Hacker News Reader

Comment by vander_elst | Hacker News Reader

[spoiler warning] Just watched the movie yesterday evening and I was also quite disappointed, some of the choices did seem cheap, the twin, the book stopping the bullet, the "punishment" of Miles by the destruction of the Mona Lisa. I think that the movie had some potential, but after the twin reveal everything started going south.

Edit: added warning

View on HN

Maybe you should add a spoiler warning.

BTW I thought the punishment was very good writing. As long as he's rich, all will lie to protect him. Once the source of his money - which is he reputation of Klear - is destroyed, all of them stop lieing to cover for him. I thought it highlighted their hypocrisy exceptionally well.

Imo if you destroy the Mona Lisa to punish a person, you don't punish a person, you destroy the Mona Lisa.

I agree, and this plot point unsuspends my disbelief more than any others.

When the twin destroyed that painting, she became the villain of the movie.

Not the one who paid off a government to take a national treasure, then recklessly bypassed the security controls for their own amusement?

Or launch an unsafe product for the general public?

I guess it would have been more precise for me to say she became "a villain". Still I think that purposeful destruction of priceless art is worse than negligence, however horrible that negligence was (and it was horrible).

[spoilers] I don't know if this is intended as a feature of the film, but it's clearly not the real Mona Lisa. That showed paper burning; the Mona Lisa is painted on wooden boards.

I was sorta expecting that they would point out that Miles was himself taken in by the Louvre, and given a museum shop print. But it doesn't work with the film's final gag, so I guess it's just an error.

Ah, well. I don't take mystery movies too seriously for just that reason. It was fun and I enjoyed it.

You raise two interesting questions for me: 1) how reckless with a treasure of humanity can person A be and still not be at fault if person B does the actual physical destruction (IE if I placed the magna carta on someones seat and didn't tell them when they were about to sit down, and they tore it when sitting, I would be at fault, yes?) 2) how dangerous does a person need to be before destroying a treasure of humanity is a valid way to avert disaster (I want to come up with an example involving the terra cotta army but my coffees still kicking in)

I think part of the point of the movie was that EVERY character was a psychopath who prioritized their own interests over what would be true or best, and that scene shows that she’s not exempt from that

[spoilers] I like the interpretation, but I wish this were highlighted a bit more, imo the movie seems to suggest that the twin will pay no consequences for her act but only the bad guy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com