MovieChat Forums > johnral > Replies
johnral's Replies
OK -- if we're really answering this... It's sort of assumed that two of the guards are dead, but we don't really know that. The guy with the grinder is shot in the back, but we don't know that he's dead; I would assume he lives. Lyssete was already dead and so she does not count. Stormy gets it of course. Someone posted that 19 are killed per the book. In the movie, the accuracy of the shooter is atrocious. The shooter actually takes time and bullets to shoot the glass in the roof. Is he a window-killer? And I don't recall any bowlers getting it in the mall. (And isn't it odd that they're wearing the bowling outfits the next day? Those are their work uniforms! Worn the night before. What's up with that.) When one shooter misses everybody else, why would a shooter (perhaps another one) take out the whole bowling-alley crew? Just a bit odd.)
I didn't realize it ..but that was partly because the gunman wasn't hitting anybody, as best I could see. I mean, what are the odds that the only person actually hit by a bullet is the girlfriend of the guy who is trying to stop him?
Well, since nobody responded to this... I think he sees them only when something violent (deadly) has happened, or is about to happen. I think we see them in the movie only because massive death is imminent, due to to a particular plot (and not some general conditions). I don't know how frequently he saw them in the past. But this might be a good question: how many times can he have seen them in the past, as the rape and murder of a young girl cannot be that common in a small town.
Pretty strange to kill Arno. I later came to think that Arno was not so high in the organization, and maybe Arno got Howard in with these guys, such that the loansharks/bookies felt that Arno was responsible for this whole mess.
I'm assuming they could get out somehow, but good question.
My larger question was that tons of people saw them in the store before Howard was shot. Seems like it would not be difficult to link the to the event. There should be cameras in a place like that (i.e. in the hallway, lobby, entrance). It could take them several minutes to make sure they got all of the footage out of the store. Just seems like a very risky crime; I thought that's why they were leaving when they did, and they did not drop him out the window (because of witnesses). He's got to get rid of the gun, get rid of powder residue, get his DNA out of the store etc. Seems like a ton of complications. Two gunshots went off, so cops or security should be coming.
A related question: There must be a fire code provision that prevents a person from being locked in (i.e. a person should be able to leave a building without knowing a code or having a key etc.).
I think this is a good question. I would be curious to know if this is covered by fair use; seems to be close to the line.
Not sure how much was owed. Probably around 100K. I think the implication is that Garnett's 165K or so was enough to cover it.
I agree that it seemed earlier like Arno was the boss. But in the final scene it seemed that Arney was an underling.
My sense was that they were ready to leave the store, and then probably kill Howard later. Then the leader got mad for being locked up (understandable) and that's why he robbed the store and shot Howard. But I did find this robbing aspect very odd. There seemed to be tons of jewelry in the store. Why would they not just insist that Howard give them a ton of jewelry as collateral? (I mean -- they were just dangling him out the window to get the cash...)
Agreed. Depp's character was out of the blue. Sort of reminds me of some trivia from the Breakfast Club. They originally cast Rick Moranis to play the janitor, but he had a completely different take on the role (e.g. playing the role with a foreign accent). Even though he was a big-name, they had to flush his scenes and re-do them with another actor. It feels as if they should have done the same thing in Tusk; the big-name star plays this character in a quirky way that is interesting, but does not fit the overall movie, and perhaps they would have been better off to have a no-name actor play this role straight.
It was a great scene. I don't think it was really one shot. It was made to appear one shot; but there were cuts. Hitchcock would have had a more realistic scene, but not nearly as exciting.
Agreed. This is kind of silly. It's one thing to dodge bullets for 90 minutes... but then to have the hero not have any appreciable injuries (after falling out of windows, fighting, more falling, getting hit by cars etc) is a bit much. It's a shame that the public needs that much action/gore/violence to keep their attention. In reality one moderate injury (ankle, back, shoulder) can take a person out of action for weeks.
agreed. Camera going from outside to inside car was great. Some of those shots that seem continuous were cut. There was another scene where the camera followed something dropping to the ground; similar amazing effect. This action aspect of the movie is perhaps the redeeming factor of the movie (when we have the typical hero that is somehow bullet-proof).
I think it's meant to be ambiguous. Someone here noted that the director wanted an option of a sequel. As a practical matter, surviving that neck wound and the fall to the water and then the water itself, plus any soldiers that might have been watching the water, would be next to impossible, even for this guy.
This is a good question. In theory, sending the letter through an intermediary still violated the restraining order. The law is pretty clear about that. So contacting the wife through Jennifer's character or through a fake email account is still problematic (for a protective order). He was taking a big chance by doing this; they don't have some sort of cool loophole here. (And I say this as a lawyer who has dealt with these things a little bit.)
I also had this question: We know that he beat up the dude; but was there any indication that he hit his wife? I don't recall that. My understanding would be that she could not get a protective order against him for his assaulting the dude. Based on how much he says he loved her, it's hard to believe that he would threaten or assault her. Just puzzled about this.
true. that was funny. I wondered if they'd ask him to pay for the broken dishes.
That's a good question. I thought that most of the fights were legit, in which case it would not be a con; but others here might be right that a majority of fights were fixed. But I think this raises another question. The villain learns that the fights are fixed (when the one brother does not fight). In fact, the last fix is quite obvious as the guy calls out the other boxer's name and gives him the thumb's down signal, after which that boxer just puts his arms down. I don't know if there is some code among conmen whereby anything is fair game; but I would think that dirty tricks like fixing a fight would nullify the bet, even among hustlers, con-mean and general scumbags. Would anybody really hold it against the villain if he refused to pay due to fixed fights? (Understanding of course that both sides played dirty; with the villain at least pushing the limits by bringing in the "ringer.") If the gamblers live with a code of ethics where they can openly cheat, then would there be any shame in just killing the other dude after losing the bet and refusing to pay? (It's not as if the villain is above murder.) But back to the main question: With that old dude winning even three legitimate fights (including the one against the ringer), the money is well-earned.
umm -- yes. That's the death of a 25 year old dude. The movie seems to end on a positive note, with the deceased brother punching out the bad guy; but this is really grim. They would have done better to just beat him up, or to have his brother save him at the last minute. And as a practical matter, how could the villain have given the kill order that quickly? Cell phones were not common back then, and a pager would need a phone. And how did they have time to write that note? etc... This should have been fixed in the script.
I tend to agree with this. I saw the movie without that scene, and it definitely presented a twist when her husband was a big reveal. But I think the movie would work also with that scene included. Marilyn's plot to kill the husband seems out-of-the-blue.
Not sure that the shelf would have her reach the phone, but she could get it down.
I thought about the shimmy-the-bed thing too. I kept expecting her to do that. Perhaps the bed is too heavy for that; but it's worth a try. (I don't think she had enough room to move to make it work... But she does not have a ton of trouble pushing the bed later.)
The husband said that the bed-posts were "reinforced," but who reinforces a bedpost?? (And who knows that their bedpost is reinforced?) It should be regular wood and I thought she should be able to break it with her legs fairly easily (assuming it does not have an iron rod in it).
And yes-- charge the phone makes much more sense. Stupid to drive that weary. You'd feel stupid to get out of the cuffs only to drive off a cliff...
The house was fairly secluded and so nobody was likely to come by, and he was a bit in a hurry. I kept expecting a bear or something to enter the house...
Good point. I thought it was odd that there were no references to race (that I can recall), and little-to-no reference to gays (e.g. jokes/comments about the gay couple).