Conference bookie::movies

  Saw this last weekend and I really liked it a lot. It's a great mystery with
some really fine acting.

  One of Alex Baldwin's brothers plays a part and does really well as does
mostly everyone else.

  Who was the woman and were have we seen her before?

  **** out of 5,
  George

Haven't seen the movie, so I don't know the woman, but I do not
that the Baldwin brother is Stephen.

    
    	Stephen was from "Backdraft", wasn't he?
    

    Not sure whether Stephen was in Backdraft.  There are 4 of them
    Baldwins and they're a little hard to keep track of.  I think the woman
    is Julianne Moore of 9 Months and Safe fame.

     I went to see the movie b4 it went wide release.  I was amazed
    throughout the whole movie.  I can say that it was my top five of the 
    year so far.  Kevin Spacey was excellent.  I also enjoyed the new up-
    coming star Brian Del Toro.  But the credit must go to the screenwriter
    and the director.  They did an excellent job.  A must see.  I have been
    telling all my friends to go check it out.  I do not want to get into
    the specifics of the movie.  I feel if I do I will give it away.  I
    have not heard one bad remark so far.  
    
    
    

    It was William Baldwin in "Backdraft". Stephen's last most memorable role
    was probably in "Threesome".  I haven't seen this movie yet, but the paper
    lists the female star as Suzy Amis.

    John
    

    You're right about Suzy Amis.  They both have red hair and we've been
    inundated with JM lately.  Suzy Amis was in Ballad of Little Jo.

    
    	And she was in "Plainclothes".
    
    	And she was in "Queen's Logic", or whatever that movie was called
    	that dealt with the dysfunctional family, also starring Crispin
    	Glover.
    

She was also in a really awful movie that I rented last weekend
called "Watch It" which also had Peter Gallagher in it.

Re: Baldwin brothers:

Alec - the one most likely known - big star, married to Kim Bassinger

Daniel - was in the tv show "Homicide" last year, not quite as cute
         as the other Baldwins, more cuddly

Billy - the younger version of Alec, starred in "Backdraft" and some
	sleezy movie with Sharon Stone

Stephen - youngest brother, kinda weird looking (IMHO), started his
          career in "The Young Riders" TV show.

    
    	Sharon Stone - "Sliver"
    

    re: .10
    
    Meaning what?

>    re: .10
>    
>    Meaning what?

Meaning the movie a Baldwin brother starred in with her - see .9

/scott

    re .11 (Silver and Meaning)
    
    That's the movie .9 was referring to as "some sleazy movie with Sharon
    Stone".
    
    
    
    
    kim

    
    	Please read .9 where the entrant referred to a Sharon Stone movie
    	which was not specifically named due to said entrant not being
    	aware [at the time] of said movie's title.
    
    	And then re-refer to .10 where said entrant [which heretofore can
    	be referred to as "me" if you so desire] revealed the title of
    	aforementioned movie.
    

    re.: 10
    
    Meaning what?

    Oh, my system hung for a few minutes so I guess I sent this message
    several times.  Sorry.
    
    Thanks for the info.

    William starred with Stone in SLIVER.
    the Usual Suspects got good reviews and sounds great!
    I want to see this one!
    good cast too!
    
    
    thanks people!!!
    
    
    
    Bob

    .9
    
    Which one was in Harley Davidson/Marlboro Man?

    no no... that was Don Johnson and the actor most in need of a bath

    No, one of them was in HD/MM...he was the last bad guy in the long
    black bulletproof jacket.

    That was the one that is in the tv show "Homicide". Is it Daniel? I
    think so...yes it is, it's Daniel.

    Does anyone have any info on Gabriel Bryne? I have caught a couple of
    his films, (Millers Crossing, Into the West - both get ***** out of
    ***** with me) I think he is excellent, did see one really awful thing
    though on video a couple of months ago, its a gangster/coutcase thing,
    he plays opposite Joanne Whalley Kilhmer as a New York DA with a really
    bad accent.... I was cringing throught out the film it was so awful.
    
    
    Jane

    I did have one major problem with this one, though.  And that was the
    amount of time that Kaiser Soza spent laying his trap, like to the
    point of having spent time in jail and being well known enough with the
    cops to have earned a moniker.  I can't imagine someone like him doing
    that, or, given all the other things he did, that he would be the age
    that he was.
    
    Hope I didn't give it away guys.

    
    	Gabriel Byrne also starred in "Point of No Return" with Bridget
    	Fonda.
    

    Gabriel Byrne - "Cool World"

Also in "Siesta" with his wife-to-be (at that time), Ellen Barkin.

    Well I don't suppose anyone whould care to tell just a tad of the
    plot .. like are there any dismemberings/major bloodlettings/other
    acts of gratuitous violence?  is it a period movie?  anything?
    
    

    Not to mention Hello, Again with Shelley Long and Miller's Crossing and
    Into the West.  
    
    I think he has a wee bit of a problem with alcohol.

    re: .27
    
    Sorry, but we're not going to tell you.  nyah nyah nyah
    
    Oh okay, there's a little blood-letting and it's modern day.

  It's the kind of story that if you start telling much of it at all, it would
end up being a spoiler. It's basically a modern cops and bad guy mystery that's
quite complex due to many tricky plot twists. You're never sure who's a good
guy and who's a bad guy. 

  It's somewhat violent in that lots of violent things happen but they are not
graphically depicted. If you are bothered because you know violence is happening
this will disturb you. If you are only bothered by graphic blood and guts but
don't mind off screen violence then you should be OK.

  The mood is somewhat dark, what humor it has is cynical. The acting is
powerful and it moves along quickly. You have to pay attention to keep up
with the twists in the plot. Hit the bathroom and get your popcorn before
the movie starts, there are no breaks for that sort of thing.

  George

I agree.  Telling much of the plot is a spoiler.  I found that it is important
to pay attention to all details; each is very important in this very complex,
twisting, driving movie.  I really liked it a lot but spent the first half of
the movie slightly confused and disoriented.  Of course, later it all made sense.

I went with a 75 year old friend who I could see cringing in his seat during the
first ten minutes of it.  The language was awful; but I was only conscious of it
because of my friend Max.  I knew he did not do well with very crude and violent
language.  I asked him about it later and he said he quickly got used to it,
that there was so much of it that after a while did not even notice it. [Sort of
an interesting comment on language in general, is it not?]

So from this 51 year old female and a 75 year old male, we both give it 4 out of
4 stars. 

Ruth Ann

    Caught this over the weekend.  I really, really liked it.  It's
    probably one of the best movies I've seen this year. Great fun, nice
    plot twists (I knew the outcome before going in, so I knew what to
    watch for, but if I hadn't know, I think it would have been quite
    subtle), great acting all around.   A good movie for leaving and
    thinking "Oh, yeah, I did notice that, but didn't think it was
    important at the time".  
    
    As for violence and bloodletting, there's gunshots and gunshot wounds,
    but nothing too terribly graphic.  
    
    Liked the score, too. 
    
    Definitely recommended.
    
    
    ***.75 out of ****
    
    kim 

    I have to echo all the rave reviews in here.  Saw it Friday night and
    was afraid for the first 15 minutes that I was inadequate to the task
    of keeping track of everyone/everything/when it all happened, but I
    don't think I missed as much as I feared.  *Loved* the cinematography,
    *loved* the cast, especially Byrne, Spacey and Pollack.  I wasn't wild
    about Baldwin, though he did an OK job I guess; and the 5th of the
    "usual suspects" was UNINTELLIGIBLE! except for the few times when the
    other characters made him repeat himself!  (I don't mind whatever
    accent that was supposed to be, but he also seemed to have a mouthful
    of marbles at all times, and I don't want to have to work that hard to
    understand someone.)
    
    I'm tempted to be the first to blather on behind a form-feed, but I'll
    wait a) for someone else to start discussing the clues, twists and red
    herrings, and b) to see it again, knowing what I now know!
    
    I rate it with Pulp Fiction, which I also loved.  It's not constructed
    the same way, and I have to admit I don't remember the soundtrack for
    Usual Suspects (so I guess it wasn't *offensive*) whereas I was WILD
    about the Pulp Fiction soundtrack and bought it as soon as I could. 
    I'll be very, very annoyed if [someone in the cast of Usual Suspects]
    doesn't get an Oscar nomination... no, I won't say who :-}
    
    Leslie, who's_usually_a_screwball_comedy_viewer,_not_blood_&_guts!
    
    Leslie

    yup!  excellent movie...so many things I missed, my wife had to point
    out, and things that she missed also.  I guess we have to just think on
    the fact behind the fiction...
    
    mikef

    Isn't there a fifth Baldwin brother?  Adam.  He was in My Bodyguard
    and D.C. Cab??
    

I don't think he's related to the others

    
    	Reading the reviews here and from media critics who called this
    	film one of the best of the year for them, I was expecting to see
    	a complex, well-written, and deeply thought-out story with many
    	surprises and plot turns. 

    	We must have gone to the wrong movie by the same name. This film
    	was not complex at all. It was a rather lame mystery I thought,
    	having about the same level of complexity as any typical TV cop
    	show on today. The filming was equally blase. The whole movie was
    	rather simple I thought and screamed "TV police drama" to me.
    	There were not a lot of plot twists and turns nor even suspects,
    	by the last half of the movie there were only two people left who
    	could be the Kaiser. By 3/4 of the way to the end, it was clear to
    	us who it was going to be. 

    	Out of the four of us, three thought the movie was "just OK" and
    	didn't understand why this film made the big splash it did, and 
    	the fourth guy thought the movie was "good." But then he says every
    	movie is "good." 

    	Needless to say, I was disappointed by this film...

    	-Erik

    
    
    I agree, the movie wasn't complicated and it wasn't that great.
    An o.k movie...but not what everyone is saying it should be.
    
    Chris
    :)

    First, the movie is titled "The Usual Suspects" and, as the newspaper
    advertisement states there is coarse language and violence.  I missed
    this part, which I'm glad, as it would have deterred me from seing a
    movie I truly enjoyed.
    
    The performance of these actors was first rate.  I'm going off on a
    tangent here... but I have a personal nit with the acting of Tommy Lee
    Jones... I recently watched the movie "Cobb", which I won't even waste
    my time reviewing, ...everyone raves about his acting, I just don't see
    it ... but I came out of THIS movie thinking "Wow, now this is good
    acting".
    
    I guessed the ending; I'm usually duped, so it must have been clear as
    night.  Maybe it was intentional?
    
    As the previous noters, there isn't really much to say about this movie
    without revealling the plot.  I did not have trouble following the
    movie, in fact we missed the first 5 minutes (a little disciplinary
    problem at home to resolve before we went out 8^)).
    
    The actors were not familiar to me, so I would love it if someone could
    post the actors name and the part they played, I'm interested in the
    five main characters as well as the interrogator.
    
    Thumbs up.
    
    PChaplinsky

           
    The five actors were:
    
    Kevin Pollak -- the short, scruffy little guy who got slapped during
    the police interrogation (in the beginning of the movie).  Tended to be
    a wiseass.  Also did the home-boy, holding the pistol sideways thing
    later in the movie. :)  (I guess this gives "street cred", but it sure
    looks silly).  He's a comedian by trade, so I liked his against-type
    casting, although I'm to understand it didn't work for all viewers.
      
    
    Gabriel Byrne -- The tall, melancholy-looking Irish guy.  Tended to be
    the brains behind the outfit. He's fun to listen to just for the
    accent.
    
    Kevin Spacey -- Verbal Kint (with a name like that, you can't forget
    it).  The gimpy little guy.  Mr. Spacey gets all the fun roles. 
    
    Stephen Baldwin (or was it William?) -- the squinty dude who was the
    friend of the guy with the nearly unintelligble accent.  I get the
    younger Baldwins all mixed up.
    
    I had the guy with a funny accent's name on the tip of my tongue, but
    forgot.  Something very Italian sounding.  I'll look it up when I can get
    to the WWWeb.
    
    The interrogator was Chazz Palmentari (sp), noted for his performance
    in "Bullets on Broadway".  
    
    The character names have pretty much eluded me at the moment, sorry.
    
    
    
    kim

    

    RE: .39
    
    I'm a little confused about the reference to Tommy Lee Jones.  He
    wasn't in this film.  Could you explain?
    
    Thanks,
    
    - Dave
    
    P.S. The topic title has now been corrected.

    
    
    
    That was the tangent she was going off on! :)))
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    	RE: .39
    
    	Wow, you're a "she"?!
    
    	I always thought you were a "he".  ELF works wonders, doesn't it?
    
    	8^)
    

    Rented this last weekend. Movie begins at the end, the aftermath of
    some shoot out in San Pedro Harbor, L.A. Then we flash back and for the
    first hour, it's tough to figure  out what is happening or why. The
    final ending includes several good plot twists. At the end of the movie
    when you are trying to identify any holes in this twisted plot, you
    realize that there have been so many lies and false leads told in the 
    dialog, you can't pin anything down. It's like a real brain teaser - 
    Good mystery - very entertaining. 

    I rented this yesterday - wow!  what a great movie.  I have to agree
    with all the previous noters that the acting and writing were for the
    most part, excellent.  I was able to follow along without too much
    difficulty, but I did have to concentrate.  No reading the paper and
    watching this movie at the same time.  I'd like to get somebody else's
    thoughts on the ending...
    
    spoiler  (and really, don't look if you haven't seen the movie!!)
    
    
    At the end of the movie, we are made to believe that the cop finally
    figures out who Keyser Soze is because of all the stuff on the bulletin
    board, the name on the bottom of the coffee cup etc etc.  Does this
    mean that the whole story was made up?  I mean, we know that there was
    a line-up and that these other guys existed, and we know that a ship
    blew up and that there were a bunch of dead bodies, but isn't the rest
    of it just heresay, related by (  ).  These kind of movies really play
    games with my head - it's going to be another rental, I can tell.

    
    Spoiler thingy follows - answers to .45
    
    No, really,
    
    Don't go any further.
    
    
    The story wasn't supposed to be made up, it really happened the way
    that was shown, the only difference being that Verbal Kint wasn't
    really hiding for the boat shoot out but was running about with the
    best of them.  The story happened as told because none of the other
    hoods knew who verbal really was and he had to appear like a dumb
    cripple to fool them.  It was only at the end that he revealed himself
    to Keaton as Keyser Soze because Keaton knew he was going to die
    anyway.
    
    An interesting point I noticed.  I went to see this at the movies and I
    also rented it on video because my girlfriend wanted to see it.  In the
    movie version, when Verbal goes to pick up his posessions from the desk
    sergeant in the police station, the policeman gives him a gold lighter,
    THE SAME ONE USED BY KEYSER SOZE ON THE BOAT! which was a bit of an
    early giveaway for those who were paying attention.  In the video
    version, this had been cut out and you could only see verbals arms down
    to his wrists, his hands and all of his posessions were out of camera
    shot.  I wonder if this was deliberate in order to preserve the ending
    or if it was just a result of the editing to video.
                                                       

    again.... ending discussed
    
    
    
     So then what was the point of showing us all the stuff on the bulletin
     board, and the bottom of the coffee cup  etc?  These were the clues
     that the cop used to figure out that he had been talking to Keyser the
     whole time.  My impression was that while Verbil was sitting in the
     chair, relating the events, he was making up facts and giving names
     to things by using the bulletin board info.  I can see that I'll have
     to rent this one again and pay closer attention.	

    more spoilers:
    
    
    The only things that were known by the cops and detective before
    interviewing Verbal were about the only things that had any verifiable 
    truth at the end as well (the dead "crooks", the dead crew) - the rest 
    of the story was entirely suspect.
    
    The drug dealer (Redfern?) was shown to be mostly fiction, Kobayashi
    was certainly fiction, etc.  And of course Verbal and his entire story
    as well.
    
    It was just sheer luck that enough external "clues" came together for
    the pieces to finally fit together, and only the description by the
    surviving Hungarian crewman was actually "evidence".
    
    - Dave

RE -.1
    
    S p o i l e r    W a r n i n g ! ! ! ! !
    
    
    >The drug dealer (Redfern?) was shown to be mostly fiction, Kobayashi
    >was certainly fiction, etc.  And of course Verbal and his entire story
    >as well.
    
    But didn't Kobayashi pick Verbal up at the end of the movie?  My
    impression was that things happened more or less as related, but
    Verbal/Kaiser changed names/locales either just to amuse himself ( the
    barbershop quartet from Skokie, IL ) or to protect others ( Redfern ). 
    On the other hand, it could've happened some other way, and he might've
    made the whole thing up using names from the bulletin board - I
    actually kind of like the way they leave it open :-)
    
    I think casting Kevin Pollack as a tough guy instead of a funny guy
    worked surprisingly well ( though he did have one of the best lines :
    "Gee, think you brought enough guys?" )
    
    Jimbo

    
    spoily thing!!!!
    
    No peeking!
    
    
    I agree with -1, verbal seemed to be making up all the names for one
    reason or another, I think he was giving the cops his version of events
    in order to implicate Keaton as Keyser Soze and thus avoid prosecution
    himself.  The presence of his lawyer at the end would tend to suggest
    that the events happened as told just with a slightly different spin on
    them.

    Spoiler:
    
    
    
    My shot at the whole story was that Verbal made up a lot of things as
    he went along, blending in the essence of the truth here and there
    where it fit and that by the end, you weren't supposed to really know
    how much was truth or fiction but only that Verbal was the mastermind
    behind the whole set up.  Whether or not he was Keyser Soze, or even if
    there really WAS a Keyser Soze -- well, it was supposed to be
    ambigious. The only one who really knew was Verbal (name fit, after
    all!) and obviously, he wasn't beholden to telling the truth.
    
    My favorite shot in the whole film was the tumble of ropes and bouys
    and what not, where you're led to believe that somebody (later on, one
    assumes it to be Verbal) is hiding behind there.  When in fact,
    nobody's behind there--you just figure there's somebody there because
    the camera shows it to you and it LOOKS like the sort of place someone
    would be behind.  The whole point of the movie, summed up in one shot.
    :)
    
    
    Great movie.
    
    
    kim

               <<< ORION::USER10:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MOVIES.NOTE;1 >>>
           -< Do DIR/TITLE before starting a new topic on a movie! >-
================================================================================
Note 927.53                    The Usual Suspects                       53 of 53
CADSYS::KELLEY "Elucidator"                          22 lines  21-MAR-1996 13:10
                             -< Satisfying movie >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler warning!!


This was definitely one of the more
complex and satisfying movies I've seen. Surprising
for an American movie. Just the fact
that the last few notes have been debating
the meaning of the end of the movie indicate
the plot intricacies. I have to say while
I was watching it, I had a feeling the whole time
that Verbal wasn't really a gimp and that
he was playing the hoods and cops for fools.

The dialog offered clues that Verbal was something more
than he pretended. He was referred to on an earlier job
as the man with the plan. An indication he was much smarter
than he let on. Plus Chazz Palminteri kept saying,
"I'm smarter than you Verbal. You're dumb." An obvious
set up that in fact Palminteri was the dummy and Verbal
played him perfectly.

JK 

Ack!  You missed it, kim!

There *was* a person behind the tumble of ropes and bouys, it
just wasn't Verbal.  Rather it was the surviving Hungarian crewman
who gives the cops a description of what Soze looks like. 

Or did I interpret that incorrectly?

--Chris

    
    I thought the shot was just INTIMATING that there was someone there so
    you would think it was verbal, remember, this story was designed to
    fool you, the viewer, as well as the police.
    
    
    I.

    re .55 --
    
    (could be considered minor spoiler)
    
    
    I was saying pretty much was .56 was saying.  I'm pretty sure nobody
    was behind the ropes.  The guy who gave the description to the police
    was burned, I believe, suggesting to me that he was on the boat, not
    hiding on the dock.
    
    
    kim

    For those of you who have seen both Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction:

    When the 'suspects' meet a second time with the fence in LA, McManus
    throws a bag of the cocaine at him and says "What are we supposed to do
    with that?" The fence throws it back to him and says "I don't know.
    Feed it to the gimp, ease his pain".  What's interesting (to me at
    least) is that the actor who plays the fence is the one who played the
    security guard who 'kept' the gimp in Pulp Fiction.  I wonder if he
    threw that line in on his own or if if was scripted that way?

    Well, Verbal was "gimpy" -- he walked with a limp, so that might have
    been the "gimp" Redfern meant.  But yes, it's an amusing, ironic line
    anyway.  :)
    
    
    
    kim

    i saw this twice and have to put my 2 cents in
    spoiler
    
    
    .46 on the video they DID quickly show the lighter
    in the stuff that Verbal was picking up at the police window
    I saw it and also was watching for it..because I made a mental 
    note of the lighter from the Dock scene, since it seemed a 
    little unusual to me  
    
     .47   your summation is what I thought.  Verbal's telling of
    what happened, Really happened  BUT  as he was  feeding the
    cop his story, he was having fun piecing all the stuff on the
    bulleton board and bottom of cops coffee cup to add further
    confusion    ...very crafty....the only thing that doesn't JIVE
    is his age.....Kaiser had a wife and child that he killed himself
    with all that happened and the years passing...i would have thot
    that Kevin Spacey was too young to be Kaiser...but it was him
    
    I really liked this movie...
                                                                 

    re .60
    
    
    Spoiler Ho:
    
    
    
    Well, there's the chance (likely to me) that Keyser Soze was a figment
    of Verbal's very finely honed imagination.  He really was a bogey man
    that Verbal constructed to put the fear of God into people.  When I say
    "Verbal was Keyser", he was Keyser in the sense that he'd constructed
    Keyser and pulled the strings in the background that made the man real. 
    The actual "killed wife and kids" and all that probably didn't really
    happen -- but make a great story to prop up the facade.  Verbal was a
    con artist.  More ruthless and ambitious than most con artists, but if
    you look at the entire movie, it was one huge con that paid off in
    spades ($91 million worth!).  
    
    I believe parts of the story happened (all those guys did get killed on
    the boat) but the actual details are suspect.  The only parts of the
    movie which can be set in stone are those prior to the "Six weeks
    later" subtitle and the stuff following the interrogation. Anything
    Verbal is relating is well, suspect. :)
    
    Just my two cents,
    
    
    kim