as he had no way of knowing how things would unfold. He didn't cause the cut on Phil's hand. He was not involved with the selling of the hides which created a demand for the deadly ones he procured. He didn't ask Phil to make a rope (at least I don't think he did). A lot of dominoes fell into place which were beyond his control for Peter to enact his revenge. Ultimately, he seemed to me to be a resourceful, smart and opportunistic man which swayed me to the murder determination. The film certainly offered a very interesting character study, not the least of which was the subversion of the internal and external thoughts and motivations of the two men.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Definitely murder Ferryboat Jan 2022 #1
Murder most foul NoRethugFriends Jan 2022 #2
Self-defensive homicide. ZZenith Jan 2022 #3
Definitely murder. Ocelot II Jan 2022 #4
i had to watch it twice. mopinko Jan 2022 #5
I didn't miss the anthrax references or the deliberate focus on the cut on Phil's hand. LonePirate Jan 2022 #6
yeah, that too. mopinko Jan 2022 #7
I think you got it right nuxvomica Jan 2022 #8
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Netflix, Streaming Videos & DVDs »The Power of the Dog Ques...»Reply #6