[MikeMO]

Here's my confusion with the movie...

Owen's character wanted to expose Plummer for what he had done in the past and have him pay for it. But at the start of the film, Owen says..."Listen closely because I choose my words carefully and don't like to repeat myself..."

He then goes on to state that he is planning on breaking into the bank, and he says, "Which brings me to the 'why.' Aside from the obvious financial gain...I'm doing it because I can."

It sounds to me that the guy doesn't really care about exposing Plummer. He said it at the start and at the end of the film...he's doing it for the money the diamonds might bring and simply because he can do it and get away with it.

This confuses me because it leaves me thinking...what really were his motivations? Was he truly well intentioned, or did he do it to get some quick cash and because he was bored/cocky?

[EricW]

Quote:

You've got the obvious red herring where they supposedly shoot one of the hostages, followed by one of those disorienting wide-angle close-ups of Denzel Washington straight out of Requiem for a Dream

i didn't think the guy got shot... and neither did my friend who i saw it with. the obvious giveaway was the hood... if you're going to shoot someone, why put a hood on? you don't want to gross people out?

also, i haven't seen alot of Spike Lee Joints, but that Denzel Washington trackshot was used in Clockers.

[EricW]

Quote:

It sounds to me that the guy doesn't really care about exposing Plummer.

insead of asking 'why are you robbing a bank', you could replace it with 'why are you robbing Arthur Case', and the answer would still be the 'financial reasons' and 'because he can'...? i don't know. although the old guy waiting for him in the car was obviously jewish. perhaps they were descendants of the family that Case robbed from in WWII?

[Kyle_D]

Quote:

Was he truly well intentioned, or did he do it to get some quick cash and because he was bored/cocky?

That's something I would have liked to see developed. The other robbers were pretty clearly Jews with a vendetta, but I think there was some other motivation going on with Owen that the movie never really explains.

Quote:

i didn't think the guy got shot...

Hence, it's an obvious red herring. On script it was probably meant to throw you a lot more than it ended up doing so in the movie, because nobody I saw it with fell for it. You can say it was never trying to throw anyone, but if you're not trying to throw people, why put it in the movie at all? Again, it's an example of poor plotting of the heist elements, because we're already aware that Clive Owen & crew aren't killers.


EDIT:

Quote:

also, i haven't seen alot of Spike Lee Joints, but that Denzel Washington trackshot was used in Clockers.

Interesting. I haven't seen Clockers, or much of Spike Lee's work as a matter of fact other than this and Son of Sam (Do the Right Thing is coming up on the netflix queue though). The shot just reminded me of similar shots in Requiem and since they were shot by the same DP, I made the false connection. Thanks for pointing that out/filling me in

[Ken Chan]

Quote:

and then when she talks to her assistant, for no reason he walks outside the room so they can talk over Apple's iChat software

I thought she was talking to the client, the assistant comes in, leads the client out, and then they chat. (And with that screen, his face is larger than life -- kinda scary.) No reason for him to come back in.

[Quentin]

The essential problem with the film (other than the plot problems pointed out) is that it is a character piece that is pretty much strictly about Denzel's character. We get LOTS of Denzel moments, lots of his character (and, lots for Denzel to do), but Jodie Foster is window dressing, and so is Owen too. There is little to no depth for either of them.

For Foster, I guess you're not supposed to know much about her - she's the mystery element. But, it's uninteresting. There SHOULD be a lot more to Owen - why does he do it? how did he get all this info? etc. Unfortunately, he's just a walking plot device. And, as you've pointed out, the plot has problems.

I loved the perfs, and Lee is great at bringing us character stuff. You can tell that he just lets Denzel go, and that stuff works great. Unfortunately, the film doesn't hold up.

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

Owen's character wanted to expose Plummer for what he had done in the past and have him pay for it.

No, that wasn't his purpose. Russell's purpose is exactly what he says: to pull off the "perfect" bank robbery -- a robbery in which no one is permanently injured, the robbers get away with a fortune, and the police decide to bury the case because they have neither the robbers nor, as far as they know, a robbery (since what's stolen will never be reported).

Exposing Arthur Case is an afterthought, and it depends entirely on whether Denzel Washington's Det. Frazier has enough follow-through to (a) analyze the safe deposit records, (b) identify the right box, (c) get a warrant to open it, and (d) follow the ring. If Frazier isn't the man that Russell has judged him to be, then Case never gets exposed. A game player to the end, Russell leaves it entirely up to Det. Frazier what happens to Case.

As for Russell saying that he robs the bank "because I can", Arthur Case gives virtually the same answer to Jodie Foster when he explains why he betrayed his friend and did business with the Nazis.

M.

[Jeremiah]

Quote:

The other robbers were pretty clearly Jews with a vendetta,

Not at all IMO. One robber was Hispanic, the younger guy might of been a Jew(was Polish on The Wire), and the female who knows. The only guy that might of had a vendetta was the older man with the beard, I don't think the others really gave a sht.

[EricW]

if you wanted to keep a safe deposit box continuously hidden and inconcspicuous, would you leave it OFF the record books, so that it skips from 391 to 393, or would you just give it a fake name owner?

[PaulP]

Quote:

If there was any product placement going on at all in the movie is when Clive Owen's character talks to the kid who's playing this game on the phone. 50 Cent's Get rich or Die Trying.

That was a real game? I thought it was an over-the-top parody of violent games, a la Grand Theft Auto 3, et al.

[Quentin]

I thought it was an over-the-top parody of violent games, a la Grand Theft Auto 3, et al.

Unfortunately, no. It is real.