I found the movie unrealistic - Salt (2010) Discussion

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

**"Killing" the Russian President. I'm sure the best security in the world would've been at that funeral. Not only did they know she was coming, they still managed to botch it up. If she wanted, she could've killed the president and gotten away with that too.

They were there, but I don't think they were aware that she'd be going underground though. Bigger things have happened around the world where you'd think there would be air-tight security there, and there is, but the people get away with it anyway.

**She escaped? No way are you gonna assasinate a world figure and then escape a few mintues later on your own, and then simply walk away.

She escaped their custody because the NYPD had jurisdiction to take her in. Had it been the Feds or the CIA, she probably wouldn't have gotten away.

**Infiltrating the White House is crazy. I know she had a little bit of help to get started, but making down to the lower levels, whipping numerous trained agents, and getting within close proximity of the president was unbelievable.

I thought they did that as realistic as possible. If most of the security is there trying to guard the President, then how would they suspect that she's there going through elevator shafts and underground as well? You have to remember, she cut off power to most of their security cameras before she made it down there to the Bunker, so it's not like they could see her most of the time.

All in all though, it's just a movie and wild and crazy things are bound to happen to keep up the excitement and to make the story work. If they were going for a completely realistic approach it'd probably end up with Salt dying before she could get back up from the blast of her old friend blowing up. Hell she wouldn't have never made it out of the CIA building if it was completely realistic, leading to no movie ever being made.

I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you...

reply

[–] theevilmonkeycmp3 14 years ago

It's a movie you idiot, it's not supposed to be realistic.

One mans wife was another mans slut This has been a MomentofTruth brought to you by TheEvilMonkey.

reply

[–] planetmutty 14 years ago

It's a movie you idiot, it's not supposed to be realistic.

A movie??? WTF? No shyte sherlock, I was thinking it was a documentary.

When I said I wanted to be a comedian, they all laughed at me. Well, they're not laughing now!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CharlieTheMan 14 years ago

But if we follow that logic Salt should be able to fly and shoot lazer buritos out of her eyes.
Dude when american vicepresident came to my country like year ago, the whole city was blocked. All the sewer openings vere sealed and the police was crawling at every corner. now imagine if they knew that someone was comming to kill him?

So when i see that in Salt a catacomb entrance is not being sealed with 10 tons of concrete i know what kind of hacks write this crappy movies

INCEPTION

reply

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

Certain things have to be allowed in movies. I'd say a catacomb entrance was as reasonable as any. She was trained to be able to get through somehow; I'm glad they blocked the subway tunnels and she had to use drastic measures to get through. In any case, the vice-president was dead, not visiting.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

altrough vice president has never visited my city (im in europe) pope came here couple times. one woudl think that should give some security measures agaisnt the terrorists and whatnot. in reality, we watched from a market roof with a large crowd as he was passing in the closed down street down there. if i were to pul a rifle and kill him i could have easily escaped thansk to the chaos in crowd as ther were 0 security in the market area, and he was like 20 meters from me, so its not a long shot either.
also your point about sealing an ancient architecture with concrete just because a foreign president is visiting is what is ridiculous. sure they could have had more security in catacombs themself instead of 100 men at trian station and 1 at catacombs, but destroying someting that outlasted many generatings just because important man is visiting is absurd.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

reply

[–] Kunovega 14 years ago

was he out in the open?

the only time ive seen the pope travel in public he was inside of a bullet proof bubble

go look up pictures of the popemobile to see what i mean

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

he was out in the open, he even let one girl kiss his hand i believe. this was before the whole terrorism thing and whatnot so probably security was much more laid out back then.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

reply

[–] LarissaXX 14 years ago

he was out in the open, he even let one girl kiss his hand i believe. this was before the whole terrorism thing and whatnot so probably security was much more laid out back then

In which country was this? And why was security laid back? There already had been an attack on the pope by terrorists in 1981!

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19810525,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt

The first attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II took place on Wednesday, May 13, 1981, in St. Peter's Square at Vatican City. The Pope was shot and critically wounded by Mehmet Ali Agca, a trained sniper from Turkey, while he was entering the square. The Pope was struck 4 times, and suffered severe blood loss. Agca was apprehended immediately, and later sentenced to life in prison by an Italian court. The Pope later forgave Agca for the assassination attempt.

He visited the Netherlands in 1985 and was also driving in a pope mobile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cu8BzNtkpI

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

It was in Lithuania. there was a bunch of security around him but likei said it was possible to shoot him if one so wanted to.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

reply

[–] chort 13 years ago

You are young, correct.
I remember the days in the past when politicians and popes traveled out in open vehicles and got shot.

Some examples:

Franz Ferdinand
J.F. Kennedy
John Paul II

Gott ist tot.
Nietzsche

reply

[–] films2011 14 years ago

" Common sense is not so common." - Voltaire

Yes, it depends on the system of reference (smile !)

By the way, I enjoyed the film, especially the action sequences.

But I have "a common sense" (realism) problem that nobody seems to address.

The defector (Orlov) comes to the CIA. He reveals 3 things:
1. The identity of a mole;
2. A longtime planned scheme against the USA;
3. An imminent threat to be made real by the mole.
Then, he kills his guards and disappears.

A. Is this how someone who wants to be viewed as a genuine defector behaves ?
B. If he only wanted to activate his sleeper mole (Salt - Chenkov), he could have easily done it using other means of communication (as he later on does with other sleepers), not stupidly alerting everyone, right ?
C. In the Theatrical and Director's Cut versions, but not in the Extended version, there is a hint that Winter (the other mole) asked Orlov to come in as defector and blow-up Salt's cover to make it easy to blame her.

OK ... but then ...
- why does Orlov have to kill the guards, since this should destroy his credibility at once - 'looks like it didn't;
- why does Orlov have to reveal what is going to happen (the murder of ...), the time and the place, since this should make it impossible to succeed, should it not ?

For me THESE are the most unrealistic things about this film - the premises = THE DEFECTOR !

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

OK ... but then ...
- why does Orlov have to kill the guards, since this should destroy his credibility at once - 'looks like it didn't;
- why does Orlov have to reveal what is going to happen (the murder of ...), the time and the place, since this should make it impossible to succeed, should it not ?

- Orlov kills the guards to make a getaway because he didn't want to be held up in the CIA's building. It didn't really destroy his credibility because this was after the fact that they see that Salt may be guilty of what he accused her of since she ran away.

- Orlov reveals the plans because they are using Salt as a distraction at this point. They knew that she'd be the best one to get out of the tough situation that they knew she'd be in, so they used her to get Winter closer to the President. Without ratting out Salt there would've been no need for Winter to be the advisor for the President of the USA at all. If she were to fail, it wouldn't have mattered at that point because the CIA knew the plans of Day X and would be expecting more sleepers to be activated then, thus giving Winter FULL ACCESS to the President's bunker since he was the advisor that knew all about the Russians just like Salt.

Sh!t Just Got Real...Imma Need Some Evidence...

reply

[–] films2011 14 years ago

- Orlov kills the guards to make a getaway because ...
- Orlov reveals the plans because ...

Thank you for your explanations !

I understand them, but I still believe it is highly unrealistic.
There is no way a genuine defector behaves like this.
Reveal the plans: the target, the place, the time ... The discredits himself ...

If you, the KGB (FSB, SVR) wants to use defector, send one defector that reveals something, then send another defector that discredits the fist one, then ... maybe send a third defector to discredit the second ... This is what the KGB did for real - planting contradictory informations to create confusion. And, after having failed to find out the truth about his longtime friend, Kim Philby, that was the problem Jim Angleton had to struggle with - whom to trust !
You surely remember who these two were, and what they did, and quite a few "spy"films were done depicting this.

By the way, the Extended Version of the film proposes a different story: in the bunker Winter ***does not*** tell Salt: "I asked Orlov to come in as a defector to blow-up your cover so that we may place the blame of you ...".

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

I understand them, but I still believe it is highly unrealistic.
There is no way a genuine defector behaves like this.
Reveal the plans: the target, the place, the time ... The discredits himself ...

He only wanted to look like a genuine defector long enough to give credence to what he was saying about Salt. It worked because Salt ran away from the CIA thus setting herself up as the mole, even though Orlov discredited himself by killing the guards, that was only after the fact Salt also discredited her own self.

If you, the KGB (FSB, SVR) wants to use defector, send one defector that reveals something, then send another defector that discredits the fist one, then ... maybe send a third defector to discredit the second ... This is what the KGB did for real - planting contradictory informations to create confusion. And, after having failed to find out the truth about his longtime friend, Kim Philby, that was the problem Jim Angleton had to struggle with - whom to trust !
You surely remember who these two were, and what they did, and quite a few "spy"films were done depicting this.

Isn't that all the same though? I mean he basically created confusion just by himself along with kidnapping Salt's husband to make sure that she'd comply with everything and set in motion the CIA trying to apprehend her because of that. When they see him killing the guards on the screen that sets up the confusion on his end, Salt sets up the confusion by running away, Winter sets up more confusion by trying to give her the benefit of the doubt on it.

By the way, the Extended Version of the film proposes a different story: in the bunker Winter ***does not*** tell Salt: "I asked Orlov to come in as a defector to blow-up your cover so that we may place the blame of you ...".

I know, I remember hearing that when I watched it. I think the Extended version was settting up a slightly different angle though, I'm not sure what it is yet.

Sh!t Just Got Real...Imma Need Some Evidence...

reply

[–] films2011 14 years ago

Thank you, again !
Passionate viewers should always support what they really enjoy.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
He only wanted to look like a genuine defector long enough ...
...
Isn't that all the same though? I mean he basically created confusion ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I do agree, but, let's say it is like this ... however, when the opposition tells us that an attack on A President (foreign or domestic) will take place on American soil, when we know the time (funeral of a Vice-President) and even the place (New York City), we ... the Government of United States (Secret Service, FBI, CIA, NYPD, and others) in cooperation with other intelligence service (FSB, in this case) make sure the attack does not take place, or does not succeed. Yes (smile !) - it did not succeed in the film, because the attacker decided it should not succeed (just make it look like it did for a short time), but ... it should not have succeeded in the first place !

Also, the film only shows that the Russian people are enraged over the death of their President and blame the American Government. The film should have also shown how the (still alive) American President and Russian PM interact, for instance, the Americans could have shown the Russians the video-tape of Orlov's confession ... they could have started to cooperate, given the very good relations between the two countries. This might have averted the crisis (while in the bunker, the American President is informed that the Russians are preparing their ICBMs, and decides to get ready to strike back).

No matter how we turn it, and try to rationalize, there are serious problems with the plot, don't you think ?

I would like to ask former KGB Counter-Intelligence General Oleg Kalugin (you know who he was/is, where he is now, right ?), who appears in the Extras of the DVD/Blu-ray, what he thinks about the plot. He confirms something we knew for many, many years (the existence of KGB Directorate S - "the Illegals", the existence of sleepers and moles handled from within their embassy in DC), but does he believe the plot of this film ?

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

I'm on my phone right now so this will be short. I agree that the plot could've been better for sure. But what I think a lot if people aren't getting from the plot is that the scenarios as a whole were set up to be realistic in that this kind of hostile takeover can definitely happen one day. Not like how it happened in the film, of course, but it's supposed to instill awareness in all of us about these kinds of things.

Thank you for your patience and overall pleasant attitude about this whole thing, I hope I cleared up at least some confusion of the plot, if only by a little.

Sh!t Just Got Real...Imma Need Some Evidence...

reply

[–] twenty-four-fps 14 years ago

" ... set up to be realistic in that this kind of hostile takeover can definitely happen one day. Not like how it happened in the film, of course, but it's supposed to instill awareness ... "

I agree.

reply

[–] jukaswo 14 years ago

A documentary is still a movie. Just sayin'. (I agree with you, though. It's a Hollywood thriller; when did reality ever stop them from anything?)

"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine."
--Jeff Spicoli

reply

[–] defaultuser763 12 years ago

EXACTLY!!!!

reply

[–] TwoMushrooms 14 years ago

The only thing more ridiculous than the OP's post is your reasponse to his questions. Like do you actually believe the New York Police Department would have jurisidction to take in not only a former CIA agent & russian spy, but the killer or a president? Right...

With that said, a movie like this is not meant to be 'realistic'. It's unintentionally stupid, sure, but realism is never really a part of it.

"I want a frisbee made of Mexico."

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

I was answering the questions with the answers the movie provided, so don't come at me like that's what I actually believe because it's not I assure you.

I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you...

reply

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 14 years ago

It's amazing how rude people can be. Some of you weak-minded idiots evidently need the internet to insult peoples opinions. Because I know you wouldn't do it to my face. For once in your life, act mature.

reply

[–] theevilmonkeycmp3 14 years ago

I would.

One mans wife was another mans slut This has been a MomentofTruth brought to you by TheEvilMonkey.

reply

[–] jukaswo 14 years ago

LOL!

"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine."
--Jeff Spicoli

reply

[–] chromeburn 14 years ago

As opposed to all the other summer action movies you do find realistic.

reply

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

Tyler, everything you complained of is subjective, and possible if not LIKELY (well, most of it). If they were sticklers, no movie would result.

reply

[–] dayXexists 14 years ago

Would you rather she be killed in the first act and the movie ends?

Get over it. People need to quit bitching about realism in action movies.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dominick1982 14 years ago

I think the OP needs a little support here... I agree that the movie is too unrealistic.

I understand that action movies are never completely realistic, but during this movie I felt annoyed several times. The way I see it, either go completely over the top like Die Hard, or try to make it a little more believable like "Bourne".

Anyway, it kept me busy on an otherwise boring Saturday evening, so who cares really...

reply

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

I thought it was somewhere between the two films you mentioned. Either way, nope, no support for the OP; I'm tired of the "realists"
nearly ruining my fun.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alancontact 14 years ago

I always find it funny when people criticize movies because they aren't "realistic". I have news for you, it's called fantasy/fiction. If you want realism, then try watching documentaries instead.

For the record, the following movies aren't realistic either... but some people fing them entertaining.

Dracula - there are no such thing as a vampire.

Cars - cars don't actually have feelings or talk

Toy Story - toys aren't able to think and talk.

Zombie Land - there are no such thing as zombies.

Twilight - see #1 above.

Mission Impossible - the whole premise is impossible.

Bourne Identity - need I explain?

Star Trek - we can't travel through space at warp speed (yet).

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The bottom line is, did you enjoy the movie?

reply

[–] Blacktrack 14 years ago

This movie was made to show this happening in the real world. Dont compare "Cars" to this movie. Two completely different movies. I like the movie, I think it was as real as the screenwriters could get it, yes there are many problems, but it was enjoyable.

Whats the point of a signature?

reply

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 14 years ago

@alancontact.

This is my point. Salt is set in the realistic world with things we know and understand. But it doesn't conform to those standards.

The movies you mention: Dracula, Cars, Toy Story, Star Trek, etc....... are shows we know are total fantasy and we know they aren't real. Thus anything that happens in them are accepted to be "realistic" in their world, and it works fine. The movies I see that get criticized the most on IMDB are the ones that are not fantasy. It's mostly the ones that conform to our world and sometimes break rules that are most likely not suppose to be broken. (except for Inception. Lots of traffic about that movie)

Star Wars is more believable in it's genre than Salt is in it's genre. Star Wars is total fantasy and you can pretty much make up your own rules and it works. Salt is set in our world and it doesn't do a good job of sticking to the rules that make it.

IMO, a movie is suppose to make you believe that it's real and can happen. I think that's why more money is made in unrealistic movies like Avatar, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings. It's all about a escape from reality for an hour, or so. Once you take "our" world and put it on the screen, it becomes harder to make than fantasy, and it becomes easier to criticize it because we understand our world and are are a little thrown when things don't go by it's laws. This movie made me say, "Yeah, right", to many times.

Did I enjoy the movie? yes. I just think if you're gonna make a movie, make it believable.

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

Its called hyper-realism. The movie is based on this world but it isn't going to follow our rules exactly how we do because its trying to relay a story to us, the viewer. In this story we have a person that can do things that don't necessarily defy logic, but it definitely bends the rules which it is allowed to do since it's a movie afterall, not a documentary.

For instance, the truck jumping and the elevator jumping scene were simply metaphors for us to think back upon really. When we are in danger or a loved one is in danger, we feel we need to do everything in our power to stop it, and that's what Salt was conveying on screen during these scenes, desperation.

I am more then positive there are people in real life that can do both of these stunts shown in the film, the point of them being in the film was to show an extraordinary person in extraordinarily desperate situations. She isn't some regular plain jane like you and I, she is exceptionally skilled and, as such, will be able to perform feats that average people cannot do. The story itself is the main focus of the realism and believe it or not, the story that was told here could definitely happen in real life.

I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you...

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

They weren't in the patrol car though, they were in one of the patrol SUV's that don't require the barred separation.

I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you...

reply

[–] Vibradiant 14 years ago

And that is a big part of the problem with the premise of the scene.

A superbly trained Russian double agent who just managed to avoid capture against all odds and subvert security in place for some of the world's most powerful leaders, is placed in simple handcuffs to sit alongside barely-trained officers (by comparison) inside a vehicle where a particularly unruly child could disrupt its function?

At the very least, a seeming villain of her caliber would've been manacled hands to feet in the back of a secure squad, though a paddy wagon would've been even more apt.

They should've had Winter mention having arranged to make that escape so easy while revealing her patsy status.

"I like to watch" Chauncey Gardiner, 'Being There'

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

At the very least, a seeming villain of her caliber would've been manacled hands to feet in the back of a secure squad, though a paddy wagon would've been even more apt.

Do you want to be entertained or do you want the movie to end before it begins? I can take some realism in action films and that's cool, but when you are being entertained by something as thrilling as that scene where she gets away from the patrol car, there's no reason to even think about realism in that situation because it wouldn't be very entertaining if she couldn't get out the way that she did because she's chained up to her ankles and cannot move.

That's just my thoughts on it anyway.

I...BRING IT!

reply

[–] Vibradiant 14 years ago

I was about to respond with something along lines that entertainment and realism aren't mutually exclusive, and that knowing she'd be captured, writers could've given Salt a clever lock-pick or laser thingamajig implanted into her skin (or... ) capable of her escape from realistic containment procedures, but instead they devised an escape plan which FULLY hinged on authorities doing everything wrong, and how that clashed with the rest of the well-plotted elements.

And then, just to refresh myself with the sequence of events in the film, I looked at its wiki-plot, and found this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%282010_film%29#Filming

Salt's escape after being captured in St. Bartholomew's originally involved jumping her off a building into a window cleaning machine, but budgetary constraints caused the scene to be changed into a car chase.[10]

So it turns out that they actually did pull that sequence out of their collective asses at the last minute, which makes SO much sense when considering how tight the rest of the film was.

It's like an off-tune note in an otherwise polished performance. If it were something live, I'd barely notice, but if it was produced in a studio and included on the final product to be heard again and again, I'd wonder just the same.

And now I know why that part stank, so thanks!

"I like to watch" Chauncey Gardiner, 'Being There'

reply

[–] Impulse_TJ16 14 years ago

Well Vibradiant, I never really denied that the scene was heavily disjointed from the rest of the film, it was. But I tend to overlook things like that because of the sake of entertainment and you have to admit, that escape was pretty bad ass! How could anyone look at that escape and all they could think about is "Well Police didn't follow protocol and put her in shackles and a ball and chain!"?

I don't get that, it was a fun escape and I thought it was sort of clever how she got the guy to drive for her even with the cuffs on by using the stun gun on him, laughter ensued in my theater and people shouted out "Now that's bad ass!" and "Yeah that's how you escape!" haha.

So suffice to say, I thought it was a nice scene even though it seemed very out of place in terms of realistic measures taken by the Police/CIA to apprehend a suspect.

I...BRING IT!

reply

[–] stephenmonachello 14 years ago

If someone drinks blood and consumes the blood on a regular basis, wouldn't they be a vampire?

Just playing. Thank you for pointing out that not all movies are suppose to be 100 % realistic. People need to sit back and just watch the film and either enjoy or not enjoy what is presented to them. People have to stop putting real life scenrios in every movie.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/

reply

[–] NautyAngel 14 years ago

You honestly found a movie *unrealistic*.............. I guess that's why it's a movie and not a documentary. It's purpose is to entertain.

~NautyAngel

reply

[–] fatpie42 14 years ago

I guess the moral of the story is not to let this movie be used as fuel for a whole new set of McCarthy witch hunts... :P

I mean seriously, who watches movies like "Mission Impossible" or "James Bond" expecing a realistic plot?

reply