Stupidity: Of course, it's a movie with a heavy comedic tone and it's a rather cathartic scene, but still it's worth noting that Benoit Blanc had no way to know that making the whole HOUSE (full of glass shrapnel, too) explode wouldn't gravely injure or kill anyone. What a ruthless fellow.
Suggested correction: The scene at point 2:06:02 suggests the opposite. Blanc knew the house would explode violently, hoped everyone would get injured, and sat watching it while helping himself and Derol to a cigar. Bron was guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. The remainder were accessories to the crime, having already pledged to perjure themselves. Their sentence would be death if it were not for their destruction of evidence. So, all Blanc needed was a sense of justice, not ruthlessness.
Helen, the innocent sister of the original murder, is in the building too. I wouldn't want to say that he hoped *everyone* would get injured, just the bad guys but that's the point. It's simply a case of an absurd decision that puts to mortal risk everyone but has no negative consequences "because movie."
Yes, exactly, "because movie." You see, this site's "Stupidity" tag is for the kind of stupidity that a movie _commits_, not those that a movie _shows_. Characters can be desperate, crazy, angry, hopeless, and yes, stupid.
Characters can make any sort of choice that still has to make sense at least internally. Your first comment read Blanc as a psychopath who would literally willy-nilly wish death or disfigurement upon everyone *including* Helen. That's not how he is portrayed. It's simply a classic case (that's why I said "because movie") of a supposed master plan of disruption with a flawed and inconsistent premise the movie needs you not to question due to its ultimate favourable outcome.
You change your words a lot. First, you say "had no way to know," but quickly change it to "What a ruthless fellow." Sounds like you're the one with the internal consistency problem. In our world, people consistently blow up buildings without themselves dying in the explosion. It's as simple as that. Are you sure you're thinking about the right film? Because the last time I checked, the finale featured a spur-of-the-moment revenge decision. There was no "master plan."
No words have been changed; you just have to read them. I said "he had no way to know" the explosion "wouldn't gravely injure or kill anyone", which yes, would make him ruthless. Since the movie does not characterise Blanc (who did absolutely orchestrate that) as a villain who wants Helen to die, that's obviously absurd. So it's "daft character behaviour" which "would likely be a talking point with someone you were watching with." That's all there is; I don't see it as a controversial position, in particular not one I would question one's media literacy about.
