Some flaws in "Entrapment"
Alberich
out to be important. Why? Because later on in that scene...we see Sean Connery on that side...and at the end of the film...he suddenly appears on the other side of the station...which is impossible because just a few
scenes earlier....he's on the side of the train station with Cathernine Zeta Jones! How could the director of photography have made such a mistake?!
Here's another one. In the course of the movie...MacDougal (Sean Connery) tells Jin (Catherine Zeta Jones) that someone stole super chips from Cryptonic Corp "worth 4 million dollars each". At the end of the film...
Sean Connery's character is seen giving those same computer chips in payment to the rogue FBI agent saying they were "5 million dollars each". Why the screwup in the value of the chips? That was a glaring error.
Another error...using stunt people when they're not necessary. The scene where Sean Connery is breaking the glass window in the scene at the International Clearance Bank in Kuala Lumpor. Why was it necessary to replace Sean
Connery during the breaking of the glass window for? Clearly...even assuming it's dangerous to break glass on the assumption that bits of glass might get in your eyes...you don't mean to tell me that Sean Connery can't break
glass windows?! Right?! Come on.
Now for some logic flaws in the movie...one of them being the chimes of the clock. How could anybody possibly synchronize their watches exactly and precisely to coincide with the grandfather clock alarm?! Zilch. There's no way
such precision could be possible because there simply is no way to calculate precisely how many seconds must elapse before initiating timed explosions muffled by the clock!
The biggest logic flaw in the whole film is ironically around Catherine Zeta Jones's character. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely loved this film...but I can't help but think about the flaws. One of them is the premise around
her character. In the beginning....we assume she's an undercover agent working for Waverly Insurance..trying to nab Sean Connery's character. But after we hear she stole the Rembrandt...we then hear her turn around and call
Weverly Insurance to give updates to her superiors. This scene doesn't make any sense...because if she really is a theif...posing as an insurance agent to obtain security codes for Bedford Palace...why was she non-chalantly
telling her bosses about deciding whether or not to arrest Mac right away! If this scene is to be believed...we would have had to assume that Catherine Zeta Jone's character was playing both sides to protect her behind. If Mac
got "caught" she could cover her tracks by claiming she was an insurance agent. I could buy that tortured logic once in the movie...but not twice! Toward the end of the film...when they're in Kuala Lumpor...we see Catherine Zeta
Jones once again ask whether or not Mac should be picked up! She even dared Hector to pick him up and pull her in!! She's playing both sides yet again that late in the movie?! A mistake...because it reinforces the impression
that she's a cold hearted ***** out to ruin Sean Connery when in fact she's not.
One fhing though...Does anybody know what brand of watches were they using during the scenes stealing the Mask? Was it Timex, Omega or Quartz? Please don't tell me they were Rolexes or Anton Petek watches!
Helen & Bob
Alberich wrote:
> Notice the ending. In this scene...at the Pudu train station...we see Catherine Zeta Jones of the train station. But if you look carefully...you'll see some trees in the distance on the side Zeta-Jones is located. This turns
> out to be important. Why? Because later on in that scene...we see Sean Connery on that side...and at the end of the film...he suddenly appears on the other side of the station...which is impossible because just a few
> scenes earlier....he's on the side of the train station with Cathernine Zeta Jones! How could the director of photography have made such a mistake?!
No mistake. There is always a way to get to the other side of the tracks. In an elevated station, down the stairway, through the tunnel under the tracks, up the stairway to where she is. Remember, there is also a portion of time
where there is a train traveling through the station. Thetas when our hero gets to the other side of the station.
>
>
> Here's another one. In the course of the movie...MacDougal (Sean Connery) tells Jin (Catherine Zeta Jones) that someone stole super chips from Cryptonic Corp "worth 4 million dollars each". At the end of the film...
> Sean Connery's character is seen giving those same computer chips in payment to the rogue FBI agent saying they were "5 million dollars each". Why the screwup in the value of the chips? That was a glaring error.
Inflation. Price increase to cover Connerys time. Maybe he's bullshitting the FBI agent.
>
>
> Another error...using stunt people when they're not necessary. The scene where Sean Connery is breaking the glass window in the scene at the International Clearance Bank in Kuala Lumpor. Why was it necessary to replace Sean
> Connery during the breaking of the glass window for? Clearly...even assuming it's dangerous to break glass on the assumption that bits of glass might get in your eyes...you don't mean to tell me that Sean Connery can't break
> glass windows?! Right?! Come on.
Sean is 60+. So Am I. And if I were in the same place, I'd have a double do it also. You'll know more about that in about 40 years. (If you are lucky).
snip the rest.
Bob
Teal
I'm getting sick of Sean Connery anyway, he's getting
too old for these types of movies. It's a shame he can't move
on to something else, I know he has talent ( ie Clint Eastwood's move
from sterotyped Dirty Harry image to "The Bridges of Madison County",
just for example. ) but he probably never will.......
.
He is always Sean Connery playing Sean Connery playing a Sean Connery
character
in some action thriller or international spy movie,,,blah !!
--
"Prayer is the belief you are talking to God. Schizophrenia is
when God talks back."- Anonymous Heretic Crusader.
Nd1942
terrible movie completely full of plot holes and nonsense. However, most
viewers are willing to suspend belief "because it's a movie", and that's ok,
usually. For some reason, I found this particular movie highly contrived and
stupid.
Regina Alexandra Robbins
But interestingly, free of sex! I was plesantly surprised--not because I
don't enjoy a good boink scene, but in this kind of movie, they're so
obligatory that they're usually tiresome. If you can't do the sex scene
in a fresh or funny or especially moving or exciting way, don't do it.
Good for the makers of ENTRAPMENT for knowing their limitations.
RAR.
