lallybroch
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by lallybroch on Mar 27, 2006 23:22:08 GMT -4
I thought the movie was decent but I felt that it left me with one glaring unanswered question. Did they ever explain how the robbers knew about the contents of the safe deposit box in the first place? I just can't get over not knowing about the genesis of the robbery. It is possible that the movie made a small mention of the answer and I missed it or dismissed it, thinking that it wasn't important. The rabbi * who was revealed to be in on the robbery mentioned teaching a course on war reparations and genocide at Columbia, and gave Denzel advice about diamonds in the interrogation room, saying that a relative was a jeweler.* It's inferred rather than directly stated. At the end, * Clive says something about the bank president stealing "from us" (or something like that)* which might have been the underlying motive.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2006 0:58:06 GMT -4
So, I see how the robbers might have known that the bank president had been in cahoots with the Nazis and had come into the possession of some stolen goods, but how did they know the stuff was in the safe deposit box? Case seemed to know exactly what was up when he was told the bank was being robbed (or at least was afraid that people would get into the contents of his safe deposit box - and I don't know how common it is for bank robbers to steal the safe deposit boxes - it seems like a lot of work for not a lot of payoff) so it seems like the information was out there, I just don't know how the criminals figured out that the diamonds and Nazi stuff were in the safe deposit box and not, say, in the bottom of Case's fishtank? I should have seen the connection between the Rabbi and the loot (especially because he was the one concerned with the ring when Clive didn't bring it out of the bank) but I still don't see how they knew about the whole thing in the first place.
It really lessens my enjoyment of a crime movie if all of the pieces don't fit or if some of the pieces are missing. I felt that this movie was like a really awesome puzzle that was missing a few key pieces. I would recommend it, and I thought it was very well directed and acted, but I can't help but feel a little let down. I think I need to see it again so that I can concentrate on the details.
|
|
lallybroch
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by lallybroch on Mar 28, 2006 1:22:23 GMT -4
I've seen it twice and I'm not sure those questions are ever really answered. Like Jodie Foster's character, it might just be a movie thing where the audience is expected to accept certain elements that are lacking somewhat in real-world plausibility. It would have been interesting to know *how the crew of robbers came to be assembled--it's not the sort of thing you can take out an ad for on Craiglist and they obviously aren't all related, at least not Clive and the female robber*, unless it's an entirely different movie. Speaking of those two, anyone else think that Dalton *was kissing one of the guys in the back seat at first?*
|
|
Jcruz
Landed Gentry
Shake it, baby!
Posts: 547
Mar 8, 2005 5:11:56 GMT -4
|
Post by Jcruz on Mar 28, 2006 3:45:33 GMT -4
Why would Case keep all the incriminating evidence? That kept bugging me for the whole movie. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2006 20:54:26 GMT -4
Wow, I just saw it today, and I really liked it. Didn't think it was dumbed down at all, and left me with a satisfying feeling, like finishing a really good, engrossing novel. I was wondering about that, too, Jcruz, and thought maybe it was because he didn't know how to get rid of it (the jewels, not the paperwork)--stuff that amazing would probably be too hard to pass along without the possibility of it somehow getting traced back to him. Loved the way it was semi told in flashbacks, which wasn't really revealed till close to the end of the movie--kept me involved in trying to figure out what everything meant. I loved the acting, everybody who was cast fit their parts so well (though personally I don't get the attraction of Clive Owen, but I guess I'm in the minority there). I loved the fact that Jodie's role was so underwritten--it made her more ambiguous and therefore very memorable; I think it was deliberate that her motivations and background was left so vague.
|
|
sjankis630
Landed Gentry
Posts: 650
May 4, 2005 14:21:19 GMT -4
|
Post by sjankis630 on Mar 30, 2006 16:27:54 GMT -4
Yes I liked this also. I liked how they didn't overdo the interviews all at once either. Kind of had you thinking how the whole thing would go down even as it was unfolding. I still don't know why this movie got an "R" rating. Was it because of the language? Because that really wasn't all that bad.
|
|
|
Post by FotoStoreSheila on Mar 30, 2006 17:04:49 GMT -4
I think it got an 'R' for the violence, but I could be wrong. I saw this last night and loved it. I went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. And Jodie Foster looked amazing. All sun-kissed and toned.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCatHead on Mar 31, 2006 16:26:49 GMT -4
Too long. Lots of wasted time. Much could have been left on cutting room floor. Waste of some good actors.
|
|
huntergrayson
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by huntergrayson on Apr 1, 2006 11:25:36 GMT -4
I saw it tonight -- thank god I was unspoiled -- ....need some time to digest, but some quick comments:
I think maybe it earned an R for language as well? Having more than two F-bombs would probably qualify it. It was probably a combo of that and violence. Our ratings system is weird, to say the least.
Absolutely. And I squeed like a mofo. But nope, that wasn't it. I guess I'll have to keep dreaming.
Jodie looked so stunning it hurts. What is her secret?
I thought she and Denzel both did a phenomenal job -- it's amazing how many roles they play that are exactly the same and sleepwalk thru as a result. The doses of humor combined with hard-assedness did them wonders.
I hope Chiwetel gets even more buzz after this.
|
|
jazz
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 9:46:10 GMT -4
|
Post by jazz on Apr 2, 2006 18:50:34 GMT -4
I saw this movie for Jodie Foster because I like her and I try to see most of her movies. But I can honestly say, you have to swallow a lot of impossibilities to make this movie work and it just did okay for me. And what is Denzel trying to be with all the snazzy suits and hats? There were some light moments that almost worked but all in all I just was not that thrilled with this movie.
I know something is wrong when I had started counting the pockmarks on Clive Owen's face instead of watching the movie.
|
|