MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
my understanding now is that the entire movie was supposed to be chronological. As in, it was supposed to start with young Frank Walker at the farm trying to get the jetpack to work. Those scenes were originally a lot longer (they only appear as a couple of 30 second flashbacks in the final cut) - Chris Bauer, playing Frank's dad, is criminally underused here!
Then it was supposed to go to the Worlds Fair/Tomorrowland 1964 scenes, then to modern day Casey on the bike, and you know the rest.
However, when viewing, the makers felt the scenes on the farm weren't strong enough to begin the movie with - maybe they weren't happy with "young Frank"'s performance, or maybe it just wasn't gripping enough. Actually, it's only coming to me as I type this, but there's deleted scenes with Casey's extended family staying with them (Lochlyn Munro playing her uncle), like they were going for a Spielberg/Amblin vibe, which the original opening would have tied in with. So, getting rid of these 'extended family' scenes, they wanted to go in a different direction, which is maybe also why the intro was changed.
Basically, they felt it "needed something" to grip the viewer's attention from the beginning. I'm not sure that even the makers were overly enamoured with the messy intro they got, but they were pushed for time and anything was better with going in the chronological order they'd originally planned, plus they also wanted both Frank AND Casey to be in the first scene.
well underage Casey does keep demanding "take me there. I want you to take me there"
And he eventually does.
PS: Sorry about the multiple messages. I apparently reached my "character limit".
That's OK, having 2 replies instead of one makes me feel more popular :D
she wanted him to hook up with Shane Oman behind the auditorium
I'd rather that than a good story told badly
and just to add, "Dignam was never off the force. He was suspended with pay" - glad someone else has made this point. I think it's deliberately left vague - Sullivan tells Costello that Dignam had quit "put in his papers", then tells Costigan that he's taken a leave of absence. Well, he did say he was pretty good at lying.
More crucially, on the rooftop Costigan's yelling to trooper Brown "where's Dignam? I told you to bring Dignam" - quite what communication there had been between these 2 before the rooftop meeting isn't clear, but I'd like to think that when this was brought up, if Dignam really had left, Brown would have mentioned this to Costigan.
perhaps he was also influenced by what happened to both Queenan and Costello when they tried to go about it in the legit way. Plus Sullivan, already the golden boy in SIU before, was now even more of a hero in that department after he'd taken down Costello (from their perspective). His status there, a lot of colleagues in influencial positions in SIU would maybe close ranks around him, and as you say, it would also be embarrassing for the department to admit that their rising star had turned out to be Costello's biggest mole, so it would be in their interests for it to go way. This, combined with the way Sullivan had managed to weasel his way out of any previous suspicion and, either through Sullivan himself or from other moles that Costello had planted in the department, had anybody going after him murdered, would make it difficult and extremely dangerous for Dignam to tackle him through SIU - in fact it's clear from his interactions with Alec Baldwin's character (i forget his name) that Queenan was the only person he trusted and was comfortable working with, so he wouldn't even have known who to bring in to help him with this.
Hence he worked alone and exacted his own justice.
postgraduate work at Chino. Excellent. i'm loving it (...let's lay it on Harp)
I think an instrumental version of that song is played quite a bit during the movie.
Did anyone else catch the instrumental version of "call of the search" also playing (during Gordon's Lambeth and then 'rehabilitation' scenes)? Can't help feeling that would have been a more fitting song to play during the end credits, but maybe that's just because I'm more familiar with it (and maybe Mike Batt hadn't written the lyrics yet, as it's several years before Katie Melua released it)
in the book, it tells whole backstory of his childhood, his parents struggling and going into debt in order to keep up with their middle-class peers (a subject Orwell also talks about a lot in Road To Wigan Pier), feeling an outsider at school because he was one of the poorest there (and that it seemed to be hierarchical based on how much money each child's family had), his eccentric relatives, the family (and societal) pressure to "make good" (ie get a good job and earn money) and that with both himself and his sister childless and approaching middle age, it appears the Comstocks line would end with them - hence his line at the end of the movie about the Comstock's continuing, which had zero gravitas without that context.
More importantly, without the context of his backstory, it's difficult to explain why he does what he does. In the novel, he doesn't quit to become a serious writer/poet (I think he tells his boss that as his reason for leaving because he has to say something!), he does so because he's declaring "war on money" (hence the alternative title, A Merry War). It's also why he immediately squanders away the cheque from the American publishers.
Finally, finding out he's to be a father means giving up on his war on money and returning to the more conventional life. It wouldn't be fair on the child to be raised in that squalid flat when they could live in a comfortable home if only Gordon would give up his (Gordon's there by choice, the child wouldn't be), plus being an unmarried mother was looked down on then and he couldn't do that to her. To translate it to film, I guess they had to make the motives more simplistic.
The film's brilliantly acted, not that i'd expect anything less from the two leads, and it's great to see so many memorable scenes from the book played out, but I feel it works better as a companion piece to the book rather than as a coherent movie in its own right, because so much context is missing.
7 years later and probably to an old imdb account but there'll be a response at last!
I always assumed it was put in to stop the question of "why didn't she just leave" appearing on these boards. It just raises more questions than answers though. OK, so she was sentimental about her parents' house and the memories it held for her, to the point where she'd rather be there as a slave than not be there at all, but then she'd be living in the palace at the end anyway. Wonder what happened to the house?
further plot holes - the black honda that Ong was so concerned about turns out to be driven by the youths he'd hired to do the fake robbery. I get Ong pretending to be worried about it following them when Oscar's sat next to him, but he was acting the same while Oscar was still in the building and couldn't see him.
Also, when the same black honda puils up and 3 thuggish looking guys get out and rush into the alleyway where Ong's just gone alone, did he somehow think Oscar WOULDN'T get out of the van to check it out?!
Ong's story about having Oscar followed and that comment about letting his wife "whore herself out" - Oscar's wife only started working there after Oscar was already hired - in fact they both started their jobs on the same day?
Final and most crucial one to the story - when Ong's explaining how the place works, he says that when a box has been robbed, the key is confiscated. Therefore, why would the key to the box that was taken 6 months ago still be with all the others? (unless Ong was referring to the customer's copy of the key? Even so, you'd think they'd keep the keys to the stolen boxes in a separate, more secured place just in case of any rogue employees).
With it being a seemingly low budget movie, I get the impression they were making a lot of it up as they went along. It's a pity these little flaws weren't picked up during editing, though, because it's such a brilliantly shot and superbly acted movie - the fact that i've watched it several times and others seem to on here as well - and it is on the whole still a great tragic story, even with the plot holes. Imagine how amazing it would have been without them.
and just re how much money would be in the box.
On the balance of probability though, the clients wouldn't be using an armoured transportation company to deliver the boxes if there wasn't anything worth stealing in them.
The only issue would be if there was very distinctive jewellery or something that would be very difficult to fence.
"So Ong gets killed, Oscar could have explained everything (the truth version) and been good. I'm assuming those money boxes are tracked and labeled. The insurance company and the security company records could have saved Oscar by showing that he never had access to that particular money box."
I've kinda mentioned this in my above answer anyway, but it wouldn't matter that Oscar wouldn't have accessed the box during his time there, because the company will think he's the one who performed the robbery 6 months earlier, and now arranged this second robbery in order to get to the key room, and was now concocting a crazy story after the 2nd robbery went wrong.
Furthermore, as other posts have said, Ong already seemed to be the prom king among his co-workers, and his hero status further elevated after being killed on the job - just a few days after this strange new guy starts working with him. Who are they going to believe?
In fact, handing over the stolen box or telling them it's in his apartment - the box could end up being evidence against him. What's he gonna say? "I've never seen that box before. The dead guy who now can't deny it told me he'd put it there" - how convenient!
And even without evidence, if the so much as suspected him, they could fire him without pay, which would be almost as catastrophic given Oscar's situation at the time
While I completely agree with most of the plot holes you've pointed out (especially the part about the encounter with the 2nd landlord, which I've mentioned on another thread), there are a couple of things that I think could be rationally explained
"The Key Room that nobody is ever in. So again I assume Ong knows that it's an unmanned station because he's walked by there a few times and overheard from other people that have walked by there that there's never anyone in there. As an Ex-COP and a security guard how did he not notice a camera."
I think it's more a case that Ong doesn't particularly care if there's a camera in there because if anything goes wrong, it will be Oscar's problem - he can deny all knowledge, and the consensus will be that after committing the first robbery and getting the job there in order to get the key for the box that was robbed (which Ong has already explained will be their hypothesis), Oscar then arranged the second robbery too in order to get into the area where the keys are kept, his partner Ong being in the briefing room being the perfect time to make his move.
Other things could have gone wrong, such as there being a guard or someone standing outside the briefing room with Driver A while Driver B is being interviewed. Or the door to the key room actually being locked at the time. Or, as eventually happened, the screwdriver being the wrong size.
But none of this would come back on Ong - worst case scenario, it doesn't come off, he's no worse off and at least he tried.
actually they only shoot him in what they think is self-defence. When he realises he's not going to be able to escape without having to harm anyone, his expression/reaction suggests he knows he's now got to die.
So when he comes out of the toilet, he points his gun in the general direction of Budda and the other guys but deliberately fires into the air (the scene earlier where Ong's helping him get used to firing the gun suggests that if he wanted to hit them here, he easily could have done), knowing that they'll then have to shoot back
i remember hearing about this test many years ago - probably around the time this film was out actually! - and possibly on a TV show so maybe it's inaccurate too.....
but they don't actually "taste" anything, as in they don't swallow or otherwise consume it. The put a small amount on their finger and rub it on their gums. If it causes a tingling sensation on their gums - while it doesn't mean it's definitely illegal drugs, it does mean it's something other than flour or sugar!
And, as other posters have said, doing this in front of Henry may have been a "we've got you" gesture.
As an aside, I love Ray Liotta's acting in this scene. Especially the bit when the cop interviewing him pats him and says "bye bye dickhead", you see him recoil like he wants to take a swing at him but knows that would only make things worse.
His reaction when they come in with Dina Meyer and all the incriminating evidence too is brilliant - all because she didn't want to break her nails or use the dishwasher!
I always thought it was strange that Kay hadn't moved on - it's understandable her holding out for a while but you'd think Tom refusing even to take the letter from her would have been the last straw.
I get the feeling he'd disappeared for more than the 2 years stated in the OP. Girl with those looks, family money etc, it's doubtful she'd have remained single.
Of course we're assuming she was completely single when Michael approached her - she could have been in an unserious or reluctant relationship with some waspy guy her parents had set her up with or something. But in 1940s/1950s American, a girl from that background, I'd imagine she was under huge societal and family pressure to marry as soon as she'd finished college.
they discuss it in 3 when he's taking Kay on a tour of Sicily but quite when it was first disclosed to her isn't clear. But she does know at some point (but it could be after their marriage had ended!)
It was as private a conversation as Moe was going to get with Michael - the dancers and musicians were being cleared out before he'd even entered the room, leaving only Corleone family members there. OK, Fredo and maybe Johnny Fontaine had a hand in the casino business too, but both had much deeper loyalty to the Corleones (or "should have had", Fredo!).
Tom was always going to be present as the family's legal rep, and Al Neri or whoever, even if they weren't sat at the table with them, would have to be close by and within earshot for Michael's protection.
My point is, it's not like Michael called him out on the casino's losses or his treatment of Fredo etc in the middle of the casino floor in front of other employees and their regular gamblers.
I think Moe reacted like that because he was caught off-guard by Michael's coldness towards him and his all-round ruthlessness - he probably only knew Michael from his civilian days and was under the impression that his visit was going to be more of a social call than anything, and was taken aback when it wasn't and shocked by the change in Michael and the demands he was making.
Especially since he'd already "talked to Barzini" !