Talk:The Usual Suspects/Archive 1

Archive 1

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Usual Suspects, Unusual Devices". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 56–71. ISBN 0745315844.
• Gilmore, Richard Allen (2005). "A The Usual Suspects Moment in Vertigo: The Epistemology of Identity". Doing Philosophy At The Movies. State University of New York Press. pp. 33–56. ISBN 0791463915.

Vandalism

Grza please stop vandalising the page, espcially since you do not check your facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.80.50 (talk • contribs)

I apologize for the mistake, it's been fixed. Please stop vandalising other pages, because sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between your good faith edit and vandalism, especially when you get the facts wrong and relate it to Bryan Singer instead of Christopher McQuarrie. Oh, and sign your talk page posts. --TheGrza 23:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Who is Grza and why is he saying all those terrible things about me?--Rotgut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.188.98 (talk • contribs)

Who is Grza... He's supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody ever believed he was real. Jafafa Hots 09:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

HE IS THE DEVIL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.88.26 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Translation

I know Hungarian. Is it worth noting that often the "translations" of the burn victim are far from accurate (in fact, often outright completely different)? For example: Hungarian: "This guy knew the devil. He worked with him." English "translation": "He doesn't know what they were buying but not dope. Uh, people." GameCreator 08:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It means that Singer didn't need accuracy. He just wanted Hungarian. You can put up exactly what's said in Hungarian as trivia.--75.32.120.66 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No wonder, the guy speaks so bad hungarian I can't make it out, although I am hungarian. I remember something like I've seen the devil ("láttam az ördögöt"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.98.148 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Hungarian point is the Agent's name "Kujon" means something like "pervert" in Hungarian. I figured it for an inside joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.58.165 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Memorization

"It is also worth noting that when we first see Kint in the office where he is interviewed, alone, he is looking at the board with all the information of unsolved cases etc. If looked at carefully, one can see his eyes moving in such a manner that he is memorising the board." What does this mean exactly? Who can tell that someone is memorizing a message by their eyes? Jmlk17 09:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is implied in the film, through the sequence of events. I've seen the film many times, and the editor who inserted that content is correct. I'm reverting. --Viriditas 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enoughJmlk17 04:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fenster

I heard somewhere that Fenster wasn't supposed to be as major a character as he was, that he was written simply with no affectation - and that Benicio del Toro decided to use the characterization he had created, in sort of a "what the hell" attempt to go for broke and make a minor role more interesting and possibly lead to something... and that he sprung this on the director, the director liked it and expanded his role - turning it into del Toro's breakthrough. If there is confirmation of this somewhere, its an interesting side story that I think would be a good addition to the trivia section. Jafafa Hots 07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• As evidence for this point, Benicio del Toro is credited in the "Also Starring" openning credits, rather than being a primary credit prior to this. Tomwithanh 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The filmmaker's commentary of the DVD mentions that Fenster's speaking style was an invention of del Toro's. Singer mentions that he instructed the actors to ask him in character to repeat himself when they couldn't understand him, which happens at least twice in the movie. Other than that, I don't recall any mention of his role being expanded.68.5.253.250 02:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dean Keaton street?

Um, no. First off, you’re spelling it wrong. The street is “Keeton” and it’s named after a guy who was dean of the UT law school in Austin. Big tort law aficionado. There’s a whole Wikipedia article about him, even. (Austin is weird but not quite weird enough to name streets after random movie villains, no matter how awesome.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B11F:EE60:34A9:1B21:317F:51C9 (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

just curious about this new addition - how can a street have two names, Dean Keaton AND 29th Street? I'm just thinking that if there was a brief way to explain it, that would be good. Jafafa Hots 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is unclear that 26th street in Austin (now Dean Keaton for a significant stretch) was renamed that because of this movie. A citation would work nicely where this is brought up. Also, for the portion of the street where the name has been changed, the street is no longer officially known as 26th street. But, having two names shouldn't be a problem. Interstate highways, afterall, usually carry their number tag (i.e. I-35) and a formal name after some important historical figure, etc. Tomwithanh 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen several streets that bear two names, sometimes even listing both on the street signs. Most of the exmaples I know of are in Manhattan, but that's where I spend my time; no doubt there are several examples in other places. As an example, 6th Avenue is labeled both "Avenue of the Americas" and "6th Avenue" for a stretch in mid-town Manhattan. --Badger151 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes

Just changed a couple of things on this page. Keyser Soze is a Turkish dope-runner, not a Hungarian. The "neighbouring gang" was Hungarian, although it's never made clear where they are when the events take place, so I changed it to read "a rival Hungarian gang".

The boat is harboured in San Pedro, not Santa Monica. Changed this on the page.

Also, regarding the trivia point about the fax reading "Attn: Jack Bauer". I don't remember being able to read it that well, but it makes sense that it would read "Attn: Jack Baer", since that was the name of the FBI agent played by Giancarlo Esposito who set up the picture ID-ing of Soze at the hospital and had since gone to the San Pedro police headquarters.

budget

In the opening paragraph the budget is $4M, but in the table on the right it is $6M. So which is it? --Bp0 01:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

similarity between names

The article mentions that a possible translation of Kaiser Soze is 'Verbal King'. Does anyone know if the similarity to 'Verbal Kint' is then a deliberate choice by the writer or wishful thinking by the translator of the phrase (i.e. Turkish transliteration of the German word kaiser seems convoluted) Slinky Puppet 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Random Reply: In the special features on the DVD Brian Singer talks about the naming of Keyser Soze. Keyser means "king" and Soze, he says, means "talks to much," so it was at least partially deliberate.

I already made an entry at this Talk page questioning the spelling of "Keyser." If the DVD states it was intended to translate as a synonym of King, then I am going to go ahead and replace "Keyser" with "Kaiser." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dean Keeton Information

East 26th Street is on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin and is named for a former law school dean named Page Keeton, the father of Texas Comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn, mother of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. The renaming of East 26th has absolutely nothing to do with The Usual Suspects. I'm removing this false information.

Jyroberson 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Initial critical and commercial reception

The article is incorrect in its description of the film's commercial and critical response when it opened in the States. Critical response, despite Roger Ebert's pan, was overall quite favorable (it scored an 89% on the Tomatometer), and the film's box office momentum was such that it expanded from a limited release into a fairly wide one. With a budget of $6 Million (and not $4M, as the article also incorrectly states), a final gross of $23,272,306 (IMDb.com and others) means the movie was quite profitable for an independent in limited release.

Trivia

Someone needs to properly add all the trivia content back into the Cultural References. The wikipedia author who deleted most of the content, did so with out any regard to those before him. This is just wrong, and someone needs to fix it.

---

I'm not sure how to add to the discussion, so I'll just write here at the bottom.

It says that in Hammett's "The Big Knockover," Papadopoulous is referred to as a "gint." (And needs a citation.) I can't verify that that word is never used, but I can say that "gink" is. I would bet that this is a mistake on whosever part wrote the original, and that "gint" is never said.

I don't know if anyone has the interest to edit plot summaries, but plot summaries are always meant to be written in the present tense (at least in English). This is a basic convention that you're all supposed to learn in 9th grade English.--75.7.35.201 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

"In The Usual Suspects, such an undiscriminating dragnet is exactly the kind of operation that resulted in the five main characters meeting in a police line-up." This line in the entry is incorrect. It was no 'undiscriminating dragnet' that brought the five characters together. It was arranged by Soze. I can't think of any alternate wording at the moment to correct this and still relate the Casablanca dragnet reference. Any suggestions?--Thelonghop 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

I'm moving the Pop culture references section here until sources for it can be found and it can be integrated properly into the article. -- J.D. 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture Films

• The computer animated film Hoodwinked is a children's movie loosely based on reinterpreting Little Red Riding Hood into a parody of The Usual Suspects.
• During the ending of Scary Movie, Cindy Campbell sits in the police station trying to make sense of everything, finally realising that the killer is mentally handicapped Doofy Gilmore (after her coffee cup falls down in the same way Kujan's does, with Doofy's name printed on its bottom). He is seen walking away and proceeds to shed his outfit and fake mustache, revealing himself not only not handicapped, but actually to be a 'cool' guy who jumps into reporter Gail Hailstorm's car. The two drive off, with the former throwing the fright mask out as the final piece of evidence. Having arrived too late to capture him, Cindy stands in the middle of the street, helpless.

Deleted "trivia"

If you ask me it's a shame that the "trivia" section has to go. But let me at least put my favorite in here, so it might get intergrated later. Others can add their deleted favorites --Anjoe 11:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC):

• The line "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" may come from a prose poem in the collection Le Spleen de Paris written by Charles Baudelaire: "Mes chers frères, n'oubliez jamais, quand vous entendrez vanter le progrès des lumières, que la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!"[1]. (Roughly translated:- "My dear brothers, never forget, when you intend to praise the progress of light, that the most beautiful of the tricks of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!")

Very good performance of Spacey as a left-sided hemiplegic ,twisted as he appears in the line-up poster . But a right-handed left-sided hemiplegic should be somewhat dysarthric , not be "verbal" ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.126.244 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kissing his fingers?

It could be that I'm just insane, but I'm fairly certain that I recall the end of the film involving Kint blowing out a candle. 24.226.20.41 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot interpretation and comments by director

I should have suggested my edits on the talk page first, since I knew that a fan would revert my edits rapidly. You were quick though! Thanks for being civil and letting me know.

Though I couldn't find anything in WP:OR on plot interpretations, I can understand that there are limitations. However, much of the plot section is already based on interpretations. Take for example the line "Verbal Kint appears to be Söze". An equally or in my opinion far more likely interpretation is that there is no Söze (otherwise, as I pointed out, Söze would be one dimwitted master criminal to elaborately reveal his supposedly unknown identity to the police).

The deletion of the director's boasting about his movie being a merger of two truly classic movies and that "you can get it a second time in a way you never could have the first time around" was out of pure frustration with the sheer arrogance and ignorance of that remark. I honestly know many people that considered that Kint was just making up the story from a few minutes after his introduction. This is not rocket science, as there really are not that many options, and once you thought of it all subsequent scenes confirm the hypothesis. The movie becomes rather annoying, really, as you realize that all scenes could be (and most plausibly are) figments of Kint's imagination (and it's hard to care about any of the events then). It really boggles my mind that this ending was chosen as the most surprising plot twist ever in an IMDB poll.

Upon reconsideration, I do still think the quote should be deleted. Do we include with every movie its director's self-promotional rhetoric?

PS Feel free to move this discussion to the Usual Suspects page. Afasmit (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot certainly needs trimming per MOS:FILM. We can also move your comments to an "Interpretations" section, but we need WP:RS. I think you are reading the comments by the director in the wrong way, and I don't see anything "self-promotional" about them. The director is merely discussing his interpretation of the film, which again, can be moved to an interpretation section. While I sympathize with your personal beliefs on the matter, I encourage you to do some research on the film to find sources that support your position. It looks to me that you are reading your own beliefs into the director's comments. Of course, if you can find a source which critcizes the director in the same manner that you do, that would work. If you want to continue to criticize the quote and the source, then get a copy of "Wells, Jeffrey. "Young Duo Makes Big Splash", The Times Union, August 31, 1995" and address it directly, in the context of the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not IMDb. If you want review this movie or give your opinion on its quality, do it someplace else. What is this discussion still doing on the talk page btw? Really, very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Casablanca

The title of the film was not taken from Casablanca. Christopher McQuarrie states on the DVD audio commentary he did with Bryan Singer that The Usual Suspects was the title of a magazine article he read and he took the title from there. Count de Ville (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The article never stated that the title was "taken" from Casablanca. The article previously said that the title of the film is a reference (read homage) to a line in Casablanca, which is correct. The fact that Singer read a column in Spy magazine with the same name (a name that derives from the film) doesn't change the original statement but expands upon it. I don't understand why this was removed from the article when it was supported by a reference in the article, and is further supported by dozens more. Here is the material that was removed:

The title of the film is a reference to a line in Casablanca, in which Capt. Louis Renault (Claude Rains) protects Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) by ordering his men to "round up the usual suspects" rather than arrest Rick, who had just shot the German officer, Major Strasser.

That the title was found in a magazine article doesn't change the fact that it refers to Casablanca in both instances. There are other references to Casablanca in the film, such as the name of the production company (Blue Parrot, the name of the famous bar). Both of these ideas are supported in Roberts & Wallis Key Film Texts (2002). Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response to this comment and an explanation for the removal of this material which is supported by multiple sources, including Larsen's book published by BFI and the BFI Companion to Crime (1997). There is general consensus among film critics that the famous words used in the title originate with Casablanca, regardless of who has used it recently as a name of a magazine column. This idea is supported by professor James F. Pontuso in Political Philosophy Comes to Rick's: Casablanca And American Civic Culture (2005) and Judy Parkinson's From Hue & Cry to Humble Pie (2003) among many other sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More references

• Fried, John. (Jun. 1996). "The Usual Suspects". Cineaste. 22:2, ISSN 0009-7004>

References

Some references

• Williams, David (July 2000). "Unusual Suspects". American Cinematographer. 81 (7).
• Gray, Simon (July 2006). "Hero Shots". American Cinematographer. 87 (7).

Might want to check these out. Cliff smith (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. I will check these out.--J.D. (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Usual Suspects/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing this article. After reading through it a couple of times, I am very impressed with the article. I will be adding any necessary comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a little confusion under Origins. Are you saying that at the 1993 Sundance Festival the reporters asked McQuarrie what the film was about?

I clarified this sentence so that it should read that they asked McQuarrie what his and Singer's next film would be.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "However, the money fell through and Singer used the script and the cast to attract Polygram to pick up the negative." I don't understand this sentence. The negative of the film, the negative meaning deficit?

Negative of the film. I've clarified this.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whose voice was the overlapping voiceover montage? (Just curious as I cannot remember.)

It was actually a montage of key dialogue by various characters. I've corrected this.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "In the present, Verbal tells Kujan the story of Keyser Söze." Is the preceding not in the present?

No. The preceding bit was a flashback. The story that Verbal is telling.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have done an admirable job of summarizing the complex plot. However, I was comparing it with Reservoir Dogs and I wonder if you could orient the reader a little more as is done in Reservoir Dogs. I know it is tricky.

Hmm... Yeah, I read the Dogs one and that is quite well done. I don't suppose you could tell me what you found disorienting in The Usual Suspects plot summary? I'll take another pass at it at any rate and see what I can do.--J.D. (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the introduction helpful before the opening credits, which are then identified. Also, Rservoir Dogs identifies flashback as such but without ruining the story. I realize The Usual Suspects may be a bit more complicated, as I had to see the movie more than once to figure out what was going on. In fact, I saw it again a few nights ago, but still had to ask you about the voice montage.

I've clarified a bit more which are flashbacks and what is taking place in the present. I really couldn't do the introduction thing a la the Reservoir Dogs summary as The Usual Suspects isn't structured that way. There is an intro of sorts in the next paragraph. I think that the summary is a bit more coherent than before.--J.D. (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008

Keyser Söze merge

This article has been listed at proposed mergers

• Disagree, significant in its own right. - Tmaull (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A little context please? What does this merge concern? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Keyser Söze article. I guess the merge proposal links here for some reason. - Tmaull (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree, Wikipedia is not paper.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, one-film character. Martarius (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, strong support. Its article doesn't add anything whatsoever to the character. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 06:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I created this new userbox

The Usual SuspectsThis user works for Keyser Söze.

The code is: {{User:Grundle2600/userboxes/The Usual Suspects}} Grundle2600 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Info

"We shot 'The Usual Suspects' in 28 days, for $4 million dollars." "We all worked favored nations (referring to himself and other actors on the film), $150,000, we all had backend; never saw a dime (regarding never benefiting from the high profit of the film)." -Stephen Baldwin, January 5th, 2010, on the show Celebrity Big Brother UK

This differs from the $5.5/$6 million dollar budgets and 35 days of shooting provided in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.3.29 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not we can consider that a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On a January 13, 2011, episode of Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report," Kevin Spacey was being interviewed and said that during the making of The Usual Suspects director Bryan Singer had privately told each of the major actors in the film that they were Keyser Soze. When Singer previewed the final cut of the film for the actors, Gabriel Byrne was so upset to find out that he was not actually Keyser Soze that he had a screaming argument with Singer in the parking lot that went on for half an hour.

The statement appears at about 5 minutes and 50 seconds into the interview with Spacey. Link follows, and was still good as of 4/2/11.

71.139.182.2 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Use of bold type

I see that the list of cast and characters are in bold face. I've seen this on a lot of movies, but not on all. My personal opinion is that it's distracting and completely unnecessary, but I'm guessing the practice has found its way in to some MOS section. Could someone direct me to it? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm curious who (and why) put boldface and exclamation points in the plot description. Ridiculous.24.202.251.225 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking the page history, it was User:68.38.85.7 - they also split the plot section into subheadings, which doesn't seem that helpful. I've reverted their edits.

The bolding of the character names is a separate issue, and I agree that it seems unnecessary. I'm not that familiar with movie-related MOS, though. --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know what it means when they say the film was "shown out of competition" at the Cannes Film Festival? My mind just split in half reading that sentence. Does it mean it was escorted out of the competition, or that it was placed in the competetion, or just shown at the competition? I truly don't get it. :( Thanks if you can explain. AdbMonkey (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The spelling of "Keyser Soze"

Perhaps this issue was already addressed, but when Kevin Spacey's character is detailing the events of Soze's early life, he specifically mentions there was a rumour to the effect that Soze's father was a German. From this, I always took the spelling of his first name to be "Kaiser." Is the spelling used in this article known to be definitive ie., is it taken from the script? Because if the accurate spelling from the script isn't known for certain, I'd feel pretty comfortable in assuming that "Kaiser" was the correct spelling, until such time as definitive information on that score is brought to light. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A link in the "Post-Production" section seems to indicate that "Keyser" was the official, intended spelling. Although since the article can't be accessed online, there remains some question as to the accuracy of the source. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Kayser, not Keyser

The state bar records list a Kayser Sume(practicing in L.A. since 1991), but no Keyser Sume. These are not common names in California, and at that time California's state bar didn't have reciprocal agreements with other states, so it is very likely that this is the guy. Where does the Keyser spelling for the real guy's first name come from? He is a real living person so it's important that any Wikipedia references to him be accurate.Romaniantruths (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Best supporting actor

Why was Spacey even nominated as Best Supporting Actor when he's surely the lead? 186.105.121.131 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel Byrne was the lead of an ensemble cast. -- 184.189.219.8 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in plot

" Unbowed, Kobayashi reveals that Edie Finneran (Suzy Amis), Keaton's lawyer and girlfriend, is in his office (believing she was hired for legal services), and threatens to kill her as well as kill or maim other loved ones of the thieves should they refuse the job." Surprised this is still there, Kobayashi is not saying that he will do this but Keyser Söze will.

Elemming (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Who writes this garbage?

That synopsis is awful, especially the ending; Kujan isn't "thinking about Verbal's story", he's looking at the bulletin board, sees familiar names, and then drops his coffee cup when he realizes the story was fabricated. -- 184.189.219.8 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit button is right there. Opencooper (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

how come there is no info about the rape scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E4CC:8B00:88F2:39A1:374E:2546 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Books

There are have been books written about the film but they weren't directly used as references and have been removed from the article. They were added in good faith so it seems a shame to remove them but it is fair to say it would be better if they were used in the article as references. I thought about adding them as a Bibliography subsection, or to the External links (better than repeating things like Rotten Tomatoes that are already included as inline references) but it would be better to wait until someone uses them as actual references.

• Christopher McQuarrie (March 2001). The Usual Suspects. Faber & Faber. ISBN 0-571-20325-6.
• Ernest Larsen (June 2002). The Usual Suspects. British Film Institute. ISBN 0-85170-869-2.

I mention them here instead so they don't get completely forgotten, and can be more easily reused. -- 109.79.118.117 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to list them in a bibliography when they are not used as references. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe think of them as "See also" but ultimately the article would be better if it made use of these sources, and that's what we want, a better article. -- 109.79.70.251 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)