MovieChat Forums > Flawless (2008) Discussion > Tell me if I have this right....(spoiler...

Tell me if I have this right....(spoilers)

posted 16 years ago by imdb-7624
24 replies | jump to latest

I'm a bit confused over the ending but I think I've worked it out correctly....

After Hobbs and Quinn had the conversation in the sewers, she calls Finch to tell him she found the diamonds. Now I'm a little confused here did he know she did it and let her get away because he likes her or was there no evidence that she was involved but deep down he knew she was in it with Hobbs? Also if they knew it was Hobbs how did he get the money and how did he get away? And how did they know it was him? Did Quinn tell them? Now after that scene old Quinn tells the reporter she was hired to a higher position but quit soon after, why? Soon after she receives 5 million ( or however much) from she assumes Hobbs and then over the last 40 years she has slowly given it up.

I know there was a lot of questions but from what I have figure out dose that sound right? tell me if I'm wrong.

I enjoyed the movie and thought it was rather clever in parts but I thought it was slow. If it was a little more fast paced I would have liked it more. I thought the trailer was much more entertaining and a bit more interesting. The trailer was more charming then the actual movie, quite sad really. I have to say though I really like the very end. It was a nice closer.

[–] dh1919 16 years ago

She told Finch that dropping her earring down the drain made her think that the thief had flushed the diamonds - which was true. Finch mentioned this when they were talking.

Finch suspected her but had no evidence, and didn't push it once the diamonds were recovered. Wasn't he an insurance investigator? Their main goal is to recover the property, not to pursue "justice" so this wouldn't be out of character.

Hobbs gave her the whole 100 million pounds and she spent 40 years giving it away.

Hobbs disappeared once the ransom was paid.

She was passed over again and quit, not promoted.

[–] alikanas 16 years ago

Didn't Hobbs get only the four million pounds ransom - paid into an anonymous, numbered, Swiss account? How could he get more - all the diamonds were recovered from the sewer? After all, he'd achieved his ambition of destroying Sinclair.

[–] joeblackis 16 years ago

No they paid the FULL ransom to hobbs before they recovered the diamonds. 100million pounds i belive was the amount.

[–] empath69 16 years ago

No, joeblackis is pretty much right - the four (or five, or two) million pounds was the amount of diamonds Hobbs and Quinn agreed to steal originally - it'd fit in his flask, and Lon Di would never notice.

Then the hundreds and hundreds of millions pounds' worth of diamonds were removed (through the drain, we later discover), and Lon Di gets a ransom note for £100 million in exchange for the return of all those diamonds. It's less than the worth of the stolen diamonds, but still a difficult sum to raise.

And don't forget, Hobbs anonymously used a solicitor to send his messages to Lon Di and yes, the ransom was deposited in a numbered Swiss bank account. Finch and the rest of the investigation were pretty confident it was him, but probably had no more hard evidence on him than on Quinn, and yes, Finch let her go for all the reasons listed: he liked her, he didn't have enough to give to Scotland Yard and he was mainly concerned with recovering the diamonds.

--
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin

[–] Ambrosius1 15 years ago

Good job at explaining everything! I really appreciated all the information given. I was wondering if this was a true story.

[–] sim7396 13 years ago

and yes, Finch let her go for all the reasons listed: he liked her, he didn't have enough to give to Scotland Yard and he was mainly concerned with recovering the diamonds.

But shouldn't Finch have an incentive to locate the ransom money? In other words, why didn't he try hard to find Hobbs? I'm sure it would be hard to disappear without a trace, especially back then given the smaller size of the UK population.

[–] empath69 8 years ago

Dang; sorry I never noticed this until years later, but here goes:

Hobbs didn't CARE about getting away with it; he was dying of cancer himself - his plan may well have expected himself to be nicked and spend his last days in a prison infirmary. But that was fine, since he'd ruined the man who denied health insurance payouts for Hobbs' wife, who then died prematurely because of the delay. Maybe Hobbs' original plan was to have the ransom money anonymously donated to a charity, before he met Quinn and realized she'd be able to do a better job of doing good with the money.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin

[–] sabri400 15 years ago

Finch told that the evidence he had on her was inconclusive after originally telling her that her fingerprints were on the safe when they were actually on the glass she left on the table (that Ashcroft took thinking it was his).

He knew that she was involved and was always suspicious of Hobbs anyway and since he disappeared it was easy to suggest that he pulled the whole thing off on his own. Finch did actually say this also when Quinn was sat on the steps.

[–] heybobbo 15 years ago

Her fingerprints were found on the OPERA glasses (binoculars) that she picked up in Ashcrofts home office, not the champagne glass.

[–] amc_nuts 15 years ago

not to mention that he then brought the champagne glass back out to the party, so would have never even been dusted for prints.

This movie annoyed me to be honest. They seemed so unbelievably careless. Meeting at a public place right after the heist, discussing the theft in the room with the tape recorder...the list goes on.

This movie is silly.

[–] drewbacca777 15 years ago

That's what I was thinking during the movie. They were extremely careless. Talking loudly in the lobby to him, saying very incriminating things in the room with the tape recorder and meeting on several occasions while under suspicion. All someone had to do was keep a tail on them and they would have figured it out really quick.

Also, the whole reason she was in on it was that she was going to be fired was a stupid plot point. Just because she is fired doesn't mean that she magically doesn't know about the secret agreement with the Russians. She could have threatened to go to the press with the details if she were fired.

BOYCOTT SHAMPOO! DEMAND REAL POO!

[–] mikainen 14 years ago

Finch turned the tape recorder off when he left. They were careless anyway, though.

[–] sim7396 13 years ago

Yes, Finch turned off the bulky, noisy 1960s tape recorder. But there could have been a hidden bug or tape recorder somewhere else in the room. This was a silly scene in an otherwise great movie.

[–] bobbyf 15 years ago

It's called suspense. Dramatic tension. All the careless talk is used to make you unesasy- thinking they'll be caught. And since the reporter said in the beginning that Quinn had been in prison, it adds to our expectation as viewers that they will be caught.

Great movie. Great twist. Reminds me of the great heist films of the 60's- which is exactly what it was intended to do. Kudos to all- especially Michael Caine. Man, what a great actor.

Remember: no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

[–] valis1949 15 years ago

Not 'glass', but the 'binoculars'(spy-glasses) that she used to view the combination. He was using a British slang for them.

[–] JaneDough42 15 years ago

I wondered if Hobbs took the large diamond that he found in the toilet when he was called to unblock it, he did say something about not wanting to have anymore english winters and retirement is costly so it's weird that he never wanted 1 cent out of the whole thing.

[–] Tylerdurden80 15 years ago

The "careless talk" was an important part of the movie. One of the points was that the intelligent, cool, unemotional Quinn went to pieces when she lost control and started acting rashly, whilst Hobbs always kept his cool. He did meet with her but kept telling her it was unwise. She almost brought things unstuck by getting in a flap. When she entered into the plot she had underestimated Hobbs and when she ended up in his power and at his mercy, she didn't like it.

[–] MrBelette 15 years ago

No that's the diamond he sent back to the diamond company to show them he was serious about the heist and the ransom

[–] Charles-31 14 years ago

It did say that "one month later" the 100 million pounds was transferred to an account in her name. So, he had the 100 million for one month. Given that time period, that's probably about 500,000 pounds of interest. My back of the envelope calculations make that equivalent to about $4.5 million today. I'm sure they didn't intend that as a plot point, or was that the specific reason for the one month delay?

[–] LollyMM 15 years ago

Did you actually watch the film? It was really very clear what happened. I really don't get how you're confused when everything is explained very simply.

[–] fanaticita 14 years ago

Thank you for all the posts. They have answered the questions that I had about the film. There were a few careless moments that I observed also, but overall I loved the film. It was a perfect 1960s heist film. In a very small way it reminded me of the way women were treated in the tv series Mad Men.

[–] pibout 14 years ago

There's still one thing I still don't understand: Why does Quinn say to the journalist that "details on how to contact her" are on the "back of the envelope" and yet there's only (I forget it) a phrase or 'saying'? The journo then rushes outside to see where Quinn went, but only sees a busy London street. The journo then smiles, as the film fades back to a 60's shot of a solitary Quinn walking in the (what appears to be) same street?

Was all of this just some elaborate way of Quinn saying she didn't want to be contacted, and if so why did Quinn bring the question up in the first place?

Did I miss something?

~PG~

[–] padzok 14 years ago

I'm not 100% sure. But I thought that maybe she left the diamond there with the message "will you be a giver or a taker"

So the reporter now had the chance, should she wish to accept it, to become a philanthropist, spending a few years giving away the proceeds of that diamond.

Although the voice-over hinted that Laura had kept the stone, so maybe that wasnt it.

[–] Shempz 14 years ago

What made me laugh was when she was very careful turning the dial on the safe with the handkerchief in her right hand so she didn't leave any fingerprints....and then opened the safe with her left hand...and left fingerprints all over it.

Plot hole....maybe; bad script-writing...probably.

Both my wife and I turned to each other at the same time and burst out laughing when we saw that scene!