Can someone explain the plot
i'm totally confused...
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Chasing Ghosts (2005) Discussion > Can someone explain the plot
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well.. There's some things that still bother me..
I mean..
1) Who was the Spanish/Italian (w/e)guy, who could've killed Cole, but than Harrison shot him?
2) How did Harrison got involved in that kind of business in the first place? What intentions did he have with Marcos Alfiri?
3) Umm.. What part of movie does those flashbacks in the end resemble with? (The ones, when Harrison arrives at Taylors; when Cole is shaved and and has his both pistols near him)
can someone explain this?
***SPOILERS****
gaderas-2
1 - he was an informer working with Spencer,he ran because he heard Harrison behind the door and probably thought that he came to kill him for what he knew.
2 Harrison was a dirty cop!He was on a pay roll of Alfiri.
3 - the begining,when Harrison "shoots"(actually it was Alfiri)Spencer.
PJunior's analysis is right on. The ending leaves unresolved whether Detective Harrison turns over the "confession" envelope to Taylor Spencer. The film is technically accomplished but very derivative in content and style.
shareI have it on some authority it is based on the life and death of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Its so obvious.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
Well....
You are painfully and pathetically obvious very jealous person. You should try not to look so upset and saddned that someone has the drive that you obviously lack to succeed. I myself and obviously many other people enjoy the film as here in the USA it is out everywhere. IT was a very good film and Toxic looks amazing as well if you actually learned what it took to make a movie maybe you would not look so weak and pathetic. Me and all my girls loved both movies and will always support someone who does what they love and does not hate on other people who wish they could. Hey genius why don't you make your own movie? No skill? NO drive? You could not do it and that makes you SO MAD that someone out there is doing it and you never will haha, I guess we know who is talentless. COWARD.
[deleted]
okay, i havent even seen the movie.. and i dont know how i stumbled to these comments but ok whatever..
what is with everyone these days?? i mean, i bet you two dont even know each other, and your already harping on each others preferences and likes, dislikes etc.. the original comment was "Can someone explain the plot".. why cant you just explain it to the person that asked, instead of spending more time bitching to one another, because i bet you two dont even know each other, so wheres the achievement in sparking conflict?
anyways.. some people may read this and think i am too outspoken.. but ok whatever i dont mind.
I believe the reason for leaving the pictures behind of Spencer at the crime scenes was the bad guy's way of controlling Madsen's actions. He knew Madsen would be the investigating officer and wanted him to be distracted. Madsen was so worried about himself and people discovering the truth that he didn't have time to notice his partner's strange behavior. He was able to kill Gary Busey at the end because he knew Madsen would have to go try and find the pictures at the museum. I don't think he ever intended to kill Madsen. He was really just another one of Busey's victims, like the killer's dead parents. At least that is the way I read it, but there are many ways to interpret it. It was left unclear.
Technically well-made, it's a fun little movie. I agree with some other comments that some of the performances are weak. Madsen is good though. The only thing is I knew who the killer was the second he stepped in front of the camera. They make it way too obvious and in the end it feels way too much like The Usual Suspects.
I agree with Gizmo, the pictures are a deterent against the detective actually doing his job, by making him worry about the consequences of his past.
It was a pretty big giveaway when Davies was announced as the "Alfiri Expert", then there was the chase scene with the informant (which i dont think is for the reasons posted above). The informant was a player in Alfiri's gang, so would have obviously seen both Det. Harrison and Alfiri's adopted son around the place at one time or another.
Seeing Harrison (and in my opinion) Alfiri's Son, come to his front door, would have made him do a runner.
Carlos Santiago they later capture for questioning, was able to inform them in the police cell the involvement of Alfiri's adopted son - if he had known this, its likely the informant would've also worked out what was going on, and was waiting for some of Alfiri's goons to come after him.
I had worked out that it was Davies after the shooting flashback in Mexico. OK, so Santiago had just announced it was Alfiri's adopted son who was behind it all, but the gunshots to the back revealed earlier put two & two together. Up to that point i'd thought it was the daughter - who for some really bad method acting, i figured it had to be a fake wooden character she assumed around the police! haha.
[deleted]
[deleted]