- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Thomas Crown Affair - Question
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:13 am
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:13 am
First, let me say that I love this movie. I'm talking about the Pierce Brosnan/Rene Russo version. Every time it's on, I tune in.
That being said, I have a couple of issues with the original heist of the Monet. First, if Crown plants the briefcase that morning while enjoying his "Haystacks," once Russo's character discovers that the briefcase was planted, couldn't they go to the tapes earlier that morning and prove that Crown did in fact plant the briefcase?
And while Crown is stealing the Monet, he dumps the frame and throws the canvas into his fold-out briefcase and folds up the canvas. How could he do this without ruining the priceless artwork?
Thoughts?
That being said, I have a couple of issues with the original heist of the Monet. First, if Crown plants the briefcase that morning while enjoying his "Haystacks," once Russo's character discovers that the briefcase was planted, couldn't they go to the tapes earlier that morning and prove that Crown did in fact plant the briefcase?
And while Crown is stealing the Monet, he dumps the frame and throws the canvas into his fold-out briefcase and folds up the canvas. How could he do this without ruining the priceless artwork?
Thoughts?
3
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:17 am to MasterBetty
Russo's character did go back and view the earlier tapes. She just chose to ignore it so that she could seduce Thomas Crown into bed and smack him on the arse while being carried over his shoulder.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:21 am to Choupique19
Russo's topless scene makes everything else in the movie non relevant to anything I care about.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:24 am to Keltic Tiger
I should've put an nb4russosbewbs in the OP. Somehow I knew it would go this direction. 
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:31 am to MasterBetty
quote:
That being said, I have a couple of issues with the original heist of the Monet. First, if Crown plants the briefcase that morning while enjoying his "Haystacks," once Russo's character discovers that the briefcase was planted, couldn't they go to the tapes earlier that morning and prove that Crown did in fact plant the briefcase?
When they turned the heat up, there was no video of anyone actually taking that briefcase and using it. Sure it implicates Crowne, but thats circumstantial at best.
quote:
And while Crown is stealing the Monet, he dumps the frame and throws the canvas into his fold-out briefcase and folds up the canvas. How could he do this without ruining the priceless artwork?
I believe the director acknowledged this was a screw up.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:36 am to elprez00
quote:
When they turned the heat up, there was no video of anyone actually taking that briefcase and using it. Sure it implicates Crowne, but thats circumstantial at best.
Sure it's circumstantial, but it's still worth going back and seeing who put the briefcase there. They didn't even have to go back that far, just that morning and it puts their prime suspect at the scene of the crime just hours before.
quote:
I believe the director acknowledged this was a screw up.
Seems like a pretty big screw up. I have to imagine they knew it was a screw up going in but needed it to work so Crown could walk out with the briefcase, they just hoped no one would notice?
Posted on 3/16/15 at 11:48 am to MasterBetty
quote:
Seems like a pretty big screw up. I have to imagine they knew it was a screw up going in but needed it to work so Crown could walk out with the briefcase, they just hoped no one would notice?
The director has said that he believed audiences would be put off if they actually showed him damaging the painting/breaking the stretcher bars. So he did this and hoped the audiences would not focus on that.
I guess you could assume the briefcase could cut the bars considering he had a heater in it that heated all those rooms in a briefcase that small.
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 11:50 am
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:30 pm to MasterBetty
I don't pretend to understand how the painting fit in the briefcase. I thought it was a magical briefcase for rich people
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:36 pm to MasterBetty
quote:
And while Crown is stealing the Monet, he dumps the frame and throws the canvas into his fold-out briefcase and folds up the canvas. How could he do this without ruining the priceless artwork?
This is explained in the "trivia" section on IMDB. The move does crack the frame the canvas was on, and would have put a crease in the painting. McTiernan cut that because he thought people would be less sympathetic to TC if he actually damaged the painting.
quote:
if Crown plants the briefcase that morning while enjoying his "Haystacks," once Russo's character discovers that the briefcase was planted, couldn't they go to the tapes earlier that morning and prove that Crown did in fact plant the briefcase?
Good question.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:36 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
Russo's topless scene makes everything else in the movie non relevant to anything I care about.
This^
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:38 pm to Keltic Tiger
Renee Russo is a 60+ I'd knock the bottom out of.
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 3/16/15 at 12:55 pm to MasterBetty
quote:
hey didn't even have to go back that far, just that morning and it puts their prime suspect at the scene of the crime just hours before.
a) I'm going to assume that Crowne would have had pretty good lawyers. So investigators knew that they would have to be 100% positive on what they could prove.
b) Russo's character did suspect Crowne. She just had to keep searching for the proof.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 1:42 pm to MasterBetty
quote:
Sure it's circumstantial, but it's still worth going back and seeing who put the briefcase there. They didn't even have to go back that far, just that morning and it puts their prime suspect at the scene of the crime just hours before.
So theres video of the briefcase there, but none of that briefcase being used as part of the crime.
Were they able to identify people on those cameras?
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:54 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
Russo's topless scene makes everything else in the movie non relevant to anything I care about.
came here to post this
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News