I felt like the movie would have been stronger if some of the back stories had been either tighter or been scrapped altogether. I liked Gordon's sister Naomi and felt that was the most important subplot, but the detectives' home lives with their wives and kids both felt extraneous. Also Jesse and Jack mentioned their father, but that didn't seem necessary either. And Lily could have had a bigger role. I felt the loose back stories were the weakest part of the film.
shareI'm still on the fence about it. Takers is clearly molded after Heat, but where the deeply fleshed out backstories of even the minor characters (like Dennis Haysbert's short order cook/getaway driver) help to make the latter a classic, here I can't help but wonder if Takers wouldn't have benefitted from a tighter focus on the group dynamics instead.
----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/
Agreed. The film does present some backstory for the characters (and thus the motivation for their choices/actions), but it then descended into little more than a hustler mind-game farce. About half-way through the film it was pretty obvious how things were going to play out.
--------
The movie has a plot hole?!?
EVERY FRIGGIN' MOVIE HAS A FRIGGIN' PLOT HOLE!!!!!
I liked a couple of the back stories; Gordon and his sister, along with Lily's it made sense as to another reason why Ghost would betray the group (other than letting him rot in prison) because of Lily getting together with Jake. I did think Eddie's backstory was necessary to the film along with Jack's being a not purposely attentive father. It should Eddie as a loving husband who seems to have it all while Jack is a part time dad who chooses his job over taking his daughter to the LaBraya tar pits. Then having the reveal that Eddie stole money was a good way to show even the perfect parent can be dirty. I think the backstories were important to the film
share