Taking Lives Movie Download

[Eboni Kleifgen]

AcademyAward and Golden Globe-winner and Emmy-nominee Angelina Jolie (Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Alexander) stars as an FBI profiler called in to help track down a serial killer who assumes the identities of his victims in this psychological suspense thriller.\u00A0

A female detective on the trail of a psychotic killer discovers love in a dangerous time in this thriller, based on the novel by Michael Pye. Illeana Scott (Angelina Jolie) is a special agent with the FBI who has a reputation for using offbeat methods, but also boasts a strong record as a criminal profiler.

Scott is called in by a former Quantico colleague (Tcheky Karyo) to assist two Canadian police detectives, Paquette (Olivier Martinez) and Duval (Jean-Hugues Anglade), who are on the trail of a serial killer who has been doing business in and around Montreal for close to two decades. The murderer has a history of assimilating many aspects of the lives of his victims after he kills them, but there's been a witness to his most recent crime.

Art gallery owner James Costa (Ethan Hawke) saw the killer during an assault, and now finds himself working as an only marginally willing decoy for Scott. As Scott and Costa follow the killer's trail, they find themselves becoming attracted to one another, which is not necessarily a comfort to Scott as she finds her quarry moving closer and closer. Taking Lives also stars Kiefer Sutherland and Gena Rowlands.

However, all points from the book point to Kaladin's original statement. Many scene show him killing to protect those he loved so why does Brandon Sanderson put this line in the book? To show Lirin's ignorance? Also, if killing someone is the results in protecting someone, a life is sacrificed to save another life. That follows the rules of equivalent exchange, meaning nobody gets anything.

Lirin is a surgeon. he does not protect people by killling other people. actually, in civilian life, the instances where killing to protect actually works are exceedingly rare. basically, if someone needs to be killed to protect someone else, then it means the situation already went down the drain. it means there was some big failure already. a failure at diplomacy, so that a war happened. a failure at educating, causing a kid to grow into a hardened criminal. If you must resort to killling to protect, someone already screwed up big time with the protecting business.

And by the way, you may notice that for all his selfless protecting, kaladin didn't really save lives in the big picture. he saved his soldiers by killing enemy soldiers; still people died. probably, more people died because of kaladin proteting his small unit than would have died otherwise.

Lirin has dedicated his life to care for other people, to preserve life. In that optic, he prohibits any open conflict resulting into people being injured, no matter which side of the fence they stands. Lirin does not care of a conflict is warranted or not: he cares about human life. We could argue this is a flawed vision of life as it happens war can be warranted, but the sad truth is it hardly ever is. The war they currently fight on the borders of the Sadeas princedom is petty. People are dying just so another Highprince may assess his claim on a few lands. It is beyond ridiculous. Lirin, however, was too passive. His rejection of open conflict led to him being walked on and taken for a fool...

Kaladin, however, has made it his motto to kill in order to protect, in other words, if you are attacking his people, even if you are warranted, he'll kill you. The best example of this would be Moash would was protected by Kaladin despite being a traitor. Basically, during both books, Kaladin has essentially targeted a group of people he wished to protect and he had deployed his best strategies to ensure they would survive. In doing so, he has, incidentally, caused the death of more people, just not HIS people. The side-carry is a brilliant example: he has protected his squad, but the death toll in the army was higher because of it. People died because of his decision, just not people he cared for, so he was fine with it. He was not set to protect them. So essentially, the Windrunners are heavily flawed. They strive to protect, but in doing so they get extremely focus on the people falling within their protective aura to the point where they may end up causing more deaths.

Something I think Sanderson does really well in all of his books is to portray different points of view without necessarily picking one as being better than another. Every character has their faults, as well as their points. From what I've seen, I don't think he actually picks one viewpoint over another here. He merely presents them and allows his readers to draw their own conclusions. Personally, what I take from this is that, in a perfect world, there would never be a need to kill in order to protect. However, as they - and we - live in a highly imperfect world, there will always be people who will attack the innocent, and who need to be stopped.

Kaladin believes in a bit more of a nuanced worldview, where there is room for violence in order to protect. I think under Syl's influence, he's coming towards a worldview I hold that's somewhere between "Just War", where it's sometimes okay to be the aggressor, and pacifism, where it's never okay to even defend yourself. This is known as "pacificism," or thinking violence is unnecessary and aggression is immoral, but being okay with defending yourself or others when you can't negotiate reasonably with an aggressor.

Brandon presents the debate between these two views well, as Mirahound alludes to in discussing his philosophy on writing about political or moral debates. I think Syl's influence might actually help Kaladin come closer to common ground with his father, if he manages their reunion carefully. But we'll wait and see on that front!

edit: While I don't agree with Lirin entirely, I will note that we should all have enormous personal respect for true pacifists, who believe so strongly in non-violence that they wouldn't even use violence defend themselves. (They might run away, or say, wear armour or a bulletproof vest, but they'd never use violence as a defense) That takes extraordinary courage in a dangerous situation.

Maxal, your example about Kaladin and the side-carry forgets several key things after the fact. Kaladin came up with his idea to protect his squad, yes, and did not think about the implications to the broader army as a whole. But the second he realized that his scheme, while successfully protecting Bridge 4, was causing the death of many others, he immediately regretted the implications this caused. He saw that he lost the battle for the army and probably caused more death than otherwise would have occurred. After that, he did not use the maneuver again, even if it saved his people. He learned from this mistake.

Kaladin's one major flaw, as you noted, is that his focus for protection is rather narrow when he's planning how to protect those he cares about. However, once he does realize the cost to others he usually changes course and tries to come up with a new plan. He continues to grow from his mistakes and his flaws. As further proof, we see that once he gets past wanting to protect Moash and Bridge 4, he finally concludes that he has to protect Elhokar, even if he does't agree with it in his soul. He realizes it's his duty and then spoke the third oath of the Windrunners:

Maxal, your example about Kaladin and the side-carry forgets several key things after the fact. Kaladin came up with his idea to protect his squad, yes, and did not think about the implications to the broader army as a whole. But the second he realized that his scheme, while successfully protecting Bridge 4, was causing the death of many others, he immediately regretted the implications this caused. He saw that he lost the battle for the army and probably caused more death than otherwise would have occurred. After that, he did not use the maneuver again, even if it saved his people.

by the way, we don't know exactly how pacifist lirin is. just because he told his son that he would not be saving lives by becoming a soldier (and figthing in pointless border skirmishes) or by going vigilante-mod, doesn't mean that he does not believe in self defence or that kind of stuff.

king of nowhere...in a world where Parshendi are not human, why would humans fighting them for revenge be worried about harming them? I don't understand your point, because they're at war. War is inherently strife. War inherently causes harm.

Furthermore, Kaladin (and I assume the vast majority of people on Roshar) did not realize that using Stormlight to fight the Parshendi would push the Parshendi to Voidbringer ways. Also, it appears that Venli was looking for the forms of power secretly before all of this happened, so I don't agree with your leaps in logic.

That is the problem Lirin saw and Kaladin didn't. Lirin values all life and believes seeing a war for vengeance, or any war, as justified, as ridiculous. One who valued all life and looked impartialy at the final battle in WoK would never think Kaladin was unambinguously right in saving the Kholins. There is nothing noble about killing parshendi to save humans, both are people and both are waging a war that was as far as it was possible to know, meaningless.

3a8082e126