Or at least a waste of a character. This movie heavily leans on this unresolved subplot involving the psychiatrist and makes it a weak film. I have a feeling that originally, Dr Norman Roth had a bigger role.
I can't make-up any good signatures
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
I got the idea the character added something to the film. He had to be there so Linda could go to him, try to figure out what the hay was going on as his name was on the pill bottle. To confide in him so he could tell authorities Linda had come to see him on Tuesday saying her husband was already dead. Then he prescribed the pills that she'd locate on Thursday morning. To add confusion that would come clear when the viewer of the film was "blinded by the light" so to speak.
==============================
He lifts me clear to the sky, you know he taught me to fly.
He is a key character. When watching a film, ask yourself the following: Who is the protagonist? What is the protagonist's plight? And how does such-and-such character help to create or heighten the plight and/or to help the protagonist resolve the plight (or to NOT resolve the plight in the case of tragedy).
Interested in collaborative work on a new type of film rating system? Contact me
Roth was not really pointless, but whoever throught that Peter Stormare in this outfit made a believable psychiatrist, was on dope him- or herself. Not one single moment did I believe him in this role. He more came across as some mafioso, like his role in Prison Break. Complete miscasting.
shareYes but he looked good ! LOL
shareNot only he was a pointless character,but looked more like a patient than a doctor xDD
share[deleted]