MovieChat Forums > The Bone Collector (1999) Discussion > Obvious killer is obvious (spoilers, duh...

Obvious killer is obvious (spoilers, duh)

posted 11 years ago by shrugs
10 replies | jump to latest

When the random dude showed up a 2nd time to change the guys equipment in the middle of the investigation it was obvious he was the killer. There was absolutely no other reason for his character to exists at all. Really sloppy. Anyone else annoyed by how blatant this was? Why would this guy, who I admit is no A-lister but get's descent enough roles here and there, show up as the guy who fixes medical equipment in 2 scenes? And what would the point of the character be other than simply to establish his existence so we can be shocked about who he really is later? Usually in this sort of thing they'd give a character like this a secondary function in the story or plot so it isn't so obvious, there was absolutely no point in his being there at all. The details of his equipment needing to be replaced had no bearing on the plot at all.

What if a squirrel wants a sausage?

[–] nerhal1 10 years ago

Nope

[–] MrE26 10 years ago

I did too, mainly because the trailer completely gave it away. His voice is extremely distinctive & they used it in the trailer, thus ruining any surprise.

[–] kinsayder 10 years ago

That actor (Leland Orser) often gets cast as psychos, so I had my money on him from the moment he appeared. I was still hoping for a better twist, though.

[–] feenix219 10 years ago

I remember wondering if it could have all been set up by Denzel so that he could go out with a bang or get a big win or something, and that his injury made him crazy.

[–] raymajor 8 years ago

I think I'm the only one who did not quite expect him. Thank God, I skipped the trailer. It was Howard all along in my head, that annoying stud.

Schlaaaaage!

[–] youngsteve 8 years ago

The killer in the book is completely different & takes you by surprise, as up until the end you are thinking it is someone else. As does Lincoln Rhyme. The film killer makes less sense, though I preferred the film to the book.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

It's more of a cosmetic change, with a few character changes here and there. The film stays pretty close to the book overall, though changing Amelia Sachs to Amelia Donaghy was pretty dopey IMO.🐭

[–] sage2112 8 years ago

Oh gimme a break - had the killer turned out to be Thelma, you'd be the azz out here saying you knew it all along, because she'd be the one we least likely suspect. Or whatever.

I will say, though, that I wasn't surprised it was him due solely to the fact that this actor always plays a psycho - something another poster already mentioned.

[–] shrugs 8 years ago

No. It was obvious for the reasons I've given. Think of it from the point of view of a writer. The character serves no other purpose. Not sure why you're insisting I would have said the same thing about any other character, I explained myself pretty clearly.

[–] RogueJSU 8 years ago

His second appearance is explained in his first scene. He told Rhyme that the equipment was bad and he was going to have to replace it. Yes, it's irrelevant but scripted so that it's not just a random guy popping up for a second time.