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?
sharei thought they kept playing the flashback to deniro for his confession and i thought that's what i was watching up until something happened like either he got away or dies i had no clue what so ever that it could a been pacino i give it a 9?10 excellent movie
I'm working out, Getting hard, Drinking beer, Getting laid and making sure this country stays free!
That's exactly what I gave it! :)
http://scaredstiffreviews.com/news.php?readmore=501
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
I agree about being one of the most predictable twist ever along with Haute Tension.
share"I agree about being one of the most predictable twist ever along with Haute Tension."
If you are going to say this, then you need to back it up.
What made people think there was going to be a twict? Sure, It would be easy to know the twist if you knew this "was a film with a twist" (As the film couldnt really twist any other way in that sense)
However, nobody has given any valid reasons on this thread as to why they knew Pacino was the killer (before he was unveiled as the killer). Or as to why they knew that DeNiro's video confession was not actually him confessing (Which I would find most interesting of all).
Got it seriously the first time you see De Niro 'confessing' into the camera. I was thinking maybe he was taking the rap for Pacino or something, but I definitely knew the big reveal.
share"Got it seriously the first time you see De Niro 'confessing' into the camera. I was thinking maybe he was taking the rap for Pacino or something, but I definitely knew the big reveal."
But this is just a hunch. I'm sorry but I need to somebody to provide some logic behind why they thought DeNiro was not the killer. Otherwise, I dont see how the film can be regarded as predictable.
Just finished watching the movie and here were my thoughts:
It starts out with De Niro confessing and immediately i thought - wtf?? this whole movie is going to take us for a trip down memory lane????.....nah there has to be something more.
About 15-20 mins into it, I thought - why are they hiding the killers face? We all know who it is, and that's when my brain ticked a little bit.
That was it....a short while later I guessed it was Pacino. The chess thing helped me - careful, mental, game plan.
However, I did second guess myself and tried to give the directors/writers some leway. Surely they aren't stupid enough to make such a predictable plot? - Maybe it's the chick or Leguizamo.....
When the finale came, I was like......yea the directors are not that clever after all.
The movie is no classic - it's not good and its not bad, it sits in between (closer to the good than bad). It's just blah.
I have a lot of respect for the 2 actors but their talents were wasted. It could have been used for something far superior.
So happy I didn't go to the cinema to watch this. I would've felt cheated out of my money.
I wont buy this on DVD. I'm sure i won't watch this again. I'm not happy nor sad i watched this. I don't hate it. I don't love it.
When you hear the names De Niro and Pacino - you automatically get psyched to see them in a blockbuster. The script doesn't warrant their stage presence/acting ability.
Maybe if the movie starred two other leads (no-one big time), i would've walked away happier....who knows.
"by pimpin-gangster 2 days ago (Sat Oct 4 2008 10:25:23) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Oct 4 2008 11:18:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just finished watching the movie and here were my thoughts:
It starts out with De Niro confessing and immediately i thought - wtf?? this whole movie is going to take us for a trip down memory lane????.....nah there has to be something more.
About 15-20 mins into it, I thought - why are they hiding the killers face? We all know who it is, and that's when my brain ticked a little bit.
That was it....a short while later I guessed it was Pacino. The chess thing helped me - careful, mental, game plan.
However, I did second guess myself and tried to give the directors/writers some leway. Surely they aren't stupid enough to make such a predictable plot? - Maybe it's the chick or Leguizamo.....
When the finale came, I was like......yea the directors are not that clever after all.
The movie is no classic - it's not good and its not bad, it sits in between (closer to the good than bad). It's just blah.
I have a lot of respect for the 2 actors but their talents were wasted. It could have been used for something far superior.
So happy I didn't go to the cinema to watch this. I would've felt cheated out of my money.
I wont buy this on DVD. I'm sure i won't watch this again. I'm not happy nor sad i watched this. I don't hate it. I don't love it.
When you hear the names De Niro and Pacino - you automatically get psyched to see them in a blockbuster. The script doesn't warrant their stage presence/acting ability.
Maybe if the movie starred two other leads (no-one big time), i would've walked away happier....who knows"
Congratulations, You are the only person on this thread that has made valid points & backed them up. Why cant more posts be like this one, instead of "The twist was just so obvious" and then nothing about why it was so obvious
I don't know how you want this explained to you. It was simply "obvious". People have touched on it all in different ways. They have the confession right in the beginning, so if it were just a straight up confession, there would need to be some other POINT or PLOT to the movie. Sure there have been movies that do a narrative like this, but then within said narrative there is some other storyline with a conflict and resolution or mystery or SOMETHING. So I knew RIGHT AWAY either it was that sort of narrative or "somehow" he wasn't the killer really. That was exactly what I was thinking at first.
Then shortly you realize it isn't just a straight narrative because they don't show the killer actually killing. This is key and you keep asking for reasons but miss people mentioning it. If it were just telling you the story, they would a)show the killer b)have the event building on some other point/plot. Like I mentioned before, some type of conflict to make the retelling have a reason. I thinkk if the "confession note" was written differently it may have helped. Maybe.
So at that point I realized that it was NOT what it was presented as being. I thought it was ham-fisted because everyone would know the facts weren't what they seemed, but apparently I was wrong about "everyone". So for the rest of the movie I was just trying to figure how he could both admit to the crime and not be the killer. I admit I hadn't exactly figured it out, but I wasn't enjoying it much anyway. I toyed briefly with "could it be that guy", or "how about her...?" but if it was them, I figured I was missing a peice of the puzzle or had missed a clue anyway. The worst mystery is when the killer/thief has a motive never introduced or sometime is a character never introduced.
The bottom line was that I could not envision a universe in which someone would make the movie I was watching and have him be the real killer. It just seemed "obvious". The "essay on justice" was nonexistent. I know you don't like the word "twist" but that's just semantics. Call it a "reveal", call it global warming, doesn't matter. You asked did I see "Unbreakable". Actually I loved it. I loved that I didn't see that "twist" coming, yet I should have. It's my favorite MNS movie. I figured out "Sixth Sense" too early so I like the former more than the latter. Unfortunately I think MNS has been pigeonholed by those 2 movies.
We live in a post "Saw" world, like you said. I still think a good "twist" in a movie is VERY enjoyable. They are much harder to do with people constantly looking for them, however. Another one I remember liking was in "Skeleton Key". I wasn't expecting it and thus it was more effective.
If everyone knows it's coming, generally speaking, it won't work.
YOU:" I don't know how you want this explained to you. It was simply "obvious". People have touched on it all in different ways. They have the confession right in the beginning, so if it were just a straight up confession, there would need to be some other POINT or PLOT to the movie. Sure there have been movies that do a narrative like this, but then within said narrative there is some other storyline with a conflict and resolution or mystery or SOMETHING. So I knew RIGHT AWAY either it was that sort of narrative or "somehow" he wasn't the killer really. That was exactly what I was thinking at first."
ME: You were watching this expecting a whodunit from the opening and so thus concluded what everyone else did that the other lead character was really the killer. Bravo. It wasn't the point of the movie though. It wasn't a whodunit. That's the point. The reason for the narrative by Turk (Cop A) when the killing was done by Rooster (Cop B) is to show that either cop could have been the killer and the identity doesn't matter. The issue is that too many films are made nowadays with the "twist" factor ("The Others" "Sixth Sense" "Hide and Seek" "Secret Window" etc) that when a film is straightforward in context and provides a revelation at the end they assume it's a predictable twist while missing the entire point.
Showing the killer as Rooster throughout would take away from the idea that EITHER of them could have been. It would have made one worse than the other which is why both committed crimes. This is the reason that Turk was the one to plant the gun. The message is a signficant one because it battles the weight of an ineffective system on two men that are generally and instinctively good in nature.
YOU:The bottom line was that I could not envision a universe in which someone would make the movie I was watching and have him be the real killer. It just seemed "obvious". The "essay on justice" was nonexistent. I know you don't like the word "twist" but that's just semantics. Call it a "reveal", call it global warming, doesn't matter. You asked did I see "Unbreakable". Actually I loved it. I loved that I didn't see that "twist" coming, yet I should have. It's my favorite MNS movie. I figured out "Sixth Sense" too early so I like the former more than the latter. Unfortunately I think MNS has been pigeonholed by those 2 movies.
ME: It's not really semantics because the definition for the word twist is defined and doesn't fit the context of the film in question and therefore is not open to the interpretation of the word. The situation is really more clear cut than that as is the film Unbreakable. Again, the point of the movie is not the revelation that SLJ is the arch-nemesis. That explains his actions but does not change the overall tone of the film like it did with "The Sixth Sense," "The Others" "Hide and Seek" etc. etc. etc. The same is true for "Righteous Kill"
YOU: We live in a post "Saw" world, like you said. I still think a good "twist" in a movie is VERY enjoyable.
ME: Hence the problem. You're looking for that twist even when it isn't there and so you grab onto whatever you can and call it awful. For example, if you watched "12 Angry Men" you'd probably be upset because you knew in advance that the jury was going to say "not guilty" though all but one had initially voted guilty. It isn't a twist. The movie didn't have a twist. The point of the film was to put prejudice aside while seeking justice. Just as "Righteous Kill's" message was rooting for the demise of the bad guy isn't always black and white. It's much different than the dancing monkey you were looking for.
YOU: If everyone knows it's coming, generally speaking, it won't work.
ME: That's only true when the movie is attempting to provide a twist which is expected. (A.E. "Hide and Seek" failed to be compelling because of this exact fact.) It simply is not the case here. If you were to view films made before 1990 and especially in the 70s and 80s, you would better understand the genre. There are plenty of films made with a similar tone to "Righteous Kill" that were made years before, and they made provide you a more insightful perspective.
“If you need drugs to be a good writer, you’re not a good writer.”-Rod Serling"
It was so obvious that I suffered physically because of that.
shareheres what i think
i think the way it played out at the ending with the reading of the confession/explanation + shooting was a plan for rooster to close the case without getting turk into any trouble
agree with OP. I've seen better twists in cheap TV serials. the fact that two of the worlds greatest actors were involved in dragging it out just added to the disappointment.
"oh mummy, oh daddy - lets all play Kabadi!"
[deleted]
I think its only predictable if you knew beforehand the film had a "twist".
share
it wasnt a twist it was a joke.
Give peas a chance.
I agree that it was predictable. I kept hoping that I had figured it wrong and maybe the girlfriend was the killer. Would have made it more interesting to me. I hate movies that I can figure out in the first half hour.
"More tears are shed for answered prayers than for unanswered ones."
I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the trailers you could tell it was going to be him...
shareit wasnt that predictable, everybody knew that there was going to be twist in the movie and ppl were expecting it, thats why people didnt like the movie, if the trailers and the plot summary didnt say that killer could be a cop, then people would of been surprised by the ending
shareThis is just patently incorrect.
share