MovieChat Forums > jasonbourne

jasonbourne (544)


Is Chalmers really necessary in the movie? He's not the bad guy, but why is he the bad guy Part II Real life Psycho. Is Chalmers really necessary in the movie? He's not the bad guy, but why is he the bad guy? With the psychiatrist's explanation and Norman shown to be... Shower Scene Re-Visited great film...the gal who plays Angela Phinlay is the best Did Bullitt Have To Kill Johnny Ross? The Rejected Version of 2001: A Space Odyssey What was your scary scene in the movie? The Horse Player View all posts >


>>- There was no "case" being "given" to Chalmers. All he was doing was calling a witness who had offered testimony to a Senate subcommittee hearing on organized crime, and arranging for his police protection. That's what the film explicitly states. With that understanding, it makes perfect sense. I've previously remarked on the not-uncommon practice of private attorneys functioning as special counsel to Senate committees, and this fits with the information the film supplies about Chalmers, whereas I know of no such instance of any U.S. Attorney - or any other active DOJ appointee - serving on such a committee (which is a function of the legislative branch, not the executive or judicial ones).<< We've already hashed this to death. I'm willing to agree to disagree. What rating did you give the movie on IMDB? BTW, I had to check to see how much money it made. It did poorly at the box office. Maybe it did better on DVD/Blu-ray? >>- In San Francisco, as in other California cities (Los Angeles and San Diego among them), DAs are elected, so that's not what Chalmers is. As I've said, it's possible Chalmers is a U.S. attorney. A California state attorney is another possibility, but I continue to doubt both because, as the film depicts, he doesn't seem to have any authority of his own. Only influence ("juice"). In the book, he's indeed a DA but, as we've also discussed, the film made many changes, so the book's not much of a guide.<< We're just re-hashing more of the differences we saw in the movie. What rating did you give it? I gave it a 7 for being different and more than just another action flick, i.e. one has to figure out what is going on in the story, the cool detective, the gun play against Renick and Bullitt, the chase scenes, and the action with the hit men and the real Ross at the airport. It also was in picturesque San Francisco with its steep hills. What brought it down was the plot device and Ross being killed in the final scene. This movie had enough to be a two-parter, but it settled for Chalmers having egg on his face and the anti-hero keeping his girl. It was an unsatisfactory ending when the movie had much more going for it. >>- Not really. Bulllitt moved a corpse (and put it in the city morgue), so there was no longer any "witness" at that point. If he'd been alive, that wouldn't be a crime either, as he would still have been in police protective custody, as Capt. Bennett told Chalmers when they both thought he was still alive: "If he's moving Ross around, it's for a reason."<< Depends on what job Chalmers has and whether he has jurisdiction over the witness, but once he gets the hospital report, then it's all over for Bullitt. However, the report is forgotten since Chalmers has only the SFPD brass and he's already tried that with Norman Fell flashing his badge. When did Chalmers realize Renick was dead? See, he ends up just being a stooge, so Bullitt can say his funny line. >>- If nothing else, you're beginning to convince me of that.<< Now, we're finally getting somewhere (sarcasm). It only took how many posts? >>- Perhaps, if you interpret "juice" to mean only power. I interpret it to mean influence, as I've said: he has money; he gets himself in the news; he's well-connected within the PD. All these things are depicted in the film. So is the fact that he has no "power" of his own, as I've also pointed out: he needs a court order or Baker's authority when he wants to effect an official request or demand. What he was in the book doesn't much matter. as that's among the many changes made by the film.<< I addressed it already. If Chalmers has no "power" of his own, then why would Ross contact him? It doesn't make any sense. Chalmers position makes all the difference. I even used the book to point it out. I think I recognized what you said with the plot device, but I already stated a couple times that's what made the film worse. For whatever reason, Chalmers has no Federal LE (or even state LE) assisting him. He has to count on SFPD and Bullitt. Comes in might handy to go right to protagonist vs antagonist. Thus, he's on his own and cannot get the hospital report without having to get SFPD brass involved. The writ of habeas corpus fits right in in order to do that. There was nothing else Chalmers could do in order to get Bullitt to produce his witness. It violates common sense. Thus, Bullitt had to produce the evidence on Renick in short time. It also lets the mob tail Bullitt, but Chalmers can't. He ends up being the patsy with only the SFPD brass to rely on and just someone who is out to make a name for himself, so he could gain higher office. Norman Fell could have played this caricature of an antagonist; it's Bullitt vs. a paper tiger. Continued Another cheap motel lol. Clowns are supposed to be funny at circuses and carnivals with their pranks, but Stephen King's It and other horror films made them evil and scary. I consider Deadpool (Marvel) to be a clown and hate him because he's pathetic and irritating. He's not funny at all, but irritates you so much you want to kill him. However, you can't and he continues on with his clown act. Maybe he'll meet Pennywise and get his arse kicked once and for all. >>Okay. I see more in it than simply "a two-dimensional, stereotypical a-hole without any brains." It establishes that Chalmers is interested only in his political career and public image, and will scapegoat others in furtherance of them. It rings true for me because it's something seen more and more every year in the nation's real-life politics. But if something doesn't work for a particular viewer, then it doesn't.<< The plot device does not work for the majority of viewers. It's rated 7.4 and I rated it a 7. What did you rate it as? It had the potential to be great. This movie is boring to today's audience who do not understand a complex crime mystery where they have to figure things out for themselves. Most of the move is trying to figure out what you are seeing and happening. Next, the device is there only to meet the trope of the 60s. Else this movie and Steve McQueen would be better remembered and could have been expanded to at least two movies. First, we end up finding what Renick did through Bullitt. Later, we find the stuff Ross did. The stuff that Chalmers does is not as easily explained. He's just an antagonist to Bullitt solving the murder case. Thus, my topic for this movie. Even the mob is smarter than Chalmers. Chalmers is just a two-dimensional "attorney" as you claim who just wants to get publicity and thus ends up walking away from the case since his witness was killed. He's also hypocritical at the end with his bumper sticker. Stupid movie, but I guess it worked for 60s movie fans if they worked it out like you have. >>- In San Francisco, as in other California cities (Los Angeles and San Diego among them), DAs are elected, so that's not what Chalmers is. As I've said, it's possible Chalmers is a U.S. attorney. A California state attorney is another possibility, but I continue to doubt both because, as the film depicts, he doesn't seem to have any authority of his own. Only influence ("juice").<< That's what Chalmers is. It does not fit that Ross' case would be given to regular attorney. As I already stated several times, the movie does not make sense. It lacks common sense because of the plot device being used. We just saw different movies. One of the key points is what job Chalmers holds. He is a Federal DA or assistant DA who got assigned to the case. It does not fit the movie story if he's the state DA as that is an elected office. I'm going to stick with my original hunch. Nor does it fit, he's an attorney. The SFPD would not think he has power then. Even <i>Mute Witness</i> has him as state DA, so your conjecture doesn't work as well. >>- This, by definition, makes clear Ross was never going to testify. The whole thing was simply a ruse to fake Ross's death and cover his escape from the country. The film seems pretty explicit about that.<< Ross' main goal was escaping the mob with their money who were going to kill him. He also wanted protection from Chalmers in case something went wrong. Chalmers, as a Fed, makes it credible with the mob and also follows the anti-hero vs the establishment trope of the 60s. >>- Remember that I'm referring to the airport scene here. By that time, Chalmers already knows that Renick is dead, that Bullitt smuggled the body out of the hospital (and yeah, Bullitt could still be facing disciplinary action over that) and that he was an imposter, so as far as the plot's concerned, that reason would no longer be operative.<< I said as much, but Chalmers needs the hospital report as evidence in order to arrest Bullitt. This would be more than disciplinary action. Bullitt committed a Federal crime of abducting a Federal witness. Thus, Chalmers calls the shots. Bullitt would likely have been pulled off the case and arrested if he had the hospital report, but we also would not have a movie. Again, this scene is just to heighten the plot device. As for the rest, it depends on what happened in the movie. Ross was killed. Had he lived, he would be facing a lot of charges including murder. Thus, he would have ran to Chalmers for protection. The mob would also know he's alive and would try to kill him again. Thus, Bullitt 2. >>- I don't see Chalmers having any such authority. When Bullitt refused to reveal where the witness was, for instance, Chalmers had to get a writ of habeas corpus and serve it on Bennett (who resolves to sit on it until Monday).<< He is a Federal assistant DA or DA (which I surmised already) who are appointed, or if we go by the Mute Witness book, he's a state DA. He could be one of the Federal DAs based on the movie if it states he wasn't elected. The writ means Bullitt could be arrested for not producing Ross or his body. This is his Chalmers intent now since their discussion at the hospital. It means he hasn't gotten the hospital report, either. >>This brings up hole #3: Whenever Chalmers has wanted to wield authority, he's needed Capt. Baker or a court order to make it official. But Baker's missing from the scene, for no apparent plot reason. So again, it's back to the dramatic one. If Baker were there, he could order Bullitt to hand Ross over to him and Chalmers, but that would interfere with the dramatic arc already stated above.<< I agree it's a plot hole. Chalmers should have the power to wield authority since he has jurisdiction. The flashing of the badge is part of the literary device. He should have his own people do that, either FBI, or if he's a state DA like in the book, state troopers. California has state police. View all replies >