This is genius. I didn’t expect such a high quality analysis from a small channel. Subbed for sure, good work

@HowStoriesWork

4 ай бұрын

Thanks! Appreciate the comment and the sub!

I thought I was the only one who would think this way😂 I totally didn’t get the relaxing/humanizing aspect of the eye twitch! Great vid

@HowStoriesWork

2 ай бұрын

Thanks, Joy! Thanks for watching and commenting!

Great point on this! I think the killer missed subliminally on purpose because he missed the “up close” work, as he mentioned in the opening scene

@HowStoriesWork

5 ай бұрын

That’s a great theory. I like it! Thanks for watching and commenting!

Great movie and the review. I was confused about why he got away with murder. But she and he didn't. She was not trusting anyone. Bravo. My kind of picture!

@HowStoriesWork

6 күн бұрын

Agreed! Thanks for watching and commenting!

You're so right. When the waiter 1st came and asked if he could bring the menu, she responded (paraphrasing): "no, thank yo. A flight of whiskeys. And bring *MY* bottle please." Keyword "MY".. Which means the expert had a bottle ready for such a moment. The killer in fact took a shot of whiskey with her.

@HowStoriesWork

Ай бұрын

Nailed it! 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

Thank you for your explanation...❤

@HowStoriesWork

11 күн бұрын

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it!

Great analysis. Everything makes sense but in order for the Expert to setup the radioactive spec, she must have known that she was being followed. What are the clues that reveal that the Expert knew that she was being followed? There was a bizarre traffic stop that really seemed out of place in the movie but i didn't notice anything revealing the Killer's hand in that scene. Can you make this clear?🤔

@HowStoriesWork

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching and commenting! And this is a great question. Two thoughts: 1) I don’t think she HAS to know. She might just eat at that restaurant all the time and she has a backup plan. She could take her targets there to deliver the radioactive spec. BUT… 2) I think she does know… but the evidence isn’t great. Like you said, him pulling up next to her was weird-especially since she doesn’t look over. And then when he makes a right turn to follow her, it’s pretty obvious. Also, she does go to that restaurant where she clearly has a trap set up. And finally, when he’s observing her at home, it feels like she’s setting him up. In his narration, he’s almost suggesting she’s doing the job wrong, but she’s called “The Expert,” which indicates she’s way ahead of him… But to your point, the evidence that she definitely knows isn’t as strong as the other evidence. Fantastic question.

@wrestledeep

4 ай бұрын

@@HowStoriesWork Since the Expert scene is such a pivotal point in movie, what i find interesting is that Fincher (who is primarily a Visual Artist) decides to use (kind of) a rambling soliloquy by The Expert as a turning point in the movie rather than show any visual clues (ie. at the time of the meeting) regarding the radioactive spec. This is the only questionable issue that i have with your theory: Fincher would/should have definitely incorporated that into the mise en scene. Perhaps a video looking deeper into this might help?

You nailed it!

@HowStoriesWork

4 күн бұрын

Thanks, John!

You are genius man. Very good explanation. What about the last words of the killer?

@HowStoriesWork

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching and commenting! I took The Killer’s last words to mean this: 1) In the beginning of the film, he talks about humanity being made up of “the few” and “the many,” and he’s one of the few. 2) At the end, he has realized that he’s not a pure, cold-blooded killer. But my take is that he also thinks he’s been able to escape his life of crime. Meaning, I think he’s prideful in his ability to escape the consequences of his actions. So, he describes himself as “one of the many,” but he hasn’t really escaped the implications of his actions just yet. That’s kinda how I saw it.

Yeah,hitmen carry polonium around with them.he don't die,he retires.

@HowStoriesWork

2 ай бұрын

He might live… you’re right, he CAN survive if he’s got an antidote. That’d be a cool way to start out a sequel.

@supergrissi

Ай бұрын

In the future, please hit "SPACE" after comma...

It’s a cool theory and that’s what makes film fun but I can believe the expert would choose to poison him in such an ineffective and extravagant way when she could have just used a poison that was better which would kill him instantly and saved her life? What kind of expert is that? The premise seems to be based on a character doing something that is entirely out of character.

@HowStoriesWork

5 ай бұрын

See my reply to your other comment for rationale…

@biometrix1000

2 ай бұрын

Dumbest answer ever,

@HowStoriesWork

2 ай бұрын

@@biometrix1000 I mean, they left me two comments in this same feed, so I answered both questions in the same answer (as they were related). So... yes, without that context, that's a dumb answer. LOL

Why wouldn’t she put a poison in there that killed him instantly? I don’t know like hydrogen sulfide. Which kind of looks like a heart attack until they do toxicology. What kind of expert is that? Did she want to die also? I honestly don’t get it. I know it’s a movie and it’s suppose to have deeper meanings about life in general but if this is true then she is a moron. This is James Bond villain level of stupidly of throwing him on a table with a laser instead of just shooting him.

@HowStoriesWork

5 ай бұрын

You might be right! But here are my thoughts: (1) This is a pre-determined methodology for her. In other words, she has a bottle on hold with the restaurant. If it kills someone RIGHT AWAY, then anyone investigating it can tie it to her. And she doesn’t know in advance that she’s going to be killed. So if she wants to take someone out to dinner to kill them, this is perfect. Can’t be traced back to her. She just doesn’t know he’s going to kill her at first. (2) She seems pretty done anyway. Like, she seems resigned to the fact that this is part of that life. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want HIM to reap the consequences of his actions. What’s your alternative theory? Or do you think I’m right, but it just doesn’t work well?

Does anyone know why the killer didn't clean up the expert's body? The lawyer's secretary had to plead not to be hidden after death. I initially thought it was related to the prevailing notion of the partners' guilt, but all the waitress saw him at the restaurant.

@HowStoriesWork

2 ай бұрын

This is an excellent question. I think the plot/character answer is that he’s so far off his mantra that he has become insanely sloppy. Whether or not that’s a fair thing for the character to do likely depends on the audience. I have a longer The Killer Explained video where I go in-depth on his character arc and why he’s getting so sloppy.

@Jake-ed9hz

Ай бұрын

he mentions that her spouse will be the primary suspect im not sure but i think he's relying on the people in the restaurant assuming he is her partner and when she is found they will assume her partner did it and there wont be any dna evidence on her to prove otherwise (just my theory)

It is a good chanel,I dont mean to sound disrespectful,in fact i should'nt have assumed myself because ultimatly you could be righ. Im English,please excuse the short brashness. Keep the chanel going sir

I was expecting the end to have them die, because he let the client live and that falls back on them. Not sure about the experts involvement in the poisoning though 😉

@HowStoriesWork

5 ай бұрын

It’s very, very subtle… I’m not sure why she would say: “When your time comes, you’ll be thinking of me.” What reason could she have for saying that, do you think? Thanks for watching! It was a fantastic film!

While the movie is based on a comic series, I doubt that ending. The Killer still has a lot off stuff to do and can’t just die.

@HowStoriesWork

5 ай бұрын

What do you think the facial twitch is? I love alternate theories!

@ericnorman7409

21 күн бұрын

@@HowStoriesWorkperhaps it’s just his conscience. While relaxing thinking his past was behind him, the twitch was his bodies way of reminding him he can never escape his past. Facial necrosis is more characterized by skin lesions. It’s otherwise known as necrotizing fasciitis or more commonly flesh eating bacteria. Also, if it was a radioactive “spec”, I don’t know that it would have manifested that quickly with such a small amount. The bottle in the restaurant would have been radioactive making those in the restaurant exposed to radiation unless it was stored in some sort of seriously leaded enclosure. I know these are more scientific explanations but perhaps the director wanted you to think something more sinister happened than what actually occurred.Just my 2 cents but I also enjoyed your theory of the ending!

@theraccoonkf1027

14 күн бұрын

I've read several Fincher interviews now and he's said nothing about him being poisoned or that the "expert" did anything to him at all so I think Fincher would definitely argue this theory but it's a really cool theory anyway