MovieChat Forums > Wilderness (2006) Discussion > Plot flaw in suprisingly good movie

Plot flaw in suprisingly good movie


This was a suprisingly good film. The idea of a vengeful parent out to take revenge on the bullies that harmed his son is kind of tried and true, but I like the way they presented the theme in this movie. One of the most eerie moments was when Davie's dad camoflouged himself in the leaf pile. That was really cool! But, if the dad was out to kill these kids, then why just bop the male lead on the head with a piece of wood and leave him there to be found by the others. Was that supposed to be a warning? Did he think he killed him? Seems to me that if he wanted to kill them all (except for Lindsay) he would have used his very first opportunity to kill the lead when he was alone getting water for the others.

And whatsmore, why kill the women, who had absolutely nothing to do with Davie and just happened to be on the island at the same time? That was crude and totally undeserved. Along the same lines, the death of the tramp? I guess we are supposed to believe that the dad was actually nuts/psycho and was using the bullying to justify his human hunting games.

I still liked the movie beside what I perceive as plot flaws.

reply

[deleted]

Or as a shorter answer,was id davies dad who hit him on the head or on of the girls before we see them?
It could easily have been one of them when they first saw the boys sneaking around.

reply

1. it was obviously the bum who they later showed with the stick that hit Callum.

2. He wasn't expecting the girls to be there but once he killed one person in front of the girls he had to kill everybody. As for the tramp I guess he came across him by mistake and had to kill him to keep his presence a secret.

reply

I don't think you know the definition of the word plot hole/flaw.
a plot hole is something that the plot sets up as truth,
then changes that truth.
since the father was killing or hunting all of them on the island
without prejudice, this is not a plot flaw, it simply is what
they wanted this character to do.

also, we know that it was either the bum or one of the
girls who knocked him out with the stick, since he wasnt
killed, like you say. it doesn't really matter which one.

the father didn't kill the bum, the 2 boys killed the bum,
we see the lead boy, when he discovered the body, he picks
up a broken bottle, which one of the 2 a-hole boys killed
the bum with. the dogs just chewed on the bum. he might
have been still alive barely, but the father didn't want the bum
to alert anyone of his presence or the guy was suffering.

sometimes I wonder of you guys watch these movies at all.


oh, and it is common courtesy to come back and reply that
you received the answer we gave you.





http://www.facebook.com/mike.d.keith?ref=profile

reply

If memory serves though, the dog bites were bleeding. Plus, they say "we didn't kill the tramp" in a way that was more believable. At that point, there was no reason to lie.

The tramp was obviously killed by the hunter's dogs.

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror



reply