MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
(1) I think it was like you said, just in case Frankie survived. Given that they must have figured the odds were heavily in their favour for the attempt being successful, you'd think, if they were going to say anything, they'd want Frankie to know who was having him killed so that that would be his last thought.
While it's not quite a plot hole, it's very convenient that the one time they show an assassin saying something to mislead the target, it's also the one time the target survived.
(2) I can only think it was to show that Michael and Tom were on very good terms at the start of this story, to contrast it with Michael's coldness towards Tom at the end.
Everything about the attempt on Michael made no sense to me, but there's enough threads about that already.
I'm not sure what personality people want Mary to have - she's friendly, smart, witty, vibrant, and generous.
The film might have worked better though if they'd gotten a less attractive actress who just had "something". The Monica character in Rome With Love would be a good example. And for me, in Mean Girls, Lindsay Lohan is the least conventionally attractive of the 4 plastics, and yet I couldn't take my eyes off her when she was on screen, because she had/has that "something".
and fittingly, the chorus of Across 110th street sounds strikingly similar to the chorus of Leo Sayer's Thunder in my Heart. Not sure which song came first.
something else I've just thought of - cameras or no cameras, did they even question the store clerk? I guess they did because they know she still paid for the suit.
Wouldn't the store clerk have observed that, while Jackie seemed in a hurry and a bit agitated when she came out of the changing room, she still mentioned that someone had left a bag of towels in there? Hardly something you'd do if you'd just been robbed of 50k.
And then literally seconds later someone came along and claimed this missing bag.
It would have been good if during the interview afterwards Michael Keaton had said "unfortunately there's no CCTV to back up your story" for exposition
Ok, even if there were no cameras, she took one heck of a chance that none of the police would follow her into the store, especially when she was in there for so long.
Maybe it was just a very sloppy operation from a young agent. And it could have gone very bad for Jackie if things had gone the other way - if Ordell had someone following Jackie round waiting for the opportune moment to kill her and take the money, there was no protection.
But she uses the slack surveilance to her advantage instead, and I like the way she turns that round on Michael Keaton when he questions her - she says something to the effect of "you didn't tell me what to do if something went wrong did you?!"
I find it nuts that Michael Keaton would have marked all those bills himself while standing up in the car park hunched over the bag. Even if they were all Benjamins, there would still be 500 of them. Must have taken ages.
Throughout the 90s, everything was available on both CD and cassette. Even new releases.
Cassettes were cheaper, cassette players were cheaper, plus CD players in cars were rare, as were portable CD players (which were also very expensive).
Even in the early 2000s most new cars only had tape decks. So for me it's not so out there that Max would buy a cassette.
pre-2001 I don't know if they'd have been as stringent with the checks....hand luggage still went through scanners though....maybe because she was cabin crew, she'd have just been waved through. That appears to happen in the opening sequence.
It could be argued that the villain getting away would not be a happy ending. If anything having Hanna catch him and kill him was a happier ending.
Neil wanted Waingro so bad it was like acid in his mouth....sorry, wrong 90s film
I stop there too - I've said on another thread on here - going after Waingro like that goes completely against Neil's risk vs reward/keep emotions out of it character that we're being shown throughout the film. Especially when he sees the big gun behind the reception desk - surely that called for a re-assessment of the situation.
I think it was a better ending for Hanna too - "so long mf'er - you were good".
He knows he can't win them all, and it ties in nicely with what Nate said about how he can hit or miss.
I think it woulda been cool to have the end credits rolling on the exterior shots of Neil's car headed to the airport.
maybe the narrator is in Tyler mode when Bob has that moment of realisation, therefore we viewers aren't shown it.
I'd like to know more of the backstory behind that - maybe his plan was to eventually get "revenge" on Ted for, as he saw it, "stealing" Mary from him 13 years earlier.
Or maybe he thought he'd only need to be friends with him for a few weeks and then once he can steer the conversation towards ex-girlfriends etc Ted would bring Mary up, Woogie could encourage him to track her down etc
Problem is the beginning of the 1998 scenes are kinda vague about it - it's not clear how much Ted blocked from his memory, what made him suddenly think of her again etc.
As far as I'm aware, in slang, "rapey" doesn't mean literally being a rapist, it means deviant or sexually inappropriate, or even just an extreme way of saying "creepy".
And in this instance, I'd say yes. For one thing, he could have just gone again in real time, as Leo Di Caprio did in another Margot Robie film from the same year (11 seconds!). It's not as if she dumped him for being premature.
As for consent, she only consented to one time, and he used this consent to go 3 times - sadly the law doesn't extend to time-travel do-overs so this remains a dubious area.
I'm also curious - did he do this every time they went at it, or was that a first night only thing? If it's the latter, wouldn't she have been confused as to how he lasted so long first time?
agree with the OP. While it's difficult to single out one movie as the "worst ever" IMO, for me this is one of two movies whereby every time it's on TV I think "i'll give it another chance. It can't be as bad as I'm remembering. It's got a good cast. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it last time etc", and every time I start watching it I think "actually, this is even worse than I remember".
Something just feels off about it. I don't know if it's the way they can't seem to decide between making a supernatural fantasy about time travel, a typical Curtis rom-com, or a tragic family story, so they try to do all 3, and it just ends up being none of them.
I don't know if it's the lack of chemistry between the lead and pretty much everyone in the film.
My reaction when I first saw it was that this was an American's fantasy of how we British live. With hindsight, I should have realised it was a Richard Curtis effort as it's got his fingerprints all over it. I think the reason I didn't was because I thought it impossible for an English person to portray life in England so unrealistically.
I think the biggest thing of all is the lack of consistency and continuity - it just reeks of contempt for the audience. As another thread says, it's like they had a first draft that needed a lot of editing but they just never bothered to edit it.
Can just imagine the script readings - "hang on, Margot Robie showed no interest in him whatsoever earlier on - she quite categorically turned him down in multiple timelines. Why would she suddenly be desperate to have sex with him now? Wont the audience be confused by this".
"f**k 'em. They'll go with it".
The worst thing is, they've been vindicated, as enough reviews and replies on here have accepted it.
I said at the beginning that it's one of 2 movies in which I give it a go every time it's on TV, and every time it seems to be even worse than the last time. The other movie? Batman and Robin.
which didn't happen until the next decade. He made A Fistful of Dynamite/Duck You Sucker/Once upon a time The Revolution to fill time when waiting for the rights to the stpry. Would have been very interesting if he'd directed this too - imagine a Morricone soundtrack instead of the Godfather theme we all know.
Richard Bright is in both films. Not sure if anyone else is (aside from the obvious, but he's only in part 2!)
from what I've gathered from the comments in your video link, that opening scene with Casey and Frank narrating was only filmed in post-production or whatever it's called by Disney themselves, the speculation being that it was for the benefit of people who were only watching it for George Clooney - that they wouldn't want to have to wait until half-way through to see him. So they show him right at the beginning instead.
By the same logic, maybe they put the 1964 world's fair part at the beginning too, so that Hugh Laurie fans would get to see him a few minutes in to the film.
The annoying thing is that whole scene when she falls downstairs could have been cut - it added absolutely nothing to the story, unless they were trying to make it a bit more suspenseful with her dad checking on the noise was, but it didn't really work.
They could have just shown her picking up the pin with the sock or whatever it was, then doing the sensible thing of checking for the direction of Tomorrowland on the projection once she was outside and cycling in that direction.
if you think that's bad you should check out the wigs in "the rise of pat tate" (think it's the 3rd one), plus the fact that they're all quite visibly 10 years older but playing roles that pre-date the events of the first film.
after my last post, I'm starting to think that "dole queue" scene was more like something from the 80s.
I first signed on in 1999 and it was only for a week, but the set-up at the job centre was similar to how it is now - very open plan, no screen/partition*. You sat down in a waiting area until your name was called, then you sat across a desk from the advisor/work coach.
Maybe this format had only come in during the late 90s though.
Anyone who was signing on in 1996/97 would be able to answer
Even if it would be inaccurate for the time, the set piece of them dancing to Hot Stuff while in the queue is so good I'll happily overlook it!
*well they have screens/partitions again now but for very different reasons!
I can't see anywhere that she's Julia Robert's daughter? She does have the same smile so I can believe she's her daughter but there's no mention of it on either's bio.
Agree with the main point of the thread though. Completely.