MovieChat Forums > LTUM > Replies
LTUM's Replies
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
dude, i don't even know where to start lol
all i can say is, your post says way more about you than it does about the film.
you must be a continuity freak. imo a regular viewer would be so immersed in the story they'd never notice those tea kettle details. the fact that you did tells me you were having an ADD attack or something, the fact your mind even latched onto the tea kettle details in the first place. my guess is you missed a whole lot in this film because you were paying more attention to minute details that are entirely incidental.
but hey, you have a right to dislike it. rock on.
i think higgins making those ominous predictions was due to the fact that that was the prevailing sentiment of that day. During the late 60s on into early 80s, the world was in a very uncertain posture and oil was center stage in all that. plus, gotta also consider the impact the young environmental movement had on the pop culture, as well as alvin toffler's book (1969 i believe) and a helluva lot of unrest in the middle east at that time, as well as the USSR growing (seemingly, at that time) stronger than ever.
yeah man, there were a lot of irons in the fire then. it was very real in people's minds that catastrophe could be just around the corner, and likely in the form of some kind of energy or hunger event. i was alive then and i remember the sentiment was very dark. long lines for gasoline, NYC had a blackout, 3 mile island, the cuyahoga river caught on fire. etc etc it just goes on and on
you mean william hurt?
interesting idea. hmmm.
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.
cheers.
yes she is. the kind of looks that inspire big dreams in a man.
she makes me think of my uncle (vietnam vet) talking about the gorgeous 'brit-asian' mixed girls he met in hong kong in the late 60s. he said they were very beautiful with unique features.
if you get a chance please update me on your experience with the books. i'd like to know your take on them. thanks
old thread, but
i agree with you. i have noticed this countless times in various movies of his. he has this, i dunno, affectation thing he does? i can point it out when i see it but i don't think i could type an explanation of it here.
but yes i agree, he seems like he is always holding something in reserve. you put it perfectly when you said 'trying to protect his cultivated image' ...that sums it up perfectly.
i have my favorites of his which i tend to rewatch regularly. i see these same moves, lines in each of them and it is noticeable every time. it almost seems like he is trying too hard to 'sell' himself in certain roles where he instinctively knows he doesn't really fit. sorry, but he is just not believable as a tough guy imo. but still, he is one of my favorite actors and i love his content.
side note: a friend of mine years ago said (of redford) 'he may be too good looking to be taken seriously as an actor.' ...i think there's some truth to that.
no one will probably see this in this old thread lol. damn i miss the heady days of the imdb boards. those were great times, really fun and way better than the 'social media' options available today. (gag) I will never forgive them for killing the boards in Feb of 2017. 'sigh'
(hi dr emm. i know you see this post lol)
right. they were slaves, but in that era would they even BE that far north at all?