In the scene where the CEO has stayed overnight in his office and his GF/Wife comes in to visit him, he begins the scene in a white tank top. He gets up and starts getting dressed. The camera flashes to his GF for one second and then back to him; he is fully dressed in a suit, instantly. The editor must have missed this. Such a simple fix.
Read my review at http://imdb.com/title/tt2216240/reviews-15
I'm curious as to how that detracts from the film. Why does this bother you? This guy lives in a suit. Stands to reason he can put one on quickly.
shareIt barely de-tracts, but one minute he's in a tank-top, five seconds later (literally) he's in a full suit with tie tied ready to go. It's was noticeable enough upon first viewing for me to notice. Should have been edited more realistically as the acting in the scene is so strong this minutiae should be on par too.
That said, the lack of a Somali translator on the Danish team, and the total lack of any kind of law enforcement vessels surrounding the ship, even in the distance, is a much bigger gap in reasoning than the suit thing above, yet for me it detracts less. Seems to be artistic choice rather an eff up.
They did a shot in between where he has put on his shirt, before putting on his jacket. He may have already had the tie tied, and just slipped it on and tightened it. Takes 3 seconds if you know how to do it. Slinging a jacket on takes even less time. People who wear suits all the time, can get into and out of them VERY quickly. I've seen it. There was nothing unrealistic about that scene, to detract from the overall quality of the film.
That said, the lack of a Somali translator on the Danish team
total lack of any kind of law enforcement vessels surrounding the ship
Not the truth sir. I've traversed the gulf of Aden twice and know that law enforcement is there. Destroyers in particular. I'm not saying they'd storm the ship, but they'd be in the area holding back. Not that I'm thrilled about the Paul Greengrass remake, but the idea of law enforcement in his is at least present.
When a airliner gets hijacked fighter jets are immediately dispatched to monitor the situation. Same here with boats.
We sailed through with a armoured ship staffed by ex brit special-ops, just like the film's outside negotiator. That was dead accurate. Not cheap either.
The somali translator would serve to hear what was really going on in the background. Why would they just trust Omar? Just b/c he speaks english is no reason to trust him.
Any respectable agency that provides ship security in the gulf would have access to a somali translator on staff. It would not be a quick whipping up of one from Copenhagen's Somali-town. This has nothing to do with the goats or Somalia's lawlessness.
Been there, done that, Thanks
Destroyers in particular. I'm not saying they'd storm the ship, but they'd be in the area holding back
Why would they just trust Omar? Just b/c he speaks english is no reason to trust him.
Your completely right, neither of these things really impeded the film at all imho. The lack of Somali subtitles was fine, and obviously Lindholm chose to do it that way for a reason. I'm just simply pointing out so things that may be inconsistent with real life. But who wants movies to be exactly like real life anyway right?
I know China and Russia used to have a few ships stationed in the Gulf, but like 3 each for the entire gulf. Thats alot of water for a only a few ships. European countries have a few each too I think. I don't think anyone really respects Somalia's territory in the way you suggest however that is only my speculation. Idk for sure.
I found an artilce about recent piracy. Something I did not know: there hasn't been a hijacking in over a year, at least as of May there had not been.
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Fighting-against-Somali-pirates-effective-20130503
The lack of Somali subtitles was fine, and obviously Lindholm chose to do it that way for a reason
I don't think anyone really respects Somalia's territory in the way you suggest however that is only my speculation
there hasn't been a hijacking in over a year
I thought about this some. I figure it was a way to put the audience in the shoes of the crew. They couldn't understand the pirates either, and perhaps that was a way for we the viewer to empathize more with them. Worked too.
Solid flick all around though. I'm very glad somebody told me about it. It will be interesting to see the comparisons with Captain Phillips when it comes out.
I think it would be hard for it to better than this one though, imho.
It was playing at an art theatre that generally plays good stuff
Indeed. Also NATO has a few ships around. But they are used more to protect convoys of multiple ships. They won't guard already hijacked ships. That is practically impossible, as there are usually far more ships hijacked than navy ships around, unfortunately (IIRC at some point there were about 200 ships being hijacked, while only at most a few dozen navy ships around.) And it would be a big waste of navy ships, they can do much better work guarding non-hijacked ships. And then, as already mentioned, the hijacked ships are usually taken towards the Somali coast.
shareYou have to remember this was probably based on an attack from 2007 when the military presence in those waters were low. Why would we see a warship in the background? Not every ship hijacked gets followed by warships...which is why there are hundreds(?) of captured sailors off the coast of somalia at any given time. You think they all have warships around waiting to pounce?
shareThe area that's possible for hijackers to be is huge. This was of course covered in the news many times and by now you should know this, but I'm reading your comment in the fall of 2016. At this point in history, Somalia was completely broken as a country and war lords ruled, so there was NO law. It was almost always the case that hijackers new where patrols were going to be, and if they didn't they relied on spotters. They had fast boats part of the time. Destroyers don't move so fast. I retired from the USN and did 2 tours on destroyers. It was a rare news story that patrols of some country actually captured these hijackers.
There were many many hijackings on the oceans near this area but of course this is now history.
The issue for companies was that when this started happening, insurance companies charged more for having security on board if they had weapons. So they didn't have security forces on these ships. THIS has changed now, and insurance companies no longer charge more money to have security. I guess they were tired of paying out big claims?
BTW, it's easy to have a tie already tied. I do it a lot when I'm wearing dress clothes for work. Different knots (single and double Windsor) have the small end that pulls right through the knot, so you can easily loosen, tighten or even remove a tie in a matter of seconds, or completely untie the knot in a couple of seconds. In fact I would say it would be strange for a person to untie a tie during the day just to have to retie later. Once you get the knot right, why mess with it? The initial tying is the only thing that may take a little bit based on your experience.
Continuity isn't an important part of an editor's choice, to be honest. It certainly plays into it, and if it's really jarringly noticeable, then yes, it can be important. In this instance, it's not at all important.
shareI don't understand why the Samali's refuse to at least talk slower. That way, you might be able to tell what they're saying through the root words, or by their emphasis on words. That's what the Americans tried to do.
share