...this was a strange, pointless film with irrelevent sub-plots (A.A scene/Break with unfaithful chick at start of film/Old bloke knocking himself off/the whole thing, really!)
sharePay closer attention, all the aforementioned scents connected with other elements.
shareDead on... I kept waiting for the suicidal old guy to somehow play a role in the main action but it just never did. The guy with the BLT... what was that other than a reason to add 5 mins to the film and have one of the thieves later worry that the BLT guy would identify him (which, of course, is never an issue in the plot.) The AA scene? About 5 mins after that scene I asked my wife what that had been for and she entirely missed it! The homosexual TV star played no role. It seemed like a cheap attempt at comic relief by having two men discovered in a compromising sexual situation. Why have the one guy (main character) who everyone in the hotel seems to know intimately be the one who goes to talk to the cops at the door? Why make the older thief a big fan of this guy's TV show? All he ended up doing was looking at the actor tied up in the kitchen and kinda going "oh yeah, it's him." Who cares? And, I'm sorry but the show that actor was on was CLEARLY some cheesy crime-drama and yet his biggest fan calls him the king of daytime TV as if he is a soap start or something... come on, if you are going to throw in a needless subplot, at least be consistent with it.
Moreover, if you were to hold up a swanky 5-star NYC hotel at 2:30AM... maybe New Year's Eve is not the best night to do it.... seriously, the one night a year when pretty much the entire city is guaranteed to be up late, cops are out in force, and the hotel is entirely booked solid. This just makes no sense! And where was the rest of the hotel staff??? The knocked out the front desk clerk and the chef.... were these the only two staff members working on New Years Eve???
Why rob safety deposit boxes in a hotel (who uses those things?) Did they plan this out to get something specific (e.g. 'The Inside Man') or were they really just hinging on the fact that there would be a lot of cash and jewelry in the boxes that night?
Val Kilmer's entire character was a mystery to me... was he supposed to be whacked out on drugs... or autistic... or mentally challenged? What was his deal? Why did he have an army of fat men in tighty-whities grinding jewelry in his basement? Kilmer seems like he has given in to quite a few cameo-type appearances in awful movies lately (anyone see 'The Thaw'?)
Bottom line, unlike 'Heat' (which several people seem to compare this film to) where the plot revolves around a competent crew (established in the first scene) planning one big, complex heist-- this film is about a disjointed, group of incompetents (but not portrayed in funny sense like Tarantino or Guy Richie would do) pulling of some pathetic heist. The film took over 30 mins to setup the characters but, at the same time, left me feeling confused about what was going on and not really caring about these characters in any way. The heist was boring and uneventful, that gun-battle was pointless and uninteresting, the ending was confusing and unsatisfying.
I don't know what movie you saw but this movie was good (not the best but still solid).
First, you obviously missed the subtle turns and twists that make up the movie. The point of the guy with the sandwich was to show how well they were prepared for this type of small emergency should the need arise. Additionally, it shows that they never had any intention of killing anyone despite the fact that they were well armed. Also, you think it's going to be a problem when it looks like he locked himself out (it's called a "red herring"). After the robbery, the oldest of the crew worries that this could give him away later- something that no one thought of because had they gotten away without incident, it would never have come up.
Second, this hotel (which was cased- or didn't you hear the leader when he said that it would do the job in two months?) was a high class hooker hotel. Look at the patrons: a CEO stepping out on his wife on News Year's Eve (he couldn't exactly go to a higher profile hotel and risk running into someone he knew); a television star (and the old guy was watching daytime television- there are cops on daytime soaps) and his partner(?) playing kinky sex games (once again, he did not want to be recognized); and a drug dealer with a drugged up girl in his room. The old man who wants to kill himself also plays into this because people like him, who feel he has lost everything and now matters to no one would go to an out of the way place to ensure that he would not be interrupted.
This is also an out of the way hotel whose real amenity is privacy (what lavish hotel on a main New York Blvd would need to buzz in guest?) frequented by people who understand that "you don't *beep* where you eat." The point of this hotel was to be left alone, not party- therefore most guest would be up in thier rooms or out partying elsewhere and come back much later. This makes New Year's Eve the perfect night to pull a heist- the patrons won't be back until the sun comes up.(which is why, like most hotels at 2:22 in the morning, there is only a skeleton crew working).
Also, people do use safe deposit boxes at hotels- especailly if, like the people at this hotel, they are trying to hide something that they don't want people to happen upon.
Val Kilmer was weird (I believe he was suppose to be autistic)and I don't understand why he hd to be there. The point of the men working in thier underwear was to help deter theft (no place to hide the stolen jewelry they were remaking). The gun battle was unnecessary. But the point, I think was to show that they thought they had gotten away clean and to bring in the cops sooner and harder (dead people on the street is a lot more important than stolen jewelry hidden by people who probably can't or won't file a police report).
The ending was ironic. The most sadistic of the crew turns out to be the wimpiest and gets the old guy killed. Remember he complained that Val Kilmer's cut was too much then complained about the necessity of the old guy, yet he was the one who, because he couldn't follow the simple instruction of putting the drugs back, ended up having to flee town. How did he know that small act would have such big repercussions?
Then the young guy, who innocently gave his girl the ring ends up being caught because of it. Stupid yes, but the girl obviously knew what he did for a living and he wasn't taking it to a pawn shop where it would be identified so he thought he was safe. How did he know the cop investigating would happen to be in the store at the same time someone was admiring the ring on his girl's finger? And for your information, that's how the ring leader got caught. So, the two people who did nothing wrong end up getting it worse (leader loses his father figure AND liberty).
The point of the entire movie, as established in the back stories of each character is that they lead boring, everyday lives and this job, planned months in advance, was suppose to be as thrilling as your average work-a-day job.
Rewatch the movie, I think you'll think differently.
Oh, and I think the point of beating up the cheating girlfriend's boyfriend and the AA meeting later was to show that he was coming from a bad place but wanted to get his life on track.
**** WARNING, THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD ****
Lots of good points, nikki7550.
It wasn't clear to me at the beginning whether the main character, Gulliver, was casing the hotel for the job or just following his girlfriend(?) to see who she was cheating with on him.
Also, the line about "Let me buzz you in" seemed kind of odd for a nice-enough boutique hotel; I thought they were possibly buzzing in the guest(s) to get into the vault.
I think Val Kilmer is just lending his name for marquee value (although that is diminishing the more he does these types of movies). I thought his character was autistic or an idiot savant, with his unique talent being "recrafting" jewelry.
I couldn't figure out who Kilmer was spying on through that little peephole; at first, I thought it might be the East Indian "competition" next door that he is paranoid about horning in on his business. However, I think your explanation makes more sense - they are minimally dressed to minimize theft (I thought it might have been the heat of all the flamework in close quarters). It also makes more sense if they are backroom workers in his operation, considering how much "merchandise" he takes in that has to be "cleaned." He probably needs all that help.
One point I might disagree with you on is how they tracked down the ringleader. Yes, the young guy, Gael, might have cracked and spilled the beans after being arrested but I was thinking that it might have been the phone call Gulliver made to the detective's separated wife Helen and then hung up without speaking. Remember that the detective was supposed to meet Helen New Year's Eve at the hotel but stood her up.
After the heist, the detective naturally would have asked her if she had seen anyone "suspicious" there, since she had been at the crime scene earlier. Since the hotel guests who were tied up would have identified one of the heist crew as having a beard under his mask, it would have been an easy step to tie him to the bearded man she had talked to at the bar earlier that night and given her number to.
So, when lonely Gulliver later made that ill-fated call to Helen but hung up without speaking, her cellphone would have recorded his phone number, and then it would have been academic for the police to find out who owns that originating cellphone number.
Yes, a little convoluted but a possible alternate explanation of how the police found the ringleader at the end.
(BTW, I keep hoping that Val Kilmer will find the type of comeback role that John Travolta had with "Pulp Fiction." Kilmer showed his acting chops with his unbelievable disguises and total immersion characters in the little-seen 1997 movie, "The Saint." Check it out.)
I liked the saint but it was basically a spy/action film, I don't think he really had to act too hard for that role. I definitely feel like his performances in Tombstone, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Ghost and the Darkness, Wonderland, even in his minor role in True Romance, all overshadow The Saint.
share[deleted]
they are minimally dressed to minimize theft
Just saw this over the weekend on Showtime and thought it was pretty good. Excellent use of symbolism and great cinematography. I definitely want to see this again.
shareVal Kilmer's entire character was a mystery to me... was he supposed to be whacked out on drugs... or autistic... or mentally challenged? What was his deal? Why did he have an army of fat men in tighty-whities grinding jewelry in his basement? Kilmer seems like he has given in to quite a few cameo-type appearances in awful movies lately (anyone see 'The Thaw'?)