Prisoner#1 said:

akira_akuma said:

seriously, how does he kill the guy at the truck and then hop on the boat to set up Keaton?

---

he kills the guy on the truck and then gets on the boa to kill keaton and then
burn the russian which is how the russian managed to give the details for the
sketch... another way, look at the very end at how kent smokes the cigarette

---

yeah, the cigarettes, with him actually keeping the lighter and watch, kinda tells that he is Kaiser. you're right Pris. but still... i dunno, if you'll ever watch the movie again, (and i kinda doubt it) but if you do... look at all the clues pointing to the only other person at the end, THE LAWYER, can be tied to pretty much every part of the plan; if you assume that the story as is told, is true. (as in what's literally shown in the film. which shows that if Verbal/Kaiser is ALSO the trenchcoat killer, then that whole "showing" of events is made up. )

kinda makes it Hollywood magic, sadly.

Prisoner#1 said:

akira_akuma said:

Verbal Kent is too obvious, and there are clues that point to him being a fall guy.

---

most of these reason you've names as to why it couldnt be kent is exactly why
it was kent, it was so obviously him that everyone would expect it to be
someone else

---

perhaps this is true enough. but i gotta say, how...

Quote:

it's showing the story he told, not what really happened

---

is kinda cheesy, considering they could have made the lawyer (whom remains unnamed in reality) the real planner, using the "Kaiser Soza" myth with Verbal/Kaiser as a cover story. making one have to think about how the story could actually be real; just set up to prevent a random unnamed character (whom gets worked into the story with a made up alias and nothing else) controlling everything behind the scenes, from being caught. though, then it does call into question if he is Kaiser or not, which is hard to pinpoint, considering that Verbal is pointed out as Kaiser, clearly; which also makes it that Verbal IS making up that he was off the boat. which would make the whole finger pointing useless anyways. then again, though... there is no reason to think that he wouldn't do all that to make is so he could get away with his partaking in the crime too, along with the lawyer.

again, though... i think i read to much in to plotting and it seems that the story is "SHOWN" to be false, just as it is told.

(the movie would have been better if they didn't ahve to trick and blackmail the whole audience to watch scenes that actually don't really happen.) 

but fine. the movie isn't as good being so obvious@! it's like you're watching make-believe (which i guess is the point) as opposed to a well-versed crime in reality. making the movie more about how brazen Kaiser is, and less about plotting a crime.

but yea, last point of contention... frok you, Pris for saying i suck for looking into all the obvious plot holes and cheese in the movie, when it's obvious to anyone who watches it, who is "pointed out" as Kaiser Soza, even before the fax comes and the coffee drops! it's not like i didn't get it the first time i watched it, damn it!1

i just looked to much into other outcomes being possible.

Prisoner#1 said:

RedSnapper said:

Verbal was fudging all of the details of his story using names and what not that were right in front of his face, from that office.

---

now why would he have gotten into the back of the car with the guy being Kobayashi driving?

you guys fail at movies

---

oh and for another answer...IF Verbal is indeed Kaiser Soza (which is most probable, i admit) maybe he needed to be gotten out, so he wouldn't finger someone who might have employed HIM to begin with... spinning that it wasn't Kaiser's "plan" and it could have been someone else's. (making it so that the story about him needing to kill anyone who knew his face another placeholder for the plotline) if the movie is about showing a fake story... couldn't it be argued that the fake story isn't what the movie is about? that the Kaiser character isn't what the movie is about? Kaiser does after all take the money, in the van, after all is said and done.

but this is my last shameless thread bump. no will read this and consider it. the movie is from 1995. oh well.

Burke Dennings said:

A lot of movies just leave it open to your own interpretation.  I like that. 

In this movie, I think it was meant to be interpreted as a thing that Soze/Kint masterminded to eliminate a threat (the guy who saw Soze).  I forget how it all played out with the money, but I was always under the impression that the assassination was the main goal.

---

Quote:

A lot of movies just leave it open to your own interpretation.  I like that. 

---

gzuf said:

I just assumed he was able to do all that because he is Kobayashi, he is crime lord numero uno, I'm sure there are plenty of corrupt police officers and shit to choose from, to give a bunch of money and be like "make this happen"

---

it's possible that it can be as convoluted as it being all planned by Verbal himself. but if you're not confusing the names (Kobayashi isn't Verbal Kent [Kevin Spacey], Kobayashi is the Lawyer) then i agree with your conclusion.

haha, in my opinion, it could be either or. BOTH conclusions make sense. that's what is making wonder... sweeettt.

koods said:

I think the "usual suspects" refers to the cops getting the characters they expect,

---