MovieChat Forums > The Great Bank Hoax Discussion > I don't understand

I don't understand

posted 8 years ago by gribfritz2
1 reply | jump to latest

100k is missing. So they stage a robbery, I THOUGHT to "pretend" to steal the 100k and clear the books. Yet when the staged robbery takes place, they actually steal 100k. So if Ned Beatty fixed the books to cover for the 100k (which is what he indeed spent the day doing) how do they cover the ADDITIONAL 100k that is now also missing?

Further, as they concoct their plan, the president, vice president, and controller don't seem too concerned that there is still an embezzling thief working for the bank. After the staged theft, wouldn't the embezzler just continue to embezzle, putting them right back where they started again?

And don't get me started on the ending that was about to be great and then completely wussed out. This movie made my head hurt.

[–] iwals 8 years ago

I'm sure in reality it's more complicated than this, but here is my take: imagine a vault full of money. Half of it is embezzled. To conceal the embezzlement, you empty out the vault of the remaining cash. The vault is now empty. You call the police and say "our vault is empty, someone has robbed us." The police assume the bank robber took a vault full of money. But like I said, real life, even then, wouldn't be that simple.

Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever.