By the time the second person was killed while the direction deliberately avoided showing us who was doing the killing it was painfully obvious that they were setting up for what they might call a twist. Although I think something actually has to be surprising to be called a twist. So much effort was obviously taken in not showing the killer, could anyone have not seen it coming that it was Pacino the whole time?
share[deleted]
Like the OP said (Except less cynical), it became obvious from Rooster's calm attitude through the case, Turk's aggresive attitude through the case, & the camera angles during the flashbacks.
"If he goes Hannibal Lecter on me, I want Jodie Foster busting through that door."
"If he goes Hannibal Lecter on me, I want Jodie Foster busting through that door."
But how would that make sense?
I once had a signature. But, then I realized how bleak & meaningless such personalizations are.
The actual quote is -
Yeah, but if your boy come in here and go Hannibal Lecter on my ass, I don't want no Jodie ƒucking Foster coming through the door. I want the goddamn Marine Corps, man.
Yes it was obvious. However, I thought the film was pretty good nevertheless. Too much emphasis was placed on the supposed 'twist' but otherwise it was better than average imo. Also, Pacino and DeNiro really deliver, especially toward the end, and make it better than it might have been with a lesser cast (the supporting cast was also outstanding). If anything, I think they proved here that their reputations as acting legends is justified, as they are able to take a pretty generic thriller and make it something worth watching. Not a great film, but I don't feel my money was wasted at all.
"Be wary of Wenk -- I want to warn you!"
I actually thought it was going to be Pacino, and then thought "No that's way too obvious" and then I started to think it was Turk's Girlfriend, until the rape part and then I thought "Oh, well I guess I gave them too much credit." But over all I thought it was a pretty good movie.
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa." -Darth Vader
They even showed both guys on teh shooting range in the first scene, so that everybody knows that Rooster is a great shooter too.
Still, I was hoping the entire time that DeNiro really was the killer and might even get away with it. Now that would have been something new.
I actually didn't see it coming until he was writing in that notebook while watching turk with the two guys
share[deleted]
Whoever says this movie is *beep* is wrong. I really actually enjoyed it. I thought the whole time Turk was the killer because he always acting aggressive and Rooster was always calm.
That was a huge twist for me. I liked it. It was clever. Those video clips of Turk talking I though were actually him making a sort of "confession", but it turned out that he was reading exactly what Rooster wrote down in his notepad the whole time he was doing the killings.
The only thing that bothers me is that why would Rooster do this to his partner of 30 years? He had it set up the whole time.
It's because he's come to hate his partner in a way .....he loses his faith in him after the scene at the start.
He sees that as what starts him on his course to madness - he blames him.
The poem he reads to him at the end is very revealing.
SPOILERS AHEAD
I had a strong doubt that Pacino was the killer the moment after he talked about the righteousness of DeNiro's action regarding that Randall guy. That scene, combined with what the shrink said about the killer and Pacino's almost playful attitude throughout the movie, was more than enough to convince me that Pacino was, in fact, the killer. So, yes, I also thought that the "twist" was quite predictable too. But AT LEAST the script tried (maybe a bit too hard) to misguide the viewer at some points in the movie, if you consider all the other possible suspects, excluding DeNiro's character.
Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?...How did that happen?
I was hoping that I was wrong that it was Pacino doing the killings all along, because I liked the movie up until that point. If a director is going to put in a twist like that, it should incorporate much more subtlety, that's how film makers can really grab an audience.
shareIt was such a shame that the film was so predictable. They also tried to hard to make Turks girlfriend to look suspicious something that made be believe that she had absolutely nada to do with the case+she seemed too young.
shareYes. But sadly, when it is subtle, the pricks who make an obsession of predicting every little thing about every movie would complain about how they "cheated" somehow. Like, I saw someone complain about the ending of Saw because they never hinted to the twist so they cheated. Since when is the movie a game & how can they cheat? It's just stupid.
"If he goes Hannibal Lecter on me, I want Jodie Foster busting through that door."
Take the flashbacks out and pretend it was just Roster taking the rap for Turk. Much better.
shareI thought it was turk too!
good twist, how did you all figure it out so early?
Agreed. It was so painfully obvious that Pacino was the killer from the beginning, but b/c it seemed too obvious I thought they'd make Gugino or Wahlberg or someone off the wall the killer. They are running out of ideas for "twists" in these movies so they figured, with an all-star cast here, they may as well just mail one in and make a straight-forward 'twist' that doesn't make you rack your brain.
Not a bad movie but not at all memorable either.
"It's because he's come to hate his partner in a way .....he loses his faith in him after the scene at the start. "
I disagree. I felt that Rooster lost faith in Turk as a cop, after he saw him planting evidence. Since Turk was always his idol, who he strived to be as an officer, this was crushing.
I felt that he killed the people to test Turk, to see how good of a cop he was. He wanted to see if Turk would do the right thing and bring him in, which he did. In the final showdown, when Turk shoot's him, he simply says "you did good".
He passed the test. I enjoyed the movie, but I'll be the first to admit that I think that it's a piece of garbage. Pacino overacts, the twist is cheap, and the dialogue is laughable, but it's a guilty pleasure.
How could you call it "clever?" This movie basically holds your hands and lays all the evidence against DeNiro right from the beginning. Do you really think they would make the killer THAT obvious when the entire plot is about them searching for the killer?
Let's take a movie like "The Sixth Sense" for example - if you received 100 clues that Bruce Willis is dead right from the beginning, would you be surprised by the ending? Would it even be considered a "twist" in that scenario?
So basically, you're saying you weren't aware they were trying to set you up for a twist ending and were just watching what your clever mind predicted in the first five minutes unfold? Would you have been satisfied if it turned out to be DeNiro and sat through an hour and a half to find out?
This movie was extremely predictable and its only saving grace is the acting. Other than that, it was utter *beep*
Let's take a movie like "The Sixth Sense" for example - if you received 100 clues that Bruce Willis is dead right from the beginning, would you be surprised by the ending?
Yeah, it's like telling that Arnold Schwartzenegger is the bad one in Terminator.
share>"Would you have been satisfied if it turned out to be DeNiro and sat through an hour and a half to find out?"
You're right, nobody would watch a movie like that.
Signed,
Lt. Columbo
It wasn't a twist because Pacino ADMITTED to the cops about being the killer.
"Does it look like I give a damn?" - James Bond
the entire plot is about them searching for the killer?
In the case of this movie, anybody who suspected early on just got lucky, or had knowledge that there was some sort of twist beforehand.
It was a clever twist and not easy to foresee IMO. The two actors were great together.
share"Whoever says this movie is *beep* is wrong."
Are you too stupid to know the difference between an opinion and a fact? If they were saying that two and two is five, then yes, they are wrong, but if they say it is *beep* it is an opinion.
I should guess that you wouldn't understand this by the rest of your post. Not too observant, eh?
Have you ever seen a constipated goose?
I'm with you, Terminator. Even though somethings still confuse me. need to watch it a 3rd time. and will enjoy even more. What a treat DeNiro and Pacino! I loved "Rooster's" temperament. He sure fooled me!
shareI enjoyed it and watched it exactly the way it was entended to be watched. The way the director wanted me to watch it.
I was surprised at who the killer was. The twist worked on me. And I thought Pacino and DeNiro did fine.
i don't start watching a movie just so I can figure out the twist!! I don't want to know what the secret is.
That is like reading the last paragraph of a novel, not liking the ending so you stop reading the book in the first chapter.
Some people are just ignorant and fools.
Yes I completely agree with you I was completely surprised!
shareThe ending was FORCED!!!
BUT It was an enjoyable movie.
De Niro does not need to play the bad guy all the time and Pacino the good guy after they already did in Heat.
It's Pacino's turn this time to play the bad guy and De Niro the good guy in Righteous Kill.LOL
Also,they are also allowed to make movies for guilty pleasure's and entertainment's sake. It would be boring if they make critically movies all the time like The Godfather Part II and Heat.
"blah...i knew it was one of them. I was shocked at all. It was pretty unoriginal and the movie was kinda boring to me.
but yeah, i dont really think the twist worked so well like they wanted, it was easy to figure it out"
It was easy to figure out and yet you didn't figure it out?!
There is no Keyser Soze
First of all, I'm tired of reading criticisms of this movie, and to all "haters" I want to ask - can you do better? Of course not!
I love this movie, the acting was terrific, watched it like 100 times now.
The twist worked on me, it wasn't so obvious. And the poems, especially Turk's "you thought I'd get my dick cut off, this is how you do it?"
Fantastic overall.
I thought it was Pacino from the very beginning, but a few things started to convince me that it wasn't. I was still a bit surprised when Pacino shoots the guy at the end. Overall I liked it.
shareWhen the shrink ask Pacino was he sleeping ok and pacino say yes, that was when i started thinking it wa Pacino.
shareQUOTE-When the shrink ask Pacino was he sleeping ok and pacino say yes, that was when i started thinking it was Pacino-
you put eight guys in jail, arrested for the same murder, you know how you know who the killer is. The one who is asleep in the morning. he knows he's guilty, so he's no longer worrying about getting caught, might as well get a good nights sleep.
I'm paraphrasing, but it's a Detecive Kuyon quote from Usual Suspects.
you know in the first five minutes, De Niro's convestion starts with him saying Pacino's name watch it, I knew in the first convestion scene.
shareIncorrect. The name thing is the lynchpin of the entire movie and it's NOT revealed until later. If the viewer knew Pacino's real name, there would be no reason to watch the rest of the film.
Watch it again. They are referred to as Turk and Rooster consistently until the end. This should be obvious if you see the cast list as released to the public before the movie's release: they are referred to as Turk and Rooster.
I thought Turk was DeNiro's name not his nickname but Pacino was called by his nickname the whole time (I mean everyone eles it goes by their real name except these two), so I guess I still knew it was Pacino but more because I didnt realize Turk was a nickname, but there is tons of other *beep* to show it isnt Turk. but anyhow I also knew in the first convestion scene because DeNiro says "My name is David Fisk...(blah blah blah) I admire my partner." At no point does it really express that DeNiro admires and looks up too Pacino (he may respect him but doesnt look up to him), but it is instead reversed and Pacino is always saying how he looks up too De Niro. I heard Pacino's part was actually to be portrayed by a rookie cop or a younger cop like only 4 or 5 years into the police force, I think that would have made more sense, but Im rambling. Either way the movie was not good and it certainly wasnt a twist. sad seeing as how De Niro and Pacino are amazing actors but for the last 6 or 7 years both have really phoned it in.
shareRespectfully disagree with that first bit of logic. If you don't know the character's real names until the end, there is no way to make that assumption--unless it's a baseless twist prediction you could generate before the opening credits even roll. The film goes out of its way to show make "fake" confession seem real (ie: Deniro is made to seem like he admires his counterpart) - this facilitates the twist when it comes to fruition at the end. Additionally, IMO, If the Pacino character was played by a younger actor, then this deception would have been much less effective--if not completely ineffective.
That being said, no one is claiming this film is a well-crafted work in the least. The acting is sub-par, and the entire plot resolution is reliant on a twist no one can *factually* predict because the viewer is withheld basic information (the characters' names). It's like a murder mystery where the killer is revealed to be a character we haven't met before: How *could* we predict that? And, furthermore, why do we care? In some ways, it feels like you've wasted your time on two fronts: The film is badly executed, and relies on contrivance to "shock" you.
Regardless, I agree wholeheartedly with your last point about the principle actors!
I thought it was Turk. And actually, I think the movie would have been better if Turk had been the killer. I'm not a huge fan of twists that just happen in a situation where they don't fit in the movie very well.
It's not good filmmaking to have one cop with anger management issues who has a habit of getting violent with criminals, and then have a completely different person be the "real killer". It's the cheapest type of plot twist.
Watching it a second time...we see at one point Turk doing push-ups with his shirt off. At that point we see a scar on his back. In retrospect, this connects to the discussion about how he took a bullet for Rooster.
A bit of a validation that makes me think a bit more of the film.
I thought exactly the same thing. When the rape thing happened, I couldn't wrap my mind around the idea that they went with the obvious. I even started to think that maybe De Niro actually was the killer the whole time and the twist idea was really that there was no twist at all. Even at the very end, when De Niro was watching the little league girls, I though...okay, now we will find out he really is a bad guy. But no, what a disappointment and waste of talent.
shareI liked it
to me once Pacino didnt show him his notebook I knew he was the killer just because he wouldnt want to have his handwriting seen. I didnt realize he had the whole plan in there but thats when I thought it was him
I liked the movie though, not sure why so many on here dislike it
not to sound big headed, but i had seen this coming after watching the trailer. pacino makes some sort of speech about "i'm the killer, i walk through the door..." - it was obvious what the twist was.
shareI really don't think it was as obvious as people are making out, certainly not for your casual film fan. It's just the fact that most people on IMDB have seen so much stuff like this before that they knew what to expect.
It definitely wasn't very obvious on screen that Pacino was the killer until towards the end. If you're a person that watches alot of twist films or cop shows then it probably would be predictable for you. Personally, I thought it would be De Niro or Pacino before the film came out but I definitely didn't know which. If you're a person that doesn't watch much then it definitely wouldn't be very obvious.
Anyway, I enjoyed the film alot and my expectations weren't that high because of the negative reviews, that definitely helped. It wasn't a masterpiece but I don't need every film to be full of original ideas for me to enjoy it.
kinda fun though..first movie together de niro / pacino de niro was the bad guy and died.. second movie together its the opposite =)
shareDisappointing, to say the least.
I seriously think this script had potential. Not to say I'm a complete idiot when it comes to directing, but when I enjoy a movie and it's criticized for its directing, I just shrug whomever off. However, maybe a few touch-ups here and there to the script plus a different director and I think that would've done this wonders.
Pacino and De Niro can't have this as their final movie together.
Very predictable, kind of boring and wasted talent. This could have been much better. The twist OMG, it was so predictable. It was clear from the begining that DeNiro wasn't the killer, i mean if they want to keep you guessing who the killer is, are they going to tell you exactly that the killer is De Niro right in the first 2 minutes of the movie? I don't think so. I'm going to watch Heat now so i can calm myself down a little bit and enjoy a great cop movie, because after watching this crrap...
The one scene they share in Heat tops all the ones they share in this movie together.
At least some of the acting was good.
But what a bad twist. The Usual Suspects, that's a good twist, a great twist in a great movie, not like this one.
I actually thought; hey, in 'Heat' Pacino was the good guy and De Niro was the bad guy so they will probably have a twist that makes Pacino the bad guy in this one...then again i thought it would've been a nicer twist to make Perez the killer (wich i thought he was at one point). I didn't get why he slapped Turk's girlfriends' ass, he didn't know Turk could see him.
Overall 6.5/10 because of Pacino and De Niro (and the fact that 50 Cent didn't get that much screentime)
Let's be honest.
They made this movie to counter Heat's ending with De Niro dying and Pacino being there at his death.
In this movie, it's De Niro who kills Pacino.
Gotta say it was a huge disappointment from what I was expecting from heavy weight stars...
The trailer wasn't all that attraction grabbing but I though hey its Pacino and Deniro so at least the acting would be top notch and also coupled with the fact that there are a lot of movies that have virtually no plot line but the stars make it great. This one was not. The plot was boring and I pretty much figured out by the first 15 mins who the culprit was.
I stayed and watched the rest hoping that the twist was not so predictable but it was. As it is the whole movie had any content what so ever. Pacino's character seemed to be amalgamation of all the (typecasted) characters he played in his recent movies (not scarface, Serapico or any of his older films). I still dont know what I was expecting at the end of the movie but needless to say this movie was just a way to milk some money out by highlighting the names of two top stars and literally a nothing movie. Sad to say their acting did little to save the movie...
If you are expecting anything in the lines of Heat... stay away...
Let's be even more honest: They made this movie for one reason and one reason only: A cheap, easy payday for two actors well past their primes.
shareways i sees it is if n*ggas knows theres a twist in the end they might see it.
but n*ggas likes me thought tha ending would be how de niro would squirm his way out of the situaion and avoid detection (or get caught) so in essence *beep* (me) didnt even know there be a twist! and gots sprung!
I watched this last night and after the first sequence with De Niro talking into the camera explaining his (what they make you to believe) actions i said i bet Pacino is the killer.
Pretty obvious twist which didn't leave me suprised, the problem was that as the film was centred soley around these two main characters without making any of the other characters a potential subject it was the only logical choice.
Apart form this i still enjoyed the film for what it is and thought all peformances (even 50 Cent's) was decet.
Sorry for reffering to the characters by their actual names.
I have to disagree--While you may or may not have predicted the twist, the film actually *goes out of its way* (in a rather ham-fisted manner, I might add) to provide OTHER potential suspects. In fact, I was shocked at how shoddily and over-the-top the manner in which these "red herrings" were presented: Leguizamo is a cartoon, for crying out loud! And Gugino's character is even given her clumsy turn at bat as a potential culprit.
Am I saying that you are effectively deceived into believing they are the killer(s)? Not at all. But that's because their inclusion is sloppily handled. I'm merely stating that Deniro and Pacino are by no means the only suspects in the script.
In some ways, I wish the film *was* more subtle and actually *didn't* offer these other potential killers--perhaps a better written script and (much) better acting would have made the "back and forth" nature of "which one of the principles was the killer" much more engaging. A movie like "Switchback" does this (and ONLY this) extremely well--THAT'S an example of a movie with absolutely NO other potential culprits.
i think you and many others spend too much time not enjoying the movies and instead trying to figure out the ending before everyone else.
shareI'm quite an avid watcher of Murder Mystery Shows and Movies. Usually, I pride myself in being able to solve the case before the final revelation scene. As hard as I tried to figure out the murderer in this movie, I couldn't, and I for one was genuinely surprised at the ending. It all made sense when I thought about it afterwards, but I just didn't get it until it was all spelled out. Throughout the movie, I suspected that it was either Turk, Perez, or Turk's girlfriend. How wrong I was. It's a good feeling to get fooled sometimes. This movie fooled me big time and I really enjoyed it!
share****(SPOILERS)****
It was obvious from the start who the killer was to me, but i still enjoyed the film. As soon as it showed De Niro planting the gun you knew he wasn't the killer because he just wanted to put the guy away instead of kill him. The whole way through the film pacino is trying to get people to think of a cop because he knows they'll think it's turk(De Niro). It was so painfully obvious that it was pacino i was hoping it would turn out to be perez or the girlfriend. ah well, Pacino killed De Niro(Heat) now De Niro kills Pacino
[deleted]
I don't understand how you thought it could be Turk? So you thought the whole confession on video tape was real and straightforward? That would have been an even worse movie! It would be a straight up police story that was being played like a mystery only containing no mystery. As it is, it was nearly as bad and obvious as "Hide and Seek" which was previously the single most obvious "twist" movie ever made ever. Ever.
I understand people guessing about which of the 4 or 5 known characters were the real killer. I can NOT understand how anyone could have thought it was just going to be played straight, with the video confession being what it seemed. How could you even bother watching the movie if you thought that was what was happening. That would be like watching your grandfather make out with your girlfriend.
I actually think that if the movie played straight up, with Turk being the killer, it could have been a much better movie.
People, and directors, screenwriters as well, are obsessed lately with "twists". They think the twists can take an average movie and make it better? What's wrong with a straight-up drama? A straight-up tale and confession of a cop that takes justice into his own hands. Seeing how he decides to finally turn himself in would be more interesting than discovering the other guy was actually the killer.
People, and directors, screenwriters as well, are obsessed lately with "twists".This, my friend, is what we call the "Keyser Söze syndrome".
Some Spoilers Listed:
I think people are misinterpreting the film. This isn't M Night Shyamalan. The flashbacks and "twist" in the end weren't supposed to be a shocker or a revelation. It was to make a point. The killer's identity is insignificant.
The story is about two police officers who went into the job with the best of intentions. They are by nature good men. The job and the ineffectiveness of the system weighs on them both and damages them both differently.
The killer's actions throughout the movie can be justified by the audience. We get to know the characters and grow to like them. It doesn't matter who the killer is because we've grown to care for them and it has been determined that the actions of the killer are forgivable. He killed murderers, rapists and pedophiles - people who deserved to die. The transition in the film is when the killer hurts an innocent. When he victimizes someone who doesn't deserve it, the revelation should happen. It isn't a hammer like hollywood is known for. It's more subtle.
Can you forgive him now? You know him. You like him. He had good intentions and his motive is understandable. Can you forgive him for what he did? Do you even care about the other character enough for it to bother you?
If you do forgive his character and like him in the end, is it fair to root for the demise of all of the 'bad guys' before. We didn't know their story. We didn't know their motives or intentions. They're a blank slate.
It's much easier to root for the death and destruction of those we do not know that commit heinous acts than those we do. That is the point.
Either man could have been the killer. It didn't matter. The ending flashback sequences were an explanation and nothing more. It wasn't intended to be a "WOW" moment. It was deeper than that.
I was blown away by the movie. It was a thought-provoking movie that pushes you to believe one way (that getting the bad guys is just) to completley having to readjust your thought process (well....rape is bad, but......)
That to me is much better than a cheap shocker. It's an unjustified compromise that one makes with themselves. For a film to do that is quite amazing.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
yeah i guessed it was Pacino quite quickly. what a waste of two brilliant acting legends..
One gay beer for my gay friend, one normal beer for me because I am normal.
No, no, no. Please read the post I wrote above the one you just posted. I think there is something about the film that you are missing.
Most Obliged
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
I found it was an actual twist, in the sense that they actually went with that...
I thought for sure there'd be more to it, so I was surprised that it was that simple.
---
I am ±hè §î©kÑ맧, and there is no cure.
I didnt even know what this movie was about when I downloaded it, but I thought De'Niro was the killer, I was thinking "wtf they are giving it away at the start" plus De'Niro's great acting made me believe he was the killer, for EG; when he keeps saying "its not a cop" just the way he denies it.
shareSPOILERS
Yeah, not that simple.
The implementation of the message was extremely straightforward. The entire film was building a trust with the audience based on what acceptable violence is/isn't. The 'revelation' (though I dislike calling it that )was when the movie that built up an acceptable version of violence stripped that away and changed the rules leaving it once again open to a strange undefinable interpretation. If this were not the point, the addition of the rape would have been superfluous.
The structure was built without it.
More than that, Rooster moves on and alludes to this in his confession when he states that after the russian lived he had to take that next step. Why? What was the reason to do something that he could not turn back from? What didn't he want to turn back from?
He needed to take the next step to make him an unredeemable character. He had to become those that he destroyed. To make the point clear, he had to. Remember, he didn't know the girl was going to track him down. He didn't know that she'd show up and still he confessed to the rape itself. The rape is the most significant moment in the film because it is THE transition. That is why the focus is placed so strongly. It is that decending moment in the character that shifts the film and should awaken a realization in the audience.
The shift from Turk to Rooster wasn't a 'twist.' It really bothers me when people think that because the film itself is so 'to the point.' It was a "it doesn't matter who the killer is" moment. The film wasn't about that. The reason it wasn't Turk was simply because for the first hour and a half it was. Rooster had to become the 'real' killer in the last moment to show that it didn't matter and that the point remained the same. If the killer in the end was Turk and he was reading from his book the entire time, you now have Rooster who could be perceived as the epitome of a good cop. If Rooster was the killer and Turk never broke the law, you would thus have Turk as the epitome of the good cop. Neither is thee good cop because it doesn't exist in this world. That is what Rooster was searching so hard for and which is why Turk was his hero/role model for so long. He wanted Turk to be perfect. He wanted that ideal to exist. It was comforting to know that the lines of GOOD and BAD were so easily defined. When Turk crossed the line and broke the law by planting evidence, Rooster's world crashed around him. Likewise, when Rooster raped Turk's girlfriend the audience's same ideal should have crashed around them. It's the entire point of the movie.
I think it's clear as day.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
I could tell it was Pacino from the trailer. I havent even seen the movie.
Yeah...it wasn't a whodunit so that's pretty irrelevant. Don't worry, people who HAVE seen the movie are still confused.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
To be honest, I dont really know how people could have suspected anybody but DeNiro as being the killer unless you knew that this was a film with a twist before you went in.
We clearly see DeNiro talking through the people he killed so why would we doubt him? How could anybody predict the set of circumstances that led to him making this "confession"?
umm...interesting points!!
i juz have 1 question:
why did pacino make de niro sit IN FRONT of a CAMERA and read the diary again?
There are several reasons. Here are a couple.
Rooster knew his time was numbered. Everyone thought that Turk was guilty. Rooster was either going to escape or die. One or the other was going to happen. The only thing that could help Turk was evidence pointing in another direction. Rooster ensured that Turk was protected in the end.
Another reason is that confessions are generally taped, either with audio or video cameras. Rooster had decended into the criminal and this was his confession despite the fact that he was allowing Turk to read it. It was one more reminder of how far he had fallen into being a criminal.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
So why wouldn't he have read it himself? A weak plot device to hinge the movie's big "reveal" on?
I'm glad you took so much from the film, but personally I think you're reaching a bit. Even if you are 100% correct, I still didn't "enjoy the ride" so it doesn't matter. And you can rant 'til you're blue in the face, this was a "twist" in the strictest sense of the word. I agree too many film makers are relying on them, but they are very hard to do well. Half of the battle is in setting it up so that you don't even expect any sort of "paradigm change" is coming. In this one, EVERYONE except you and the 4 people who didn't expect it where counting on some twist to save this dog.
I'm fine with you liking the film though. Just a little confused by it. It just means we have slightly different taste. I'm even more baffled by people who never saw it coming.
He didn't read it himself because he was confessing every deep thought he had during this evolution (or regression depending on your viewpoint)to his friend.
Did you see Unbreakable? Did you think that Samuel L Jackson revelation at the end was a twist or an explanation?
Did you see "And Justice For All?" Did you think the revelation of Fleming was a "twist" or a plot development to better understand the character.
The issue we have as a society now is that we come from a "Saw" generation. Anything with any thought or point to make as obvious and straight forward as it is goes right over the head of the audience. Anything deeper than the dancing monkey and a fictionalized "Faces of Death" is put down. We seriously are living in the film "Idiocracy."
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
Oh god, bringing up Unbreakable is truly low... If Unbreakable is required in defense of any film then that film must truly be a shower of shyte... Nothing about that film is worthy of (or even healthy to) discuss.
share
I think I just heard Michael Bay calling you. I think he wants to tell you his REALLY COOL ideas about "Transformers 2."
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
Wants to tell me? Why? I thought I made it clear that I don't like lame film ideas, ie. Unbreakable
share
Are you a troll or a third grader? Your grammar indicates a rather dumb third grader. Your tactics say troll.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
Neither. I replied to your post about Unbreakable, making a valid point about my opinion of the movie. You responded with unrelated nonsense about Micheal Bay and Transformers 2. I then replied to this by asking you why Micheal Bay would want to talk to me. You then countered with a rude personal attack.
I put it to you that you are the 3rd grader troll, as you have insulted me and not responded to the contents of my posts; where as I have countered your comments and not insulted you personally. What I have posted is legitimate debate, albeit tongue-in-cheek; what you have done is libelous and rude. I apologize for any incorrect grammar, this was not intentional and I will do my best to correct this in future.
I maintain my opinion on Unbreakable, as is my right, and I ask you again: Why would Micheal Bay be calling me? I actually didn't understand your point.
You stated that Unbreakable was unhealthy to discuss. You didn't elaborate and the point was a ridiculous one and not worthy of a serious reply. First, even if you dislike the film "Unbreakable" the parallel I drew was in relation to tactic and not plot. It was to express the difference between a revelation and a twist, which unfortunately many individuals apparently have difficulty understanding. Your utter dislike for the film Unbreakable without a solid basis offered told me all I wanted to know about you, so I stated that Michael Bay was calling you. I'd much rather you go on a message board discussing "Transformers 2" than post to me an empty contrite message.
The Michael Bay reference was not a literal one. See the above paragraph for a better understanding.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
"Your utter dislike for the film Unbreakable without a solid basis offered told me all I wanted to know about you"
You are a humourless, judgmental goit. Your unqualified comment about Micheal Bay is no different, if not even less relevant, than my unqualified comment on Unbreakable. In fact, to use your own words, your post was "an empty contrite message" (which, by the way, requires a comma to become grammatically correct, as you were so quick to point out the errors in my grammar).
...and believe me, YOU do need drugs to be a good writer, as currently you are sadly lacking.
My post was relevant. I explained it in my previous post. Go back and reread it, and try to understand it this time.
I prefer to follow Gertrude Stein's rules for commas especially in instances of coordinate adjectives, but I'll take your lesson in grammar under (note sarcasm) advisement.
This is the second time I feel inclined to utilize a philosophy I have come to successfully live by. "I never take the advice of those who haven't accomplished anything in life."
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
...and I'll continue to live by my philosophy, "Never suffer fools gladly".
Therefore I will have to decline further opportunities to respond to your misinformed posts. Fool.
Yet, you took the opportunity to respond to that one. Interesting.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
"I'm even more baffled by people who never saw it coming. "
I am baffled by people who actually saw this coming. I can understand people seeing it coming if they knew this was a film with a twist.
However, DeNiro's character throughout the film does nothing to suggest that he isnt the killer and when you add in his confession, then I just cant see how you would have thought that somebody else was the killer. Interestingly, most of the people who "saw this coming" do not specify how they saw it coming.
I am not saying that I liked the twist, To be honest, it seemed a little ridiculous & far fetched to me. I would have preferred f DeNiro was the actual killer but anyways...
Don't be baffled: 9 times out 10, people see a film with a twist, and then prance around serving their own egos by claiming "they saw it coming" using hindsight as supposed "proof" of their superior deductive reasoning.
The remaining people may have predicted the twist here, but that can almost be chalked up to happenstance and/or *gasp* going into a murder mystery film that asks you to figure out who the killer is, and choosing a principle as your answer.
Obviously, there are exceptions--people who actually base their choice on the films' errors, poor construction, and just plain personal detective work/reasoning, but they are by far the minority. Especially when a film withholds basic information (the characters' names) to facilitate a twist that could not be deduced using the films' *presented facts.*