MovieChat Forums > LTUM > Replies

LTUM's Replies


yes, friend, i have noticed that detail too. i pondered it a bit, and my conclusion was the same as yours that it's an odd slip by Fincher, being he is usually very meticulous. yes i specifically remember being thrown off by the darkness, as you were. i remember wondering 'ummm, how come it's instantly dark?' (more like, WTF instead of ummm, lol) let me just say, for anyone who has watched this as many times as i have, i know literally every single frame by heart lol and still love to rewatch this film anytime anywhere. there are some tiny odd little things i noticed about it here and there, and sometimes i posted about those, but none of those little hiccups ruined my appreciation for this masterpiece. one is the waitress in the cafe and her resemblance to Mikail's daughter. VERY similar, visually speaking. i hate when directors make this slip-up. it throws me off because i'm wondering why he is so silent with his daughter in the cafe lol. "is he mad at her?" lol (i made a thread about this, kinda trolling but i couldn't resist) obviously i eventually figured out it is two different actresses, but my gripe is WHY EVEN make it close enough to place the question on anyone's radar? IMO they should do due diligence to go far enough to make a DISTINCT difference visually so no one will be distracted from the story line by wondering about silly incongruent details such as this. anywho, this is one of my favorite films of all time. i love all of fincher's work, but this one is my ultimate favorite. can't speak highly enough of it. it just somehow strikes a nerve deep within me.... makes me wanna go to sweden and ride that train in the snow!!! ""IF so wouldn't it make sense to hire a cab, Go around town pretty much invisible, MAKE your hits, THAN no matter what else went down in between HIT the Cabbie"" my exact thinking too that 2nd part rings true. a sort of 'burn it all down' mindset. good point. nice. let me know how it fares LOL ah. okay i see your point. right, makes sense. i think the plot was left deliberately vague. they adapted it from a book with a different plot, and maybe didn't want to take the time to truly fill in the gaps. that's my suspicion, anyway. nice to finally talk to someone on here. reminds me of the old days. yes it did seem that way. my impression through the film was higgins was not complicit with wickes. but, you are right that there seemed to be some admission on higgins' part in front of the times. it's a contradiction, though. because he clearly didn't know earlier, when he was trying to figure out what was going on. like the microfilm scene where he was looking at old news articles and connected joubert to wickes. he was genuinely surprised. maybe it was just that higgins was on 'the team' (of subversion, worldwide) but just didn't know about THAT specific scheme of atwood's? 100% agree. he already had a plan, for sure. also, the only one at that table who knew the real story was atwood. wicks was dead, and they were in on it together. the other men there were company men not in on the subversive oil plot. i want to reply to many of the posts in this thread but after 7 years have gone by, i would be talking to air so i will just pass. too bad this site is so damn dead. lol yes I guess he was. lol i like that option best; him joining with joubert. i like it, though it doesn't flow with turner's nature. (being a killer) grady wrote 3 (or 4) novels in this series so he must have come up with a storyline to follow this one. I am not sure i am interested in reading the books, though. may go check the wikipedia summary though, lol really good point about the post. would've been much better. but of course that may have altered the effect of that final scene in the film. wait, in fact, the novel was set in DC so maybe it WAS the post at first, which got changed when they chose NYC for the film? hmmmm. i am not familiar with the book but i would assume it was the post in the book, since he was in DC. i agree, likely not a happy ending. i imagine he didn't survive. but i wonder. i love the open-endedness of it. i love movies that make you think 'what happens after the credits?' i love this movie so much. i feel so bad for the character of turner. that look on his face in the final shot. decades later, was higgins right---- well, i think higgins very much could've been right on the money, had the govt not intervened with endless deficit spending and a worldwide boom in production stemming from fractional banking abuses by the globalist banksters. we know now a lot of what went on is coming home to roost (#btc) but yes, chaos is always just around the corner; they just keep kicking the can down the road via the fiat dollar reserve currency status. so, yes, you can say higgins was right, just maybe not in the time-frame people were expecting. ie, right on the WHAT but wrong on the WHEN (but it's coming, trust me) (also, i don't believe that fourth turning stuff for one second lol) great ending. one of my faves. my comment from another thread: [i]gotta say, i DO wonder strongly what happens to turner after the credits. that chilling freeze-frame of him turning and looking back as he walks beside the carolers.... that is an awesome shot and a great bookend for the whole movie. (of course, blended so perfectly with that epic smooth jazz score. just wow!) i do. i wonder what happened to turner after. ....and it's THIS kind of thing that (imo) makes for a really great movie vibe leaving the theater. i think the viewer should get a strong desire to see how the movie CONTINUES on after the credits. and that's t he vibe i catch every time i see that final shot in 3 days of the condor. i believe Grady wrote a sequel. actually, i thin it was a short series, 3 or 4 novels altogether. but for me, i don't want to know anything about those other books. i can't take a chance on them diminishing the awesomeness of the first story. (originally set in DC but moved to NYC by redford) additionally, i catch a similar vibe at the end of the bourne identity (which ironically is also about a former spy running from the cia). and the same sentiment about the sequels applies to the bourne movies, too; i think they messed up the vibe from the first film. (not solely because of but ALSO LARGELY DUE TO paul greengrass and his lousy/lazy ass use of shakicam) so, yeah, i wonder where turner went. what doe she do now? how long will he last? does the times publish the story? WHAT A CLIFFHANGER!!! great ending.[/i] I have seen this so many times over the years that I can't even recall how early it was when i first saw it, but having said that... i do vaguely recall thinking the same thing back when i first saw this film, that it was kinda implausible that they'd both forget their relationships (a few hours ago) and dive into a steamy session. so yeah, i get what you mean and i kinda agree. i think after one sees a film many many times the elements in the film become a kindof 'canon' which stands on its own, impervious to criticism or adjustment because 'that's the way it happened' ...done deal, past tense. hence you start at some point suspending the what-if's and just accept the film 'the way it happened' i think this ^ is why i see their affair as normal today, but saw it as implausible 30 years ago. make sense? :) lol lol yes i love how pollock puts himself in all his films. lol dang, you got me with this. now i gotta go back and rewatch. "Do you realize how funny that is." exactly. lmao i wanted to say more to the guy but honestly it feels immoral to do so, like 'punching down' lol