Amanda Peet character unnecessary
Is it just me or is the sister character (played by Amanda Peet) totally annoying and irrelevant?
shareAgree with you completely. She plays the role totally charmless too.
share
MovieChat Forums > High Crimes (2002) Discussion > Amanda Peet character unnecessary
I was thinking the same thing while I was watching it. I kept thinking maybe there would be some kind of reason for her character to be there, but she was just eye candy I guess. And yes, she was annoying.
shareLove Amanda but I agree in a way.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.
The purposes she served in this movie were eye candy and comic relief, both of which she did perfectly. Serious movies like this could use a pinch of comedy sometimes. I can honestly say she was my favorite part of the movie. It's not she like she played a major role or held up the story, her character only made scattered appearances throughout the film. Her character was very realistic too considering many people with big high-paying jobs have brothers/sisters that mooch/live off them.
shareThe purposes she served in this movie were eye candy and comic relief...Agreed. I also agree with the OP that her role is somewhat irrelevant, but the point is, she makes her character sympathetic and appealing, so we end up enjoying seeing her on the screen and her interplay with Embry. share
I agree - she had to be there for the Embry character to play off of.
She probably wouldn't make a good psychic though . . . she even asked Embry if he knew she and Claire had been attacked by the "mystery" Hispanic man as she threw her drink in his (Embry's) face. She obviously didn't remember that Embry saved her and Claire from the mystery man's attack on them. How can she predict tomorrow when she can't remember 3-4 days in the past?
I enjoyed Jackie's character. It made Claire's world ordinary and reachable.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Amanda Peet’s body is never unnecessary.
share