MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
here's my question - is there anything in the book about Sonny getting Carlo and Connie together?
I said in a different thread that I take that flashback scene at the very end of 2 to be non-canon.
As for the above discussion, I like the way the film leaves strntz's question open to interpretation, even going as far as to remove an early scene of Connie and Carlo arguing and Vito/Mama telling Sonny not to interfere (it occurs in the same scene when Tom's giving Vito the lowdown on Solozzo, just after the horses head)
in addition to Kid_Swamp's reply, Stef doesn't catch a TD pass at all. He's playing defence and intercepts a pass from the opponents, which he runs in for a touch down (I believe it's known in the trade as a pick-6)
I'd have to watch that scene again but from what I remember, by the time Nickerson came to the door, the were already practically in their cars so there's no way he could have made out who it was. He only saw Stef because he'd been left behind and had to try to make a dash in the open for the cars before they drove off.
In addition to the answer already given, it wasn't like they were just carrying small knocks and would be fine after the game with a bit of rest - Lance had scar tissue round his knee and I get the impression had been getting the needle for quite some time, not just in the first game we're shown. Wendell had actually torn something - playing on it would have potentially damaged him permanently.
Even in pro sports, I get the impression that painkilling injections are only used as a one off it it's a sprain a bruise or something, not before every game and not for a tear or a break.
That's why it makes him so terrible
as an aside, in reference to your 2nd point, it never made any sense to me that they'd be a running team when they had an all state QB. And this isn't viewers mis-interpreting it as a running game, because Kilmer even goes as far as to chastise mox and ram this point home during practice.
it's the fact that he carried on staying in the same apartment after his cover was blown, even though the targets knew where he lived, and the fact that he stayed in a relationship with Tyler (who was somehow oblivious to all this) that don't make sense, although kudos to Bodhi and his 'us against the system' balls for just turning up at Utah's place like nothing had happened. "alright mate, wanna go skydiving"
I've thought this too. It's possible that the forensic technology back then wouldn't have been accurate enough to say exactly when she was killed - if Bill attends the police station the next day (like he said he would) then she must have been killed within 24 hours of the nightclub robbery so maybe they can only pinpoint it to within a 24 hour window. Or maybe the forensics haven't come back yet and they're just going with what they have at that time.
Even without forensics though, it's entirely possible that The Blonde could have been out and about and been seen or even interacted with people after the nightclub guy was taken to hospital.
That said, would it matter if eventually Bill could prove that The Blonde only died after the nightclub burglary? They've still got the weapon with his fingerprints and the relevant blood on it. It just means he killed her afterwards and broke her fingers for fun, which actually makes him look even worse!
another moment for me is when they rob Bill's flat, and they're talking about the typewriter and Cobb says "no, this guy WANTS to be a writer....there's a.....diff..erence" as if it's dawning on him at that moment that they're in Bill's flat, when really he's known from the beginning that it's Bill's place.
Alex Haw (Cobb) was studying to be an architect at the time and has gone on to do quite well in that field. You could say it's cinema's loss because I thought he was very charismatic and had great screen presence in this.
"The Young Man" and "The Girl" both had small roles in Batman Begins (Nolan's Uncle - the policeman/detective in Following - plays a Wayne Enterprises board member in all 3 Batman films). The Young Man has also been in Tenet and I think another fairly recent Nolan production.
None of them have really gone on to play the lead in anything major though. Arguably by choice in Alex Haw's case.
I think there are a couple of moments in the first half of the movie when it's shown bubbling below the surface, but they keep it there because, as already been posted on this thread, David's still the popular star QB (plus his room-mate Reece would still have his back at this point)
For example, the grin on Dillon's face when he sees David as a waiter, the bit when he doesn't understand Mac's tunnel vision with Princeton and Mac says "can someone explain this to our friend from Scranton" etc
Once they turn against him though, it really shows itself.
Thanks for the replies. Moviechatterer, your answer to 3 only works though because the first group of surfers he started hanging round with just happened to be the ex-presidents.
I guess the plan was that before he tried to identify the ex-presidents, it would make it a lot easier if he was (1) a proficient surfer, (2) already part of a surfer gang, established on the surf scene etc and (3) already knew the lingo, the etiquette or whatever in order not to come across as an undercover cop. Whatever the plan was, it went disastrously wrong at Latigo Beach, when he snaked Bunker’s wave and had his card marked by the very group he was trying to get in with!
There’s a deleted scene and then an extended scene that explain this – both only last a few seconds so I’ve no idea why they were cut, as without them it makes no sense and they’d have been as well just not showing the wedding at all.
Anyway, in a deleted scene, his fiance’s father voices disapproval about his future son-in-law not being “man enough” because of the beating and maybe the fact that he was so traumatised after it too.
Then, in the extended scene, after saying “no” at the altar, he then punches his father-in-law out before he walks off.
No sure what’s sadder, the fact that I’m answering this question after 10 years or the fact that I’ve actually watched the deleted scenes!
it was filmed in April 1996 and has to be set then - in addition to the Cantona reference, the technology in the job club, Gaz's Sheffield United shirt (and I'd imagine Dave's Steelers shirt) are from that era, plus the "Arsenal offside trap" reference wouldn't have been relevant until at least 1989.
Not seen a film for a while, I'm sure there are other things besides football references and a PC that would also point to it being in the 90s
I think it would have been about the same - I get the impression that getting that ship from Singapore to Hong Kong was key, as was the boat across the Pacific (Neptune Garnett). If the earlier parts of the journey had gone according to plan, I think he'd have just been hanging around Singapore for a couple of days.
It's quite noticeable that from Hong Kong onwards the journey is at a smooth, leisurely pace for the first time since Europe.
Also I think the rush/panic during the scenes in the Chicago train station were exaggerated for TV - the camera crew had time to set up at the reception desk and on the platform twice. Also, at Glenwood Springs, it's implied that he just got off the train for a couple of hours. In reality he stayed overnight in Aspen. So had this not happened I guess he'd have got to Chicago or New York with a day to spare so just stayed overnight there instead.
Finally, the boat across the Atlantic actually stopped in France the day before heading to Essex, and they could see the lights of South West England on the Saturday night (about 60 hours before the deadline), so if the journey had been a bit tighter they maybe could have used a lifeboat or been met by a motorboat and headed for Cornwall at this point, or taken a ferry from France to England the next day.
nah, Sidney merely presented him with an option and he took it
agreed - I feel the movie should end after the 2 on 2 tournament - the credits should start rolling when they've won the money but are still arguing like crazy with each other.
I thought it was the boss/sergeant in LA robbery/homicide who Charlie had talked to for advice on the case, and his/her decision to send them both up there, basically to take them out of the firing line (no pun intended!) of what was happening with the IA investigation making the news.
Never thought about that before re Ellie - it's possible she ended up studying Dormer's cases because Charlie knew him, rather than it being an insane co-incidence. A little more exposition when she's driving them to the station would have cleared that up, though.
or maybe she thought he had a GREAT ASS
and to address the 2nd point, the writer hadn't been more than a person of interest, and by the time she goes there, even though she suspects Dormer of shooting his partner and covering up, that doesn't change the fact that, as far as she's aware, the boyfriend was the killer and was already in custody. So she had no reason to be concerned about going to the house alone.
She wasn't knowingly going to a suspected murderer's house.
I watched that part last night and thought the same thing - why didn't he just sign the statement? The only thing I could think of was that he was hoping that by not signing it or by not bringing Ellie down with him, it might alleviate some of the guilt and help him sleep (her approaching him with the statement comes immediately after, in fact interrupts, the first scene showing the insomnia affecting his work - the flashing lights, slow motion, zooming in on items in the office etc)