That is correct. Booker was a Napoleonic soldier before he became immortal. He never met Quynh. That was at least a century or two before the Napoleonic wars. That’s why she says “Booker I assume” or something along the lines at the end.
I hope that wasn’t a spoiler about the ending for those of us who haven’t seen it yet.
Ah, so she doesn’t know Booker, but she would have had those dreams (maybe in between deaths?) when he became immortal.
My reasons for assuming revenge was that Nile had already mentioned Quynh being crazed via her dreams and everyone even mentioning how bad it would be to die/revive for hundreds of years. And her intro to Booker felt unnaturally nice to the point of being intimidating. But I could totally see all the other theories mentioned here just as possible.
It strikes me that an immortal giving up after decades of searching threw in the towel a bit too soon. Especially once they had access to technology allowing them to search properly. How big of an area would they have to search given the sailing technology of that time?
Now I’m asking my self ‘why do I care?’
So is Andy no longer immortal? The 100 year ban didn’t sound like she wasn’t going to be around to enforce it. Any sequels will be odd she’s a normie
Really enjoyed it anyway.
Yes. After all, after he realizes the impact of the verdict, Booker says something along the lines of “I’ll never see you again then” or “then this is the last time we’ll ever see each other”.
I’d have to see it again, but I think she gives some slight indication that she’ll see him again.
Says, “maybe” or something like that.
I hope so, I enjoyed the concept of Call of Duty Godmode On
She says, “Have some faith, Booker.” (Or maybe she shortens it to Book. But, yeah.) Which contrasts neatly against her rolling her eyes at Nile’s praying in the plane.
Folks saying the bad guy is too cartoony need to watch the news. I have no trouble believing Martin Shkreli would do basically everything the villain does.
I don’t think anyone found the villain unrealistic or implausible. (Not that those are necessarily quality critera anyway.) He was simply very one-note, bland and boring.
“Unrealistic or implausible” is generally how I would read calling something “cartoonish”.
Well, Shkreli is in jail, not running an all powerful biotech firm with a paramilitary army, so I’m not sure what his example proves. But, yes, it’s the one-note, over-the-top villainy I was mainly objecting to rather that it being unrealistic per se. Ejiofor’s naivete was the implausible part.
My theory is she lost her immortality when she lost faith. I’m thinking it comes back in the future.
I found this mostly terrible. There was nothing at all that stood out to me. The acting, writing, directing, even the action scenes were all serviceable but unremarkable. Even Charlize Theron who makes a pretty good action hero came across as dour. The movie sat in this uncomfortable space where it was silly but played with earnest and without humor. I think it needed to move a few steps in either direction. e.g. More gritty, still earnest or more silly and with more humor. I vastly preferred the other recent action movie from Netflix “Extraction” which had some truly stand out action and pretty excellent direction.
I found the villain unrealistic and implausible. This is mainly due to
his rapid turn from an immoral CEO who is willing to do bad things to save humanity to an uber villain who orders people tortured for no particularly good reason.
I get that narratively it was important to show that he couldn’t be redeemed, unlike other “bad” guys in the movie who weren’t murdered at the end for their sins, but it wasn’t exactly subtle.
The villain is what he needs to be so the main characters are heroes.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing with any of this. I was more referring to there being the choice of the general archetype of an evil corporate guy as antagonist being a plausible thing. Its implementation wasn’t good for the reasons you mention - and then some.
There’s no turn. He’s all about profit and is a petulant asshole. The talk about saving humanity is just to get Copley to work with him (and, it seemed like, the lead scientist he was working with). Again, I think this is perfectly in keeping with how actual pharma CEOs have behaved, just in a fantastic situation where there are immortals. FWIW he’s not just having people tortured for no reason, though. He just thinks of the immortals purely as resources to be exploited, and doesn’t care if the process of extracting samples, etc hurts them, or if keeping them in long term isolation drives them insane, because keeping his exclusive is more important.
I’m all for villains with more depth, but I’m not sure this movie had room for that - it’s already over two hours. It was much more about the immortals themselves and to a lesser extent Copley, and I think our boy Dudley (I mean, uh…Merrick? I think?) was there to fill a plot need and did that acceptably.
Well, if it makes you happy then call the villain a caricature instead of “cartoonish”. Because he was definitely a caricature. He was an amalgam of most of the commonly hated CEO tropes all rolled into one. He was basically a hate filled pinata, just waiting to be whacked.