In Reply to: Wouldn't work; they had to drum up a fake explanation to do a trick demanded by the plot. posted by clarkjohnsen on March 6, 2007 at 14:29:18:
but it is a movie after all, and I was willing to buy it for movie purposes.If you are after complete plausibility, you won't find it here anyway; the clockwork precision with which everything had to work would not happen in real life. Many pieces had to fall just right- and they did.
It's a work of fiction after all. And I like these kind of puzzle plots, plausible or not. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and had a good time dissecting it afterward. BTW, the point I brought up about the optical method had to be pointed out to me as well. I did not put it all together myself.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- as far as plausibility I would not argue, - tunenut 14:44:21 03/06/07 (6)
- Another optical point -- - clarkjohnsen 08:08:20 03/07/07 (5)
- once again, I think that's not the point - tunenut 09:31:48 03/07/07 (4)
- Ten or so years ago there was a great TV show -- forget its name -- modelled after Mission Impossible. - clarkjohnsen 09:36:34 03/07/07 (3)
- If you remember the name please post... - tunenut 09:37:32 03/07/07 (2)
- Started with an "M"... name of a car... nt - clarkjohnsen 10:10:43 03/07/07 (1)
- Re: Mercury, Maybach, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Mini (series?) - grinagog 23:29:53 03/08/07 (0)