MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
I'm several years late to the discussion so doubt anyone would read this, but I'd like to give my interpretations - part of their plan was that Jesse would re-unite with Tracy. In their heads, Jesse was one of them - Tracy just needed to remind him what he was missing and, as they would see it, snap him out of Rachel's spell. So when he arrived at the party, having just rekindled things with Tracy, he'd actively join in with the taunting, thus making Rachel's situation infinitely worse. Tracy in particular was convinced that she would win him back before the party, but even if she didn't:
Plan B - as has been pointed out on other threads about this film, Jesse wasn't confrontational, so to save face in front of everyone when he saw the video, they figured he would have at least been passive, and more likely he'd have claimed to have only done it as part of the game etc.
What happened instead - Plan C - still had the desired effect - whether they really got back together or not didn't matter, as long as they were seen, by Rachel in particular, to arrive at the party together. Timing it so that it happened after the "big reaveal" and while the video was being shown would have made Rachel think the worst and Jesse would not have had chance to explain until long after the damage was done...
Alternatively, they may have just not thought the consequences through (as teenagers tend not to) and not even considered the fact that Jesse, or their friendship with Jesse, might end up being collateral damage to this prank.
Either way, I think this was done purely to get at Rachel and not Jesse.
me-1523 ..."But putting it right smack in the middle of the novel sucked all the momentum out of the story"
on the other hand, it does make what happens next even more startling
7 years late but this sums it up. In fact, one of my favourite lines in the film is when he comes back from the "park meeting" and says to his girlfriend something to the effect that if these officers put the same kind of effort, organisation, dedication, teamwork etc into actually doing their jobs, they'd have the city cleaned up in no time.
I've seen a video of Ron Livingston talking about this - might have been on one of those 'office space at 20/25' things - and he give some quite brilliant insight that Peter has a different idea for "the answer" every few weeks.
At the start, going through the motions at work and being in a rut with the 'girl who was cheating on him' (can't remember her name!) wasn't getting him anywhere,
so then he thinks doing nothing and not caring is the answer....and it makes him happy for a while, until he finds out about Samir and Michael being fired,
so then he decides that the "heist" is the answer, but it backfires,
at the end of the movie, he's seems happy enough working construction....but he'd seemed happy doing nothing/not caring too so who knows how long this will last
a few weeks after the end credits roll he could well be looking for the answer elsewhere
I don't take that "flashback" scene at the end of GF2 to be canon. It's not in the book and it seems almost cartoony that the Don arriving for a surprise 50th birthday party (and I think the film made him 3 or 4 years younger than the book just so this scene could be for a significant birthday!), Connie meeting her future husband and Michael's big announcement that he's enlisted would all happen in the space of a couple of minutes.
In fact, Carlo serves absolutely no purpose to this scene - I think he's supposed to be a reminder of a more innocent time for Connie, but surely just showing Connie being young, single, care free and with her life ahead of her to look forward to would have done that.
I'd like to say there was no need for Tessio to be in this scene either but it was great to see him!
without the deleted scene mentioned by Sandman81 earlier in this thread, it's unclear if Carlo had always been abusive or if this only started after the Corleones went to war with Tattalia/Barzini, because in the final cut, the first sign of trouble is when the Don's returned from hospital. Just before the "pop never talked business at the table" meal Carlo's looking broody and Connie asks what's wrong and he tells her to shut up, so it could be interpreted that Carlo's behaviour was all part of a set up to eventually lure Sonny
...scares away any pain-in-the-as innocent bystanders
plus it's only when Neil finds out that it was Van Zant and Waingro who got to Danny Trejo and his wife and tipped off the cops about their job that he went after them. Had that last bank job gone through as planned, he was happy to fly off to NZ and forget about them both
when someone's showing you a present, and as soon as they start telling you who it's from, you interrupt with "I don't give a sh*t who gave it to you"
Films like this and shows like The Wire are amazing for showing the criminals as real people and at times vulnerable, and allowing the audience to have sympathy and even respect for the villians. Something British TV/film could learn a lot from - sadly we tend to use virtue or political correctness to get the audience onside. For example, in Hustle, rather than good character development and nuance, their idea of making the audience root for the crooks/con artists is to have them give their proceeds to the poor.
I'd also add that his not wanting to hurt anyone wasn't because of any kind of morals on his part, it was about bringing less, dare I say, heat, on him and his crew. Shooting civilians and especially cops would, as mentioned in an earlier comment, mean the police spending more time and resources going after them.
It's a good spot here. We've got good escape routes
I'm sorry if the g.d. chicken got overcooked
You just have to grab it. I know how to grab it.
Put your hands where I can see 'em
You can't tie me to her
GET ON YOUR KNEES! GET ON YOUR KNEES!
I'm English and saw TD first, several times!, before watching IA, and can say IA is better to the point where I can't watch TD the same way now.
Everything good about TD was basically copied from IA. Everything in TD that didn't quite work happened when they tried to do their own thing (eg, the "love triangle", the whole FBI informant story etc). It's also implausible that DiCaprio's character would be in so deep with that crew in a matter of weeks - in IA, it takes him 9/10 years and several other bosses to get to that point, which makes a lot more sense. Also Jack Nicholson just murdering a couple of mafia guys with no repercussions - on the contrary, the mafia backing off - was beyond suspension-of-disbelief.
The only thing TD has over IA is the banter/one-liners. That said, I get the impression the UK subtitles are only giving the jist of what's being said, and maybe the sense of humour wouldn't translate anyway - Cantonese speakers might find IA superior in this respect too.
I'd argue the opposite and agree with Jameron about nuance. Perfect example is the above - in IA, you can see Andy Lau's character is going through a crisis of conscience throughout the movie and ultimately turns on the boss because he feel's he's gone too far, and when he goes to meet Tony Leung he genuinely wants to stop living that life.
In contrast, in TD, Matt Damon's character is typical Hollywood 'all-bad' He only finally turns against Jack Nicholson when he finds out he's an FBI informant and is worried about being turned over to them.
"the cops are sayin' he's a cop so that I wont look for the cop"
Actually, when the landlord for the 2nd apartment (the one that Ong arranged for him) arrives, he say something to the effect of "who are you? Where's Ong? Where's my rent?". So Ong's story about how he's framed him in that apartment was a bluff to get Oscar to go along with the fake robbery.
In light of this, Oscar did have more chance of them believing him if he'd come clean - this landlord could even have been a witness - but given everything Oscar had going on at the time, it's understandable that he wouldn't have been thinking straight. I only caught this on my second viewing and I wasn't under the pressure that Oscar would have been!
darn, I've just started a new thread saying this! Well, saying it's also possible Oscar's stuff wouldn't have been returned to his wife by the other driver at all, given the circumstances.
Almost equally eerie is that fact that Gordie and Vern grow up to be well adjusted adults (as far as we know) while Teddy continues to have a turbulent life.
I looked this up online after I first watched the film, and confirmed it by reading the book - in reality I think it was initially diagnosed as a sprained ligament and he was given the choice between having an operation/further tests immediately or playing in a knee brace for the rest of the season. He opted for the knee brace because he felt he couldn't afford to not play. One game during the regular season, when Permian were thrashing an opponent, he came on and actually managed to score a couple of TDs even with the brace.
And he didn't break down on the field and have no choice but to stop playing as shown in the film. In reality (or at least in the book) he was so disappointed to not start the big game against Midland that he quit the team. And it was only when he went for surgery that it was confirmed as a tear, which made it a wonder that he was able to train or play at all as it was the ligament that allowed for sharp stopping or change of direction
just answered this on a much older post only to see it also being asked on page one. doh.
It did but it was no-where near as costly a decision as portrayed in the film. According to the book, it happened on a Carter 1st down, not 4th. So even if it had been correctly called as incomplete, in reality Dallas could still have continued their game-winning drive, whereas in the film it would have been a turnover. Hollywood and dramatic effect and all that.