This movie makes no sense


I honestly couldn't finish watching it, because the stupidities, the 'let's talk but not communicate at all'-crap kept piling up, the whole 'romance' scene couldn't have been weirder or more cringeworthy and Redford's character has no humor, no humanity or anything but being a jerk.

When he kidnaps the woman, it seems like a typical trope (how many times does this happen in movies?), but then it goes to such stupidly weird and cruel directions, I can't even side with Robert's character anymore. I am not one to take the woman's side usually, but holy cow is this guy a jerk to that woman!

I absolutely love the beginning - great music, intrique, wonderful 1970s atmosphere and technology, sounds, etc. and a really female-charismatic asian woman who even knows how to read kanji/hanzi.

Then the movie goes downhill from there. Sigh. What a waste of so much greatness just to produce a turd like this.

I mean, this movie is filled with really crappy and non-informative dialogue said in a monotone voice with no energy. What is this? Redford is a charismatic man, how the HECK can this movie show his character as someone with no charisma?

However, what kills it for me, is the endless barrage of details that make no sense. I will only mention a couple of details, or my brain might overload.

1) GUNS ARE !@%!"#!* LOUD! You can't silence them to the level of 'did I hear something in the next room or not?'. Everyone would hear every single gunshot to every room in the building! It doesn't matter what 'silencer' you use, watch Lindybeige's video about how loud guns are to get some idea. Ridiculous.

2) The woman comes from the bedroom, sees a kettle (or whatever it is) on the stove. Now, first of all, how did that kettle end up there, how can the woman know ANYTHING about its contents? Even if she put it there earlier, Redford's character could've done ANYTHING to it.

Wouldn't a reflex in your own house with your own kettle more likely be to CHECK if it's full, and if it is, put FRESH water in it, because already-boiled water is not healthy to boil again? Wouldn't you just pour whatever is in it out, then fill it with fresh water, THEN turn the stove on?

This woman just turns the stove on like it's OBVIOUS that there's water in it (which also boils really quickly). Maybe I missed a scene when fast forwarding from the AWFUL, badly-lit 'romance' crap, but geez.

Also, why would the kettle even be on the stove? Unless she's in the habit of filling it with water before going to bed, then just turning the stove on, that whole thing makes no sense from any perspective.

Also, they do not communicate about that kind of stuff at all, where they coudl easily say a couple of words to each other to indicate what's going on and ..

I don't know, this movie tries to be something we've seen done better so many times (heck, even the very bad sequel to Johnny English does it better), but fails flat on its face. The sound design is also, by the way, really bad. I can barely hear what Redford says to the weird group just hanging in some apartment building's hallway for no reason..

Also, why aren't the 'evil agents' already at her place, since they know the car's plate number? They should've been there ages ago!

The way the movie starts is great, but it's very confusing and non-informative for a very long time - what is Redford's job exactly? Why would he confuse some printing device with a computer? Why would anyone call a computer 'simple'? It's like the movie wants to fill the movie theater with question marks before answering anything. So much of it is plodding, slow-paced 'let's look at someone stand in the rain for 5 minutes'-stuff as well.

How do they waste so much? This movie should've been excellent in all possible ways, it has great actors, charismatic lead (somehow non-charismatic in THIS movie!), beautiful actresses, great premise (as much as you can understand it when nothing is explained), cool cat 'n mouse stuff (mainly the elevator scene) that was done better in Sneakers and Spy Game, though.. and the dang excellent 1970s music that really gets you going, played in the wrong places so it never supports the movie the way music is supposed to.

What the heck happened? How can someone take these delicious ingredients and create a soup THIS bad?!

Also, why the FRGHG did they have to murder those innocent people, and especially that cool asian woman that had such great fashion sense, that it makes me wish I could go to the seventies and just spend a long holiday there? You don't make the audience fall in love with some characters and then just murder them!

Also also, why does the receptionist just let EVERYONE in without any questions or codes or anything? WHAT?! What's the point of the button, when she just pushes it for everyone?

Also also also, what was the point of the 'bike stealing scene', and why does Redford just delicately ask 'what's on your mind' instead of assertively stating a loud "HEY!" ?



reply

I pretty much agree.
This movie had such great potential for an espionage thriller but as you mention here: The way the movie starts is great, but it's very confusing and non-informative for a very long time - what is Redford's job exactly?
What the heck happened? How can someone take these delicious ingredients and create a soup THIS bad?!

Here is what confused me or doesn't make any friggen sense.
I may not remember it all that well since it has been a couple of years and I saw it only once.
Their job was to read books and mags. for a branch of the CIA.
Then when it is found out they just happened to read fictitious things by an amazing coincidence the CIA just also happens to be up to, (Really. What are the odds of that? Really, really huge. In the millions at least.) they send in a bunch of assassins to wipe them all out?
If these people didn't know the top secret missions the CIA was actually doing, why kill them?
And even if they did know, wouldn't they have been sworn to secrecy?

You brought up the Asian woman who was Redford's GF.
Man, he sure got over her death real quick by boinking his hostage within a couple of days!
I dunno about you but nothing would get me more horny than someone with a gun in my face and tying me up in my residence!
And she cheats on her boyfriend with her captor?
It was pretty much date rape.

Then towards the end Redford comes face to face with the main assassin played by the late and great Max Von Sydrow.
If I remember right, Max just killed a man in his mansion then when it comes to Redford he was like, "Meh. Forget it. You are free to go on your way and don't worry about me anymore. We are done killing you guys."
Lame.

reply

How is this the 'late Max Von Sydrow'?
The guy was 45!

reply

Well yeah, he can't play the part if he is dead unless they need a dead guy who is just laying there!

Did you not realize he has passed away?

reply

Interesting. English is not my first language. I (falsely) assumed 'the late' is a reference to his advanced age. I stand corrected.

reply

OK cool.

If you have any more questions for help with understanding English slang or expressions, feel free to ask.
Happy to help!

reply

This movie came out during the 70s and was part of a new genre - the political conspiracy thriller. It was just months after Watergate. There were others: The Parallax View and the critically acclaimed The Conversation. Realized paranoia. Pelican’s Brief later on.

In the movie, it all all comes down to Middle East oil. But Redford was an analyst at a historical literature society, a part of the CIA. He reads books. One book was suspect book bc it was published in certain languages. Why in these languages? It’s called gathering intelligence. So he wrote a brief and someone felt threatened. If Redford hadn’t gone out the back door to get lunch, ….

As for the ending, Joubert (von Sydow) just says he’s not going to come after him but someday someone will. It will happen like this he says….as you’re walking down the street…. Also Redford, now a whistleblower, assumes what he says will be published. It most likely won’t. This was a good entertaining movie. I don’t understand the criticism. Ebert gave it 3-1/2 stars and says it was well made.

reply

Since it was better than this complicated and lame cluster fuck up of a movie, I would much rather have a conversation about The Conversation and I saw it more recently.

reply

> I am not one to take the woman's side usually

LOL, what does that mean?
Right and wrong - be damned, it's a bad thing to take a woman's side?
Hahaha, hilarious.

Then you sink to the level of picking out every minute little thing you can think of to criticize. Already boiled water in a kettle, boiling too fast? Do you realize how funny that is.

It's not a great movie, but I saw it when it came out, and it was entertaining. I don't know why. If you really want to be critical - check out the series Condor.

reply

"Do you realize how funny that is."

exactly. lmao

i wanted to say more to the guy but honestly it feels immoral to do so, like 'punching down' lol

reply

dude, i don't even know where to start lol

all i can say is, your post says way more about you than it does about the film.

you must be a continuity freak. imo a regular viewer would be so immersed in the story they'd never notice those tea kettle details. the fact that you did tells me you were having an ADD attack or something, the fact your mind even latched onto the tea kettle details in the first place. my guess is you missed a whole lot in this film because you were paying more attention to minute details that are entirely incidental.

but hey, you have a right to dislike it. rock on.



reply