It certainly didn't within the confines of the movie. Outside of Jane's characters family, no other innocent lives were touched.
I guess someone's entire family being murdered doesn't drive the point home that this sort of thing could happen?
And one's friends/neighbors being threatened doesn't count as innocents being in danger?
Kay.
That's what he said alright, but there was no reason for him to say any such thing, there was no arch leading up to it. It was tacked on and poorly written, and that is all there is to it.
The entire movie is about him perfecting his methods of killing criminals and eventually declaring his war on them. He even lists the reason he is doing so, with his manifesto, which is clearly his ideology that will drive his war on crime.
How is it suddenly "tacked on" when he decides to go on doing so after essentially doing it for the entire film and then successfully taking out Saint's organization?
Of course there was a reason for him to say such a thing. 1, he was pretty good at it, and 2, it was the only reason he had found for him to go on. He felt like he could stand against those types of people and punish them, and was willing to go on living in order to do so. Its sort of the entire point of his arc (which you claim is not in the film, but very much is) and the film, and largely the core concept of the character from the comics.
It's not rocket science (and never has been). It doesn't require a brilliant recognition on his part after what he has just seen of the criminal world that dangerous, unlawful people are still out there, especially since we see some of them and different types of them over the course of the film.
Only the basics of coherent character motivation and development, which is something writer/director Jonathan Hensleigh (whose career in Hollywood essentially ended after this) simply does not master.
It would have been if a point was made of it, which it wasn't.
I feel like the point was fairly clearly made.
I'm unsure why you think Castle doesn't have any coherent character motivation and development during the film. He has a very clear character arc and series of developing motivations and methods during the film.
Case in point, Howard Saint himself is more of a moneylaunderer, that's what he does. His clients, the Toro brothers, are likely the real heavyduty criminals, the ones with loads of bloods on their hands. But we don't see this, no reference is made to it, and Jane does not go after them.
1. Howard Saint has a lot of blood on his hands. Blood that concerns Castle more at the moment.
2. Howard Saint is clearly something of a warlord, if a weaker one. The Toro Brothers are another criminal organization. No, Castle does not go after them directly. He does, however, blow up their money and put them on edge.
But his entire focus is on Howard Saint, who outside of the Castle family, his own men, and that cop who owed him a lot of money, isn't even seen looking sideways at anyone or anything else.
And why would he look at anyone else? He is driven by revenge against this particular man and his closest associates, in fact the Saint family. Once he kills the criminals who wronged him and his family, then he can turn his attention to others. Which is exactly what happens at the end of the movie.
True, there are more reasons why he does what he does, not a single one of which was covered by the movie.
Simply not true.
1. The movie presents a psychological reason for his war...his own trauma and desire for revenge.
2. The movie shows very clearly that he cares about the well being of innocent people, another reason Castle does what he does.
3. The movie shows his loss of faith in the law enforcement/justice system, another major reason Castle does what he does.
4. The movie shows very clearly that he hates criminals with extreme prejudice, which is another reason Castle does what he does.
5. He's good at it. He was trained for war, and he has mastered the methods he will need to wage it.
And no matter his reasons, the comicbook origin gives him some level of justification to go after all criminals, the 2004 does not.
...
In the movie's finale, he very clearly says "Those who do evil to others". If you can't see the connection between "those who do evil to others" and "all criminals", that's on you, I would think, not the film.
He also, in saying this, lists, out of the four types of criminals he mentions, three types of people that he has directly encountered DURING the film.
1. Killers-I mean, Saint killed his entire family, and we can assume the hired assassins were killers, I would think.
2. Psychos-The Russian would seem to qualify.
3. Sadists-Quentin Glass fits the bill nicely, as do the Saints in some capacity.
The mob didn't kill Jane Castle's family, that was down to a colleague with a drugproblem, a bereaved moneylaunderer, and his own sting, botched by himself.
I'm fairly certain that elements of the mob did, in fact, quite literally systematically murder his entire family. Splitting hairs again. Of course all the mobsters in the world weren't there, so maybe it doesn't count.
