heyse@vi.ri.cmu.edu (Donnell Heyse) (10/21/85)
Warning...Warning...Wanring...Warning...Warning This whole message is a spoiler so don't read any of this if you haven't seen this movie and still want to. I went to see this movie with several friends and we all want to know how it ended. All the messages we've seen so far on the bboards mention only two suspects. All right thats how we felt right up until the end of the movie also. Is there anybody else who thought the killer looked like the janitor????? They only gave a very short glimpse of the killers face at the very end of the movie, and three quarters of the people that I went with left the theater very disapointed that the killer turned out to be such a random guy. Or was he? Who saw the movie and is absolutely positive about who the killer was supposed to be? I want some answers and I want them now...
bright@dataioDataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (10/23/85)
In article <211@vi.ri.cmu.edu> heyse@vi.ri.cmu.edu (Donnell Heyse) writes: > > Warning...Warning...Wanring...Warning...Warning > > This whole message is a spoiler so don't read any of this if you >haven't seen this movie and still want to. > > > > > > > > >Who saw the movie and is absolutely positive about who the >killer was supposed to be? I saw it and am absolutely positive that the face was that of Jeff Bridges. I know it's him because he's wearing the same weird expression he did when he died in 'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot'. By the way, one thing bugs me a lot about the ending. If Jeff was such a smart, calculating murderer, why did he so stupidly go after his lawyer in the end? He had already been aquitted, and could not be tried again. He was home free, no matter what new evidence turned up.
alexd@athena.UUCP (Alex Doumani) (10/24/85)
In article <211@vi.ri.cmu.edu> heyse@vi.ri.cmu.edu (Donnell Heyse) writes: > > Warning...Warning...Wanring...Warning...Warning > > This whole message is a spoiler so don't read any of this if you >haven't seen this movie and still want to. > > > > > > > I went to see this movie with several friends and we all want to know >how it ended. All the messages we've seen so far on the bboards mention only >two suspects. All right thats how we felt right up until the end of the >movie also. Is there anybody else who thought the killer looked like the >janitor????? They only gave a very short glimpse of the killers face at the >very end of the movie, and three quarters of the people that I went with left >the theater very disapointed that the killer turned out to be such a random >guy. Or was he? Who saw the movie and is absolutely positive about who the >killer was supposed to be? I want some answers and I want them now... For those of us here that are familiar enough with Jeff Bridges believe, beyond any doubt, that he, and not the ganitor, owned the face behind the mask.
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (10/24/85)
> By the way, one thing bugs me a lot about the ending. If Jeff was such a > smart, calculating murderer, why did he so stupidly go after his lawyer > in the end? He had already been aquitted, and could not be tried again. > He was home free, no matter what new evidence turned up. Because he had been acquitted only for the murder of his wife, not for the previous assault on the surprise witness from Santa Cruz (sorry, I forgot the character's name). He could still get nailed for that one. But why did he keep the typewriter after it had served its purpose?!? Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl ****************************************************************************** * Get a Usenetter on the ballot at Confederation! * * Nominate MARK R. LEEPER for Hugo for Best Fan Writer in 1986! * ******************************************************************************
mer@prism.UUCP (10/27/85)
Oh, come on, of course it was the Jeff Bridges character. I thought the
face was really clear, besides the facts that (a) it would be too much the
coincidence of the janitor or whomever showing up just at that moment;
(b) if it weren't the Bridges character, he would have shown up, or she
would have called him afterwards; and (c) don't you think she would have
looked relieved and one or the other of them would have commented on who
it was?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose..."
Meredith Lesly
{mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube} !mirror!merpking@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/28/85)
It was a dumb move to go after his lawyer, because he couldn't be tried for the Santa Cruz attack, if you recall the judge tells the DA when in chambers, something on the order of.."if you try to connect Jack Forrester to that attack I'll have it thrown out.." So he was home free on both of them.
bill@hp-pcd.UUCP (bill) (10/29/85)
Even though he could not be tried again for his wife's murder, do you really think the guy would just sit back knowing that his attorney knew he was guilty and could potentially make public that knowledge. Sure, he wouldn't go to jail for the same crime, but how long would he last in the community if word got out that the trial was a farce and that Jeff Bridges was the killer. The falsely-accused tennis pro was still on the loose, so why not take advantage of it and make the attorney's murder look like just one more of the other guy's crimes? After all, wouldn't the tennis pro feel a little like getting even with her, too? I don't know, though, if she'd make it known that the trial came out wrong. It'd be a terrific blow to her never-lost-a-case-never-been-wrong court career. bill frolik hp-pcd!bill
zuker@cxsea.UUCP (Hunter Zuker) (10/30/85)
> > Warning...Warning...Wanring...Warning...Warning > > This whole message is a spoiler so don't read any of this if you > haven't seen this movie and still want to. > > > > > > > I went to see this movie with several friends and we all want to know > how it ended. All the messages we've seen so far on the bboards mention only > two suspects. All right thats how we felt right up until the end of the > movie also. Is there anybody else who thought the killer looked like the > janitor????? They only gave a very short glimpse of the killers face at the > very end of the movie, and three quarters of the people that I went with left > the theater very disapointed that the killer turned out to be such a random > guy. Or was he? Who saw the movie and is absolutely positive about who the > killer was supposed to be? I want some answers and I want them now... Me too, Me too. I thought it was the janitor's face also. This certainly didn't make much sense to me either. The person I saw it with thought it was Jeff Bridges (which is apparently the consensus answer, at least some people say that it looked like the same way he looked in another movie when he was dead - kind of a strange prerequisite for a movie) and for five minutes after the movie we were both bitching how the end didn't make any sense. Then we figured out that we both thought somebody else was the killer. We immediately both decided that what each other saw made more sense. Oh well. Hunter Zuker Computer X, Inc. Kent, Wa.