When Sam's wife, Mary, is killed by the car, did Lau set that up for her to get killed or was he trying to warn her by the phone call that she did not pick up? Because prior to that scene, Lau called someone to say that she was going to the airport. And also, Lau did not seem all that surprised or upset that she was killed. Any comments would be grateful.
shareLau was hurt by Mary's rejectiion, right? so he made a phone call to Hau's people, telling them that she is going to be at the airport.
cut to the airport, Ming (or Lau) was inside his car, and tries to call her cellphone. Mary was about to receive the call but stopped when she spotted him in the car. I think he was trying to call her to probably warn her, sorta like him having second thoughts. but then she does not pick up the call, reinforcing her rejection of him. so when she died, Lau was not surprised. a bit shaken, prehaps...and also you could sense a small amount of guilt.
hope that made sense. :)
What I think is, Lau was trying to make Mary change her mind in the airport. He was dreaming of having one last hope to get this woman of his boss, which is impossible. When Mary didn't answer the call, he gave up the last hope and let the car run over her. I think if Mary answered his call or something, things might go different.
shareI like to think that he called her to keep her from going inside, thus allowing the car to run her over. If he wanted to warn her, he could've simply gotten out of the car...
sharebut looking at the scene where the young Ming was looking at Mary in the car while calling her. The emotions on the face suggested that there Yan hoped that if Mary would receive the call, she would have (or he would help her to) escape. But, Mary was looking at Yan, determined to go to Thailand to help her husband, rejected Yan's advance by not answering the call.
shareI wondered the same thing when I watched this excellent film for the first time last night. I think that he was trying to warn her. He was unsuccessful because she didn't pick up her phone. He couldn't get out of his car, because then he would have compromised his position by revealing his identity. As far as I could tell, his car is parked too far away for Mary to actually see his face. That they actually appear close is a bit of clever direction. This is all circumspect on my part by the way, the operative words being 'I think'.
Also, I have noticed that in the user review on the main page someone says something about similarities to the Godfather trilogy being unfounded. This is not what I felt when I was watching part II last night. Nods to the aforementioned work are scattered all over the place. They don't stop it from being a good film. I hear that part III is a disappointment-now that would really be keeping in line with Coppola's original series...
it's better that you see IA3 yourself first, then you will somehow see why the comments are like that. I find that IA3 is an add-up to the trilogy. the whole film might not stand out as a film, but it complements well with the trilogy.
share[deleted]
When Mary collects her luggage from the taxi driver and turns to start walking, she is in front of a large blue sign that shows directions for "Departures" and "Immigation". She starts to walk in the direction given in the sign. Do you think the Director, Cinematographer, Art Director deliberately included the spelling mistake to distract the audience and sell the car strike with more shock factor? It was a great surprise, was it helped by that cunning trick? Or was that error just an error? Perhaps someone can tell me that the real airport has a real sign with that error.
share