Can someone help me answer this?... - Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) Discussion

[–] hopeniccolle 8 years ago

I thought it was the number of people they killed.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (64820750) 8 years ago

That makes sense but I just don't understand why John would act so shocked over that. They're assassins hired to kill people for a living so I just don't see why that would really "upset" him.

reply

[–] hopeniccolle 8 years ago

It has been a while since I've seen this movie so I don't remember his reaction, that is just what I assumed, but I can be wrong.

reply

[–] khaoesmith27 8 years ago

It's the people they've slept with for "business" purposes because some of their assignments requires them to get close to them to eliminate them, even if it means sleeping with them.

reply

[–] kelvin-gardner 8 years ago

It's the number of people they've killed but it's a double play on the situation where it's made to sound like it could be people they've slept with (like what they do in sit coms like friends where joey and chandler say things that make them sound like they're a couple arguing) John and jane are 100% talking about number of kills

reply

[–] kelvin-gardner 8 years ago

And it's upsetting him that she's killed so many more than him. So he looks hurt like if he had found out that she'd slept with more than him. Its doe for comedy value

reply

[–] RavenEffect666 8 years ago

I can't believe people are actually thinking it is the number killed. It's how many they SLEPT with. That's why John acts so disgusted. She also stressed that some were more then "two or three at a time". He wouldn't act disgusted if it was how many they killed. Come on people...

reply

[–] cogbehaviorist-67133 8 years ago

Her line is "sometimes two at a time." His next line is "Are you counting innocent bystanders?"

There's no way to interpret that OTHER than they were talking about their kill numbers, unless you think she's routinely having sex with more than one person at a time in public.

reply

[–] khaoesmith27 8 years ago

Unless we both weren't watching the same movie, the innocent bystanders line was nowhere in that conversation. I just watched it myself and after she said "Sometimes two at a time" he sighed in disgust, and turned his head away from her. She said "Honey?" and he waves her off with his hand and trys to say something but he's so disgusted he can't get it out. Then next scene.

***Your head so big I bet you dont have dreams you have movies***

reply

[–] cogbehaviorist-67133 8 years ago

I don't think we weren't watching the movie; I think you missed a throwaway line where the actor who was saying it wasn't being lit in a way that brought attention to him. It's quiet, and Pitt is not centrally framed in the shot. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but it was on while I was typing my response and I paused and rewound in order to transcribe it.

reply

[–] arslanistic 8 years ago

it never says anything abt bystanders etc in my version too... maybe theres a diff between unrated or rated versions... and i just checked it now myself, not a single peep other than what the dude above described. and yes it means the ppl they've killed disguised as a convo normal couples have abt the no. ppl they've slept with.

reply

[–] cogbehaviorist-67133 8 years ago

You're right; check out [url="http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3029"]this[/url] page, halfway down.

"Additional scene
After Jane mentions her 312 killings, John asks if that number does include innocent bystanders.
17,5 sec "

reply

[–] fc31 (5504) a year ago

I think they shot enough scenes so it could both ways, and it went differently in different versions.

In the version I was watching it definitely meant sex partners, otherwise "been around the block" makes no sense. And John should have been in awe or at least surprised instead of felling disgusted.

reply

[–] tanny (1) a year ago

No its how many people they killed. Its mostly a play on words to keep the audience guesses if its "how many people they killed" or "how many people they slept with" and its how many people they killed, and they clarify it later. Yeah John acts a bit disgusted and sad but thats cause its literally "killing" someone, they wouldn't care about each other's body count when they find out they're both assassins'. But they clarify its how many people they killed in the next scene they are working together to find Ben Danz. In the next scene John was asking Jane a bunch of questions like "Monitoring the perimeter?" and "What about the police bands?" and Jane was getting sick of his questions and replied with "This isn't my first time" and John says "Think we've established that" and then Jane scoffs. This is a reply to the last scene where they were talking about how many people they have killed, cause obviously if Jane killed 312 people as compared to Johns 50-60 people, she can be seen as more experiences, and definetly not being her first time.

reply

[–] BKB (10097) a year ago

Surprised this never received a sequel??

reply

[–] fc31 (5504) a year ago

I think they shot enough scenes so it could both ways, and it went differently in different versions.

In the version I was watching it definitely meant sex partners, otherwise "been around the block" makes no sense. And John should have been in awe or at least surprised instead of felling disgusted.

reply

[–] jordywalnuts 8 years ago

This isn't even debatable. They were talking about the number of people they've killed.
It's a bit ridiculous that anyone would think otherwise. The whole point is that they're talking about kills and not sexual partners. That's the joke.
This should be clear to anyone who is not a complete idiot.
Her number was what? High 200's? All of a sudden the movie decided to have a character nonchalantly mention that she's a raging sex-addict? Did it occur to you that if they were talking about sexual partners it wouldn't really match the tone of the rest of the film?... Or that it WOULDN'T MAKE ANY *beep* SENSE????

reply

[–] beja-4 8 years ago

This isn't even debatable. They were talking about the number of people they've killed. It's a bit ridiculous that anyone would think otherwise. The whole point is that they're talking about kills and not sexual partners. That's the joke.

I saw the film for the first time last night, and of course you're right.

The entire conversation was about their jobs. The comparison of, and what their professional assignments had been, etc., to simply trump each other. It would've been very odd if she, between her assignments – or associated with them – would've had enough time to sleep with 312 men. John acted shocked, because she trumped him – again.

But as someone in this thread also mentioned, it is of course a double play on the situation, where it's made to sound like it could be people they've slept with. That is the joke :)

reply

[–] jordywalnuts 8 years ago

yeah, that's exactly what i said. the joke is that they're talking about kills, not sexual partners (because in any other context we would think they were talking about partners). But thanks.

reply

[–] beja-4 8 years ago

You're welcomed :) And yes, you did. The odd thing is, when making the post, all hell broke loose just after a few days between Pitt and Jolie. I really hope the children are doing okay.

reply

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

It's clearly not THAT ridiculous if this many people agree that it's the number of people they slept with. Chill.

reply

[–] jordywalnuts 8 years ago

I suppose you're correct. If you consider how dumb the average person is, it shouldn't surprise you that so many people made the mistake.

reply

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

lol jesus, hope you have a great life with that type of mentality.

reply

[–] philoj 8 years ago

They're talking about the number of people they've killed, but the scene is written to parallel a couple comparing how many people they've slept with.

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

reply