It was Nate who suggested they sell Van Zant's bonds back to him. Neil asks "how is he?" and Nate said "he's a business man." But as soon as Van Zant hangs up with Nate he's already decided he's going to try killing the people who stole his bonds. Neil put his trust in Nate and it almost got him killed.
shareNate said "he's a business man." But as soon as Van Zant hangs up with Nate he's already decided he's going to try killing the people who stole his bonds.
LOL, that hypothetical phone call is pretty funny to think about.
But the OP brings up a really good question. The events of the film are really set in motion by Van Zant attempting to kill Neil for stealing from him. You'd think Neil would be a little pissed about having his plans get totally screwed up by Nate's suggestion.
My only thought is that Neil and Nate go WAY back and Neil trusts him as much as he's capable of trusting anyone. Being in a highly disreputable business, the chance of something going sideways is always a possibility, and Neil, knowing Nate made the suggestion in good faith, didn't hold it against him.
Also: how did the crew find Waingro? Because if Nate suggested HIM as well, then...wow. That's two MAJOR strikes against his judgment. I don't think we ever find that out though.
Cheritto served time with Waingro, so that's probably how they came into contact.
shareWhere did you get that from? In the scene when Waingro gets into the truck, Cheritto asks him: "What's your name?" "Waingro! You're Michael, huh?"
Doesn't sound like they had known each other before.
Yeah, come to think of it, you're right. I was thinking of the conversation between Hanna and another cop, where he mentions someone talking about Cheritto while he was in prison. About how he calls everyone "Slick". It's been a while since I saw the movie.
shareNow, if you want to talk coincidences...how about Hanna zeroing in on Tone Loc casually mentioning "Slick"??
See, those are the kinds of things that happen in movies that will take me out of them momentarily. The odds of that happening in real life are pretty damn low, but they need to happen to drive a film's narrative.
I don't really have a problem with coincidences like that. As long as it's just one or two. However, if a movie relies too heavily on them, then that can deffinently ruin it.
shareThey built up the scene where Vincent gets the "slick" tip. "He's in Phoenix..etc." That helps to nullify the coincidence factor. Also the way Vincent wasn't impressed at first and was going to walk out.
shareTrue...I certainly don't fault the writers for that scene, but it seems awfully convenient. Compared to a lot of other films, Heat's screenplay is extremely tight.
shareAnother crazy coincidence - De Niro using a pay phone just outside where Charlize is humping Hank Azaria.
shareAnother question: Why did Neil tip off Van Zant that he was going to kill him? It gave him time to hide and plot a countermove.
I think Neil was royally pissed & determined to whack Van Zant. Neil was meticulous in his planning but a tad reckless (going after Waingro in the hotel). But he did mention earlier in talking to his crew "What, you wanna start WW3 with Van Zant?"
shareplus it's only when Neil finds out that it was Van Zant and Waingro who got to Danny Trejo and his wife and tipped off the cops about their job that he went after them. Had that last bank job gone through as planned, he was happy to fly off to NZ and forget about them both
shareNeil obviously didn't trust Van Zant, that is why he had his guys riding shotgun for the exchange. Besides in their line of work being double crossed must be part of the job so I doubt Neil would blame Nate for such a thing.
shareCan someone please explain to me why Neil did not get into the car with Edie to try and drive away and instead chose to run off for a shootout??? Did he want to be killed? I never understood that at all. I know it's not completely related to this particular thread but I can't get that bit out of my head
shareThis is a great question, and since Bearer Bonds are anonymous in nature it's a HUGE risk to reveal yourself as the thief who stole them especially if it's a guy who launders money for the Cartels. Like WTF is Nate thinking???
We see that Neil takes precautions and is prepared for the double-cross, but what I don't get is that Neil still holds the bearer bonds am I correct? We didn't see any previous scene where Neil gives them to Nate or to a hand-off guy working for Van Zandt, but after the failed betrayal Neil and his crew act like the Bonds were gone forever.
The bonds were worth an estimated extra $750,000 to the crew(divided equally I assume) had Van Zandt kept up his end of the deal. Van Zandt screwing the deal up cost them that much. They wanted revenge, not only for the double cross but also for the profit that was promised by Van Zandt.
shareI don't think Nate's portrayal of Van Zant was inaccurate, it's probably what he knew/word on the street. I mean, Van Zant actually operates out of a business office, too. It's not like he holds court in some warehouse office or the back room of a strip club.
And Van Zant was clearly out of his league in trying to take down Neil during the exchange. Van Zant was a sleazy businessman, not a guy who runs a hard core crew. His business is shady paper and financial transactions, not strong-arm.
I thought he would set him up and keep all the money. I was surprised Voight turned up to be straight. He's overqualified for such a small role.
share