MovieChat Forums > LTUM > Replies
LTUM's Replies
it's a seminal, legendary film. This is the film that got Craig hired as Bond.
lol
anybody?
it's a right cheerful little 90s rom-com
I really love it
we are soon approaching the 20 year anniv. of its release.
this movie is so important to me. i plan to re-read both books and do a 'redux' deep dive this summer on the film, JJ, and everything. no reason really, i just feel like doing it. this movie rocks IMO and has become a very big part of my life. (LTUM: Official #1 Worldwide Fan) ....it's just crazy to me it is 20 years old. is that possible? i swear! there is still so much to mine here. it's truly a one off genius work. many many layers (no pun plz) and angles. i still have a lot to say, and since i will have time to indulge soon, i aim to make use of it.
lol ....ADD?
lol a 17 year old post. wow.
i wonder where this OP is now. that is a long time.
i kinda agree with him, except that i also kinda don't. i think this movie has a really nice vibe. it captures london and the mood, street scenes. plus it has a lot of surprises that keep you guessing. it's a proper mystery in my book.
i like this film.
another thing is it reminds me of daily life in 2002, where i was and things i was doing then. also the state of movies then, and how the theater experience was so different from how it is now.
but yes, her tits were faar and away the best part of the film.
yes, friend, i have noticed that detail too. i pondered it a bit, and my conclusion was the same as yours that it's an odd slip by Fincher, being he is usually very meticulous.
yes i specifically remember being thrown off by the darkness, as you were. i remember wondering 'ummm, how come it's instantly dark?' (more like, WTF instead of ummm, lol)
let me just say, for anyone who has watched this as many times as i have, i know literally every single frame by heart lol and still love to rewatch this film anytime anywhere. there are some tiny odd little things i noticed about it here and there, and sometimes i posted about those, but none of those little hiccups ruined my appreciation for this masterpiece.
one is the waitress in the cafe and her resemblance to Mikail's daughter. VERY similar, visually speaking. i hate when directors make this slip-up. it throws me off because i'm wondering why he is so silent with his daughter in the cafe lol. "is he mad at her?" lol
(i made a thread about this, kinda trolling but i couldn't resist)
obviously i eventually figured out it is two different actresses, but my gripe is WHY EVEN make it close enough to place the question on anyone's radar? IMO they should do due diligence to go far enough to make a DISTINCT difference visually so no one will be distracted from the story line by wondering about silly incongruent details such as this.
anywho, this is one of my favorite films of all time. i love all of fincher's work, but this one is my ultimate favorite. can't speak highly enough of it. it just somehow strikes a nerve deep within me.... makes me wanna go to sweden and ride that train in the snow!!!
""IF so wouldn't it make sense to hire a cab, Go around town pretty much invisible, MAKE your hits, THAN no matter what else went down in between HIT the Cabbie""
my exact thinking too
that 2nd part rings true. a sort of 'burn it all down' mindset. good point.
nice.
let me know how it fares
LOL
ah. okay i see your point. right, makes sense.
i think the plot was left deliberately vague. they adapted it from a book with a different plot, and maybe didn't want to take the time to truly fill in the gaps. that's my suspicion, anyway.
nice to finally talk to someone on here. reminds me of the old days.
yes it did seem that way. my impression through the film was higgins was not complicit with wickes. but, you are right that there seemed to be some admission on higgins' part in front of the times.
it's a contradiction, though. because he clearly didn't know earlier, when he was trying to figure out what was going on. like the microfilm scene where he was looking at old news articles and connected joubert to wickes. he was genuinely surprised.
maybe it was just that higgins was on 'the team' (of subversion, worldwide) but just didn't know about THAT specific scheme of atwood's?
100% agree. he already had a plan, for sure.
also, the only one at that table who knew the real story was atwood. wicks was dead, and they were in on it together. the other men there were company men not in on the subversive oil plot.
i want to reply to many of the posts in this thread but after 7 years have gone by, i would be talking to air so i will just pass.
too bad this site is so damn dead.
lol yes I guess he was.
lol
i like that option best; him joining with joubert. i like it, though it doesn't flow with turner's nature. (being a killer)
grady wrote 3 (or 4) novels in this series so he must have come up with a storyline to follow this one. I am not sure i am interested in reading the books, though. may go check the wikipedia summary though, lol
really good point about the post. would've been much better.
but of course that may have altered the effect of that final scene in the film.
wait, in fact, the novel was set in DC so maybe it WAS the post at first, which got changed when they chose NYC for the film? hmmmm. i am not familiar with the book but i would assume it was the post in the book, since he was in DC.