3 ms·

[spoiler warning] Just watched the movie yesterday evening and I was also quite disappointed, some of the choices did seem cheap, the twin, the book stopping th

[spoiler warning] Just watched the movie yesterday evening and I was also quite disappointed, some of the choices did seem cheap, the twin, the book stopping the bullet, the "punishment" of Miles by the destruction of the Mona Lisa. I think that the movie had some potential, but after the twin reveal everything started going south. Edit: added warning

fxtentacle 4y ago
Maybe you should add a spoiler warning. BTW I thought the punishment was very good writing. As long as he's rich, all will lie to protect him. Once the source of his money - which is he reputation of Klear - is destroyed, all of them stop lieing to cover for him. I thought it highlighted their hypocrisy exceptionally well.
- vander_elst 4y ago
  Imo if you destroy the Mona Lisa to punish a person, you don't punish a person, you destroy the Mona Lisa.
  - devaler 4y ago
    I agree, and this plot point unsuspends my disbelief more than any others.
lukas099 4y ago
When the twin destroyed that painting, she became the villain of the movie.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Not the one who paid off a government to take a national treasure, then recklessly bypassed the security controls for their own amusement? Or launch an unsafe product for the general public?
  - lukas099 4y ago
    I guess it would have been more precise for me to say she became "a villain". Still I think that purposeful destruction of priceless art is worse than negligence, however horrible that negligence was (and it was horrible).
- wolfram74 4y ago
  You raise two interesting questions for me: 1) how reckless with a treasure of humanity can person A be and still not be at fault if person B does the actual physical destruction (IE if I placed the magna carta on someones seat and didn't tell them when they were about to sit down, and they tore it when sitting, I would be at fault, yes?) 2) how dangerous does a person need to be before destroying a treasure of humanity is a valid way to avert disaster (I want to come up with an example involving the terra cotta army but my coffees still kicking in)
- jfengel 4y ago
  [spoilers] I don't know if this is intended as a feature of the film, but it's clearly not the real Mona Lisa. That showed paper burning; the Mona Lisa is painted on wooden boards. I was sorta expecting that they would point out that Miles was himself taken in by the Louvre, and given a museum shop print. But it doesn't work with the film's final gag, so I guess it's just an error. Ah, well. I don't take mystery movies too seriously for just that reason. It was fun and I enjoyed it.
- josephpmay 4y ago
  I think part of the point of the movie was that EVERY character was a psychopath who prioritized their own interests over what would be true or best, and that scene shows that she’s not exempt from that
  - vander_elst 4y ago
    [spoilers] I like the interpretation, but I wish this were highlighted a bit more, imo the movie seems to suggest that the twin will pay no consequences for her act but only the bad guy.

fxtentacle 4y ago

Maybe you should add a spoiler warning. BTW I thought the punishment was very good writing. As long as he's rich, all will lie to protect him. Once the source of his money - which is he reputation of Klear - is destroyed, all of them stop lieing to cover for him. I thought it highlighted their hypocrisy exceptionally well.

vander_elst 4y ago
Imo if you destroy the Mona Lisa to punish a person, you don't punish a person, you destroy the Mona Lisa.
- devaler 4y ago
  I agree, and this plot point unsuspends my disbelief more than any others.

lukas099 4y ago

When the twin destroyed that painting, she became the villain of the movie.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Not the one who paid off a government to take a national treasure, then recklessly bypassed the security controls for their own amusement? Or launch an unsafe product for the general public?
- lukas099 4y ago
  I guess it would have been more precise for me to say she became "a villain". Still I think that purposeful destruction of priceless art is worse than negligence, however horrible that negligence was (and it was horrible).
wolfram74 4y ago
You raise two interesting questions for me: 1) how reckless with a treasure of humanity can person A be and still not be at fault if person B does the actual physical destruction (IE if I placed the magna carta on someones seat and didn't tell them when they were about to sit down, and they tore it when sitting, I would be at fault, yes?) 2) how dangerous does a person need to be before destroying a treasure of humanity is a valid way to avert disaster (I want to come up with an example involving the terra cotta army but my coffees still kicking in)
jfengel 4y ago
[spoilers] I don't know if this is intended as a feature of the film, but it's clearly not the real Mona Lisa. That showed paper burning; the Mona Lisa is painted on wooden boards. I was sorta expecting that they would point out that Miles was himself taken in by the Louvre, and given a museum shop print. But it doesn't work with the film's final gag, so I guess it's just an error. Ah, well. I don't take mystery movies too seriously for just that reason. It was fun and I enjoyed it.
josephpmay 4y ago
I think part of the point of the movie was that EVERY character was a psychopath who prioritized their own interests over what would be true or best, and that scene shows that she’s not exempt from that
- vander_elst 4y ago
  [spoilers] I like the interpretation, but I wish this were highlighted a bit more, imo the movie seems to suggest that the twin will pay no consequences for her act but only the bad guy.