MovieChat Forums > Jack's Back (1988) Discussion > One part I don't understand

One part I don't understand

posted 10 years ago by maiderekk
10 replies | jump to latest

When Rick drives up to Dr. Carlos house in the middle of the night and wants him to hypnotize him again so he can flashback to his brothers murder yet again, why did Dr. Carlos seem so intent on pulling a gun on Rick and possibly shooting him right there in the study?

I also noticed Dr. Carlos had the gun on him when he chases after Rick once he bolts out of the house, but Rick had already peeled out in his car.

So I guess my question is why did Dr. Carlos almost shoot Rick? Was he just scared or did I miss something?

[–] donniemiles 10 years ago

I was wondering the same thing. My first thought was that Dr. Carlos was the real killer. But afterward, I took it to mean that the doctor was just concerned that Rick was actually the killer and was going to attack him. A gun is a nice safety measure against middle-of-the-night psychos!

"I'll have a bloody Mary and a steak sandwich and...a steak sandwich please."

[–] Legendary_Badass 9 years ago

The way this movie plays out I have to think there were disagreements on how to end it. It doesn't make sense for Rick to ask about the clinic's drugs when he never found any at a crime scene or the like. It doesn't make sense for Picardo's character to act suspicious in his last scene.

THE ONLY CRITIC WHO CAN REVIEW WHILE JOGGING:
http://bit.ly/1pPzoBc

[–] catjoescreed 9 years ago

What I don't understand is why the perpetrator has this obsession with Jack the Ripper in the first place. Why go to all that trouble to absolutely duplicate one-hundred-year-old murders, right down to the day, and, having gone to that trouble, why break pattern with a final murder that has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper? It seems really contrived.

I thought the real murderer was telegraphed to us from the get-go; it was pretty obvious who the perp was going to turn out to be. But why? That was never even partially clarified.

I gave this movie a five because, whatever else is lacking in terms of verisimilitude, Spader is unspeakably hot.

[–] sage2112 8 years ago

Had the story ended with Picardo's character being the killer, would you still have said the real killer was obvious and telegraphed? Yes is the answer.

[–] toallitas 8 years ago

It probably would have made more sense for Rick to call Chris and warn her before driving to her house, lol.

[–] Alfabeta 8 years ago

He still believed that Rick is the killer and was fearing for his life. The real question is actually how did Rick know where the doctor would strike next and for that matter, how did the cops that arrive at the end know that also?

[–] iciclespark 7 years ago

He knew from the shoeprint he saw in Chris' yard when she was peeped on. When he remembers seeing Sydney while at the shrink's house, he remembers the shoes from the store, ties it to the footprint because of the distinctive pattern and then goes to Chris.

[–] Alfabeta 7 years ago

But how did he know that the killer would strike just then?

[–] iciclespark 7 years ago

He didn't for sure but since he likes Chris, he went anyway. Even if he wasn't attacking her right that minute, he could warn her about Sydney and protect her.

[–] strangenstein (683) 6 years ago

The doctor thought Rick may have been the murderer; hence, the gun for protection. I like how the movie juggles the red herrings here, making us think the doctor - and possibly Rick, himself - is the murderer.