MovieChat Forums > La migliore offerta (2014) Discussion > Was ALL this really necessary?

Was ALL this really necessary?

posted 11 years ago by Dreamcatcher9000
35 replies | jump to latest

"Bad movies we love"? Well, there are "good movies we hate" too!

To be honest, I don't remember when was the last time I watched a movie with so big devotion. Not only because of the mystery, but because of everything. And I went to see it because nothing else (that I hadn't see) was playing, and nothing intrigued me to the whole movie, I felt it would be so boring and long (131 minutes). But, even since the first 5 minutes, I liked it a lot.

But, I was let down in the end. Not because of the sad ending. But because I feel the director tricked us for no reason. Ok, so Sutherland and Sturgess used the girl to steal his paintings. But, really... Just think about it, realistically... You and another guy know someone, and you want to steal the paintings he keeps in a secret room. You think and set AAAAALLL this crazy story, this crazy hoax, to do it?? Wouldn't you just go in his house in masks, put a gun in his face, and tell him to say the password for the door? And then tie him until you do the job?? There is no other in the house, he himself told he sends all the servants away at night.
But no, you have to find a girl, lock her in a huge house, make her call him for the antics job, hide herself in every visit he makes playing sick and crazy, so, if we're lucky, he'll fall in love with her (a guy who has never slept with a woman!!), and put her in his house. Yeah, that's much more logical than call him that you want to visit him to tell him something important, then drug him, open the steel door with a torch, and job's done.
But...there would be no 131 minutes movie otherwise, right?

Very good movie until the last 5-10 minutes. After that, sorry, but it sucked. They could have found a more realistically way to do it. They even left the painting and the automaton with the recorded message! Ok, it's a movie, but give us a break! A whole movie for nothing! How many times have we seen that?? Countless!

[–] aegoss 11 years ago

Some people do guns and thermic lances, others do art. Billy, who I take to be the guiding force behind the sting, is an artist, he wants revenge, not loot.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 11 years ago

Revenge for what?

[–] zulixro 11 years ago

for not recognizing his art, making it harder for him to succed in the art world. he hated him.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 11 years ago

Ok, maybe I lost it. I understand that Virgil "hired" Billy to play as a buyer in the auctions, and he was giving him a percentage (large, I assume!). He was his partner. They were in the scam, together. How was Virgil making it harder for him to succeed? Ok, so he didn't like his paintings. Was he the ONLY person in the world who could help him become a recognized artist?

[–] dogstar-12 11 years ago

I don't think Billy saw himself as a partner, more like an employee. While Virgil obviously paid him well, he also didn't show him a great deal of respect (remember that comment of his about Billy being too shallow to be a true artist and upbraiding him over the failed sale?). Remember also, the conversation in which Billy told Virgil that every human emotion could be faked and it seems that Billy felt a fair amount of resentment that had probably been building up for years.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Virgil showed him respect through the money he paid him along with regular compliments. As bosses go, Virgil was better than most of the ones that I've had. And when you find yourself unhappy with your pay or treatment, it's on you to either speak up or leave, and not to stew in secret while plotting revenge and cashing all the checks. I saw nothing to justify revenge.

[–] przgzr 9 years ago

The respect was more politeness than real appreciation. And it's not the same when you are an artist. When accountant makes his job well he knows that he will save money for his boss and consequently he will earn more as well. If you repair cars and people are satisfied with your work, they will come back and you can expect your income to grow - it's good if you own a job, but if you are an employee it's also good because you can negotiate for bigger salary. We all have to do something for living, and we are satisfied and proud if people praise our work. But even if not we are satisfied just because we don't depend on anybody but our own work; and when we leave our working place and come home we have another, private life to enjoy and maybe prove ourselves doing something. However, artist don't do their job just to earn for living, what they do is a creation, a part of them and their souls, so the appreciation or lack of it by far more to them than to the rest of us, and there is usually some level of vanity in them. And when they don't get the appreciation they think they owe the reaction is different, stronger and more personal than you'd expect from average people.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

That doesn't change a thing. If artists feel underappreciation more intensely than non-artists, then they should be quicker than non-artists to leave a job they do not find satisfying. In no case should they stay and resent their employer, especially if they've not even expressed their dissatisfaction. It seems pretty unjustifiable to resent someone for failing to read your mind. Not complaining while continuing to cash their checks is a pretty clear indication that you are satisfied with the arrangement.

[–] moviechick1010 9 years ago

I agree melinda2001. Somewhere early on Billy decided to keep toxic people in his life and it's his fault alone that he didn't remove himself from Oldman's world and find acceptance for his art work elsewhere. Instead he acts like he has some sort of Spousal Abuse Syndrome: can't stay, can't go. Billy is actually very quietly one of the most Machiavelian characters in cinema.

[–] moviechick1010 9 years ago

[–] morganseer 9 years ago

Would've, could've, should've. Can we just agree that Billy was a narcissist, and had his own way of resolving interpersonal conflicts?

[–] CrabbyJack 9 years ago

Revenge for telling Billy that his art was competent but not inspired enough to be truly valuable. That's why at the end he makes a point of sending one of his paintings to Virgil , which turns out to be one that was supposed to be of "Claire's" mother.

[–] linobox 11 years ago

Few movies have intrigue me this much in recent years, and to think as well, what a good surprise was not to be numb at the begining in what i also thought out to be just another euro-boring-movie. However i do agree: its a dissappointment in the end.

Yes, i can see they were all in It, Robert, Claire, Billy, but revenge? greed? There's just not enough motive given or explained that would justify such an elaborated scheme.
Nice clues, great possibilities with the "in love" thing. All indications were perfect, you always know something is going on but not what or when.

I was so mislead that at one point i thought It was Billy trying to give him a lesson thru helping someone so isolated on how to live with people instead of watching them on portraits in a wall, alone. I sense friendship between them, not anything else. It does not add up.

[–] CrabbyJack 9 years ago

For Billy it was revenge. For the others, greed. The value of the stolen paintings from Virgil's wall would have been in the hundreds of millions. There is also the revenge value of Billy taking something that means so much to Virgil.

[–] dagmark 11 years ago

It lost me sooner then that. There where so many holes in the plot,that it became very boring and predictable. Sorry,I just give it one star!

[–] Mixalidis 11 years ago

Kinda OT, but...

"I felt it would be so boring and long (131 minutes)"

Yeah, because 131-minute movies are so rare to find... Actually, 7 of your 10 favourite movies of the 90's are longer than this one. I just don't think you make much sense, sorry.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 11 years ago

Mixalidis (I assume you're Greek, like me), first, I never got an e-mail notification of your reply. Maybe you didn't reply to me?

Anyway, you don't make much sense either. Some of the greatest movies ever made are over 2,5 hours. "The Godfather", "Ben Hur", "Lawrence Of Arabia", "The Last Emperor", etc. But that doesn't mean that I won't be skeptical if a new movie (or any movie) is too long. I really didn't find this film's story intriguing before I go and watch it, so I thought I'd be bored to watch it for 131 minutes. If it was 95 minutes, I would be more positive of watching it.

If a movie is good, I don't mind how long it is.

Anyway, I watched this movie, and despite my objections, I enjoyed it.

[–] przgzr 9 years ago

What a great expectation you must have when a movie is 7 minutes long?!

[–] zee-la 11 years ago

of course it is open for the viewer to find the real reasons for billy to do so but there is another point to be taken in consideration. virgil is portrayed as an awful person full of disregard towards people. he uses everyone, is extremely racist (he can't even look at sarah in the eyes the first time he's introduced to her) in his conception everyone and everything is dirty (which at a certain point is kinda true but he takes it to an extreme) has some huge issues due to his tormented childhood in an orphanage (which is not his fault), is grumpy and not polite to anyone and is a thief. we see the transformation of this character throughout the film when he thinks to have found love. he does not wear gloves anymore, touches people, becomes a nicer person and give's up the auction/scam thing so... looking through these lenses, billy did him a favor releasing the beauty that was buried deep down. after the incident virgil is a better person but now is tormented by that one that stole his heart and ends up in a mental institution. billy wanted him to suffer and pay for being such an awful person and managed to do so with a perfect plan (mind that he treats billy really badly, he didn't even invite him to the dinner where they celebrate as a "family"). love the movie, specially the first half where the curiosity of the unknown is so magically attractive.

[–] pgrabowski 11 years ago

is extremely racist (he can't even look at sarah in the eyes the first time he's introduced to her)
---
I don't think it had anything to do with Sarah's race, he was so extremely shy in a presence of a young woman.

[–] xmenvsfantastic4 11 years ago

Hmm I dont think Billy knew where the paintings were kept. I think he knew by making Virgil fall in love with Claire, he would eventually show the collection to her.

[–] kingpinmultimedia 9 years ago

I hadn't thought about that, but I think you're right. My theory as to why Billy did it was because Virgil didn't treat him with respect. When they lost the Petrus Christus Virgil didn't tell him it was the original, not the Valiente fake he was passing it off to be. Since the same thing had happened before, with the Van Gogh he mentioned, it seems Virgil made a habit of keeping Billy in the dark. Billy also mentions the fact that Virgil seems to have a knack for knowing early on which artists are going to be "really big" and snatching up their work, yet he keeps that info to himself, as well. Billy says the Melanson "must be worth a fortune now," and Virgil replies "You almost sound bitter you didn't get a bit more." I think that, coupled with the disrespect Virgil showed for Billy's artistry, put him over the edge and he wanted revenge. So, considering Virgil kept Billy in the dark as to the real origins and value of the paintings, I'd surmise he never showed him the secret room, either. And using Claire as the pawn to find out was maybe the most brilliant part of the scheme.

Terriers always smell like warm, buttered toast.

[–] Kroyall1962 11 years ago

The reason for the elaborate scam was simple, it was to keep him from going to the cops. A straight up robbery would have meant the thieves would be pursued adn they wouldn't be able to sell the pieces.

There is a scene in the film in which he stands outside of a police station but does not go in. There are several reasons for this. First off he still fantasizes about re-uniting with the girl. Secondly he wouldn't want to admit he'd been scammed and humiliated like that.

[–] type-club 11 years ago

He could not report the theft to the Police because he had aquired the paintings by fraud himself. The painitngs also did not belong to him. That is why the whole eleborate scam was really not needed.

[–] Sandro-88 11 years ago

Yeah I was quite taken with this film, until the silly Ocean's Eleven twist. They promised so much intrigue, history and mystery and we end up getting the old it's-all-a-scam twist.

Felt like I had just watched a very beautiful and well-acted episode of Hustle.

'88

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]