so - the main protagonist is supposed to embody a businessman with a legitimate business and "loses it completely" in a public restaurant because of the "cake situation" and puts this waiter's head into the cake in order to prove something mobster-like to the old guy-gangster what he even doesn't need to prove while again, he is supposed to be playing an honest, legitimate businessman for everybody in "real life"?!
not coherent at all!
even going out in public with the wife is just stupid as freak while you are undercover and if you still cannot help yourself, the wife should be at least somewhat informed upfront about what's going on and give a role to play in case of an encounter by chance with a "gangster-guy".
shareThose scenes did not happen in real life. They were just added for drama or something.
------
You're just one bad day away from being me. - Frank Castle.
How do you know they didn't happen?
I like how everyone on here talks as if they're some kind of insider or as if they worked behind the scenes and have first hand knowledge of everything that actually happened. Get the fk over yourselves!
haha
shareUm, it's very easy to know it didn't happen.
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/infiltrator/
How do you know they didn't happen?
I like how everyone on here talks as if they're some kind of insider or as if they worked behind the scenes and have first hand knowledge of everything that actually happened. Get the fk over yourselves!
maxx816, they're not in a book which is what this movie is based on, that's how people know.
sharecompletely agree on your line: this movie has such a fundamental plot hole.
I understand they may be wanted to explore his family relationship and the wife being jalous of the young collegue ecc, but it's completely natural that in a undercover operation this big the infiltrator and the family could never reside in the same city.
It's not a desk job, where you get back home to your wife and kids when the working day is over ..
Major plot hole I agree
If you had seen or read documentations of stings done on the criminal underworld of the Irish, Italian or the Jewish mafia, and by extension their "business partners", the Colombian traffickers, while I do agree, that an actual family can't be hurdled in harm's way, these criminals are still big on family.
Most undercover operatives come from the respective area they're supposed to bring down, so being at his age, and not having a family in a deeply religious setting is the red flag, unless they are supposed to play a womanizer/man-eater, or somebody at a low level.
The other thing is the historical setting and the insider knowledge, on the part of the traffickers. While any current US government vehemently denies being involved in the drug trade, now or previously in the past, the BCCI laundered the money for the cartels, and its dividends have financed the Mujaheddin so the UN needed not to be involved. Escobar and his confidants were convinced, as long as the CIA is on "their side" and they can use the equipment the agency used for South American operations, the DOJ can't really breathe down their necks.
They laundered and earned so much money, that many of the people tasked to arrest them were actually on their payroll. As for the plausibility for such a scene in the '80s...there were more euphemisms for doing coke, than arrests, including high traders, bankers, and politicians. If you've seen Charlie Wilson's war, depicting the other side of the BCCI and its involvement in the arms trade that circumvented Congress, and its motions to not support such groups, Wilson openly admits, Giuliani (that Giuliani) could only prove him doing coke outside US jurisdiction, that in itself is a testament of the times.
The scene also forms a testament to the character, or at least the filmmakers intention to portray the character who has enough morals in not wanting to convict people who are unrelated by the crimes, but still can't afford a misstep.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Escher.
yeah pretty much everything about that scene was ridiculous. no way would they have risked going out together (at least not somewhere they could be seen by the wrong people), also the way he invited the old guy to sit with them and he actually did just as if he was randomly wandering around a restaurant on his own with nothing else to do - wtf!
very patchy writing all around.
Disagree entirely.
He was shamed into going out, he had little choice given it was his wedding anniversary and he wanted the maintain his real life relationship.
He deliberately requested a table out of the way to avoid being seen.
Once the guy did see him he could hardly give him the cold shoulder, so he invited him to join them to avoid blowing his cover.
But he used the cake to engineer an excuse to leave the restaurant immediately and avoid blowing the cover. He knew if he physically abused the waiter he would have to leave.
Agreed. Causing that big scene also through the whole scent off himself
shareCausing that big scene would make him look real suspicious after he was just caught in a restaurant with a lady who is not his "fiancee" and a cake that says happy anniversary, and a badly improvised lie resulting in his beating up a waiter.
oh yeah this guy seemed a bit dodgy but, now that he completely overreacted and smashed that waiter's head into a birthday cake, now i'm sure i can trust him
said no gangster ever
LOL...exactly!
Some on here desperately want everyone to think this was as good as Donnie Brasco.
"deliberately requested a table out of the way to avoid being seen"
First off, you're just assuming he did that. There's no scene showing him making that request. Also, while the table might have been set in the back by the kitchen, it's still in plain view of most of the other tables. It's not like their table was tucked away hidden behind a plant. Anyone walking through the restaurant could've easily seen them.
I agree with the others on here who say that scene made little sense and was very out of character for drug dealer Bob. It came off looking sloppy and very awkward....like something a frat boy would do to impress his buddies. I would expect to see that from a guy in his 20s or 30s, not a guy in his mid 40's.
He actually complains about where they were seated. So yes, it is an assumption and it's wrong. He absolutely didn't think it through and I kept thinking he should stop going home especially after being followed, but he needed and actual threat to think of that.
shareWow. Just wow. Why on earth do you actually watch movies? So anal ...
shareOK. when I watch a movie or tv show or read a book I want to get lost in an interesting, thrilling, fantastic, dramatic or hilarious story. when the story has plot holes or doesn't make sense or a protagonist acts out of character than I got pulled out of the tale. immediately. minor flaws are OK but what I don't understand is that there are hundreds of people involved in the process and everybody is OK with incoherent, lazy writing like this?! not to speak of paying for a product (here film admission) and get a sh*t result presented. no thank you :)
shareEasily the worst scene in the movie. Not only would it draw a lot of suspicion with the cartel, I knew the whole time that someone was gonna see them and and then I knew that he was gonna put the waiters head in the cake. Small flaw in a great movie.
shareI don't know why I'm on here about to explain this scene to all the dumb people on this board but I'm already typing so screw it. This scene made total sense, he was at the back of the restaurant to try and keep a fairly low profile to avoid being seen. Then when he is seen instead of acting weird and giving off more red flags to the old guy then what was already presented Bob switched to his undercover persona. Also you people on this board clearly paid little attention to the plot or else you would have picked up the fact that Bob was not just supposed to be a business man but an accountant for the New York MOB, so his behavior towards the waiter seemed just like something a mobster would do. Also he was trying to get out of that situation as quick as possible and that was an easy way to do so. It took the attention away from the red flags given to the old guy which Bob could clearly see in the expression on the guys face. Oh, and to the people who think it's ridiculous for Bob to have asked him to join them... Again he was a businessman and accountant for the New York Mob SO in order to maintain high profile clients and good relationships he had to show respect and the desire to want to work with and get closer to these people, do you really think trying to dismiss the guy as quick as possible is the right play? The old guy would have went back to his people and said Bob was with some woman (who later on would be realized by the same guys as NOT his fiancé) and he acted very nervous and rude, instead Bob created a scenario in which he could show this guy that he was a high profile guy that you don't mess with or imply that he is a liar and also diverted the guys attention from the red flags that were presented with the "secretary" and cake so he would go back to his people and say this Bob guy seems alright cause no cop would likely do that in public. I'm almost embarrassed for you people to not have picked any of these things up because it shows how little intelligence people have anymore. If it's not entirely spelled out for you then it just doesn't make sense at all, duuuurrrrp.
shareActually Cranston's character was complaining about being sat in the back of the restaurant.
shareFrom VARIETY:
Bob Musella, a jaunty, high-rolling businessman who launders mountains of drug-cartel cash ? tens upon hundreds of millions ? by promising to hide them in a network of legitimate investments. He doesn?t just work with thugs and drug lords; he deals with respectable international bankers, setting up a vast network of corruption that is winked at by governments. It?s like an underworld rehearsal for the new global money culture.
________________
Keywords: promising to hide them in a network of legitimate investments...
he deals with respectable international bankers
Rhetorical question: why would Cranston's character smash a waiter's head into a cake when he is supposed to maintain a fassade as a LEGITIMATE businessman who deals with RESPECTABLE bankers, so the gangsters can HIDE their money behind this FASSADE
in the first place...
In the moment he attacks the waiter in PUBLIC he gives up that fassade for everybody to see.
He is no RESPECTABLE businessman anymore...
Question: does it make sense.
Answer: no, not at all!
Please: fassade = façade
shareSorry SweetReaper mom. We won't do that again. Or maybe some of us will if you promise another condescending lecture that includes plenty of self-congratulatory rhetoric as you point out our inferior intellectual capacities. I get a warm tingly feeling in my groinal region when you do that. Also, if you could put on a mumu, call me Norman and and shake a wooden spoon at me while you say degrading things, that would make it sweeter. Maybe throw in some church references á la "Carrie's mom" for good measure. Of course dad's not here so I'll have to imagine him lying on the couch in an alcoholic coma and I'll have to pretend grandma's still alive, down in the basement screetching about how she wants her catfood. But your diatribe brings it all together, just like old times. You are a delicious, bad mommy and we want you to kick us.
shareHe had to stay in character.... or get his entire family killed.
I feel this was totally justified and the scene is excellent.
Similar situations happened to Donnie Brasco at a Japanese restaurant, a true story. Undercover agents can get so into character that they mold into it, adapt to their surroundings.
On a funny note, Trading Places is a good example too.