All "plot holes" were explained, the explainations were subtle yet they were there.
1) The girl on the train, it is implied that he had no more bullets- 8 shots in the gun, He killed seven people then went back and picked up the gun shot the dead man on the floor once more using ---7 + 1 = 8 bullets. So when he walked up to the girl he had no bullets left. She was in shock and didn't tell the cops that he had tried to kill her and had no bullets left until they brought her back her picture. She then finishes the story.
2) The train murderer and the man who killed the woman are the same person. When the dead womans boyfriend is talking to the cop he confesses that he cheated on her and that she cheated with a guy to get back at her fiance (the guy she cheated with was THE KILLER) It is implied that she was probably killed because she was simply using the guy to get back at her boyfriend. It is also loosely implied that the girl breaking up with the killer is in part what set him off on his rampage (repeated usage of the word *beep* when he is talking to the cop)
3) The killer was unstable to begin with, he hated *beep* in the neighborhood".
So it is again implied that he was a bit of a racist, and highly unstable. The person he thought was his girlfriend just broke up with him because she was only using him to get back at her fiance and he lost it. (The fiance mentions that the last conversation he had with his fiance they had argued about the cheating, it is implied that the arguement resulted in her breaking up with the guy she was cheating with (THE KILLER).
4) They left the cop alone because they assumed that it was the girl in danger not the cop.
5) The picture of the dog next to the gun also showed the upper body and tee shirt of the killer, it was the t-shirt the killer wore when he first met the cop.
5) The cop dies in the end, foreshadowing shows us the conversation about heaven being a recollection of good deeds and hell being a recollection of mistakes. The movies shows him performing several good deeds before he died (comforting the train victim by being honest with her, making up with his girl, befriending the fiance of the dead girl which led to him no longer drinking, saving the slow Lucky Boy, saving the baby and killing the killer. Its implied that these good deeds after a lifetime of mistakes are his pathway to heaven.
I hope this helps.
reply
share
svs_prk
16 years ago
Thanks for your views mate. one question left unanswered though...The killer in the train and the one got killed at the end same?
reply
share
breaandmelsteele
16 years ago
yes it's the same killer as the one on the train
reply
share
crabman85
16 years ago
yeah i was going to ask the same question cause i wasnt sure either. his hair was different between shots of him in the train and the van and i wasnt 100%. great movie by the way, watched it sunday night on SBS, highly reccomend anyone to watch this movie.
huh? I only had one banana!
reply
share
BlackSox1919-1
16 years ago
It is the same guy. There is an extended cut of the train shooting scene on the DVD, and you get a better look at him.
reply
share
countdowntoinfinity
16 years ago
Thank God for DVD’s audio commentary, or else I wouldn’t have know exactly who the “killer” was. Turns out he cut his hair.
reply
share
LCShackley
16 years ago
So...who was the "number three" guy from the lineup who chased the girl with his car?
If he was the killer and she identified him in the lineup, how was he out driving?
reply
share
gibbons-1
15 years ago
Your points...
1. Wrong...the weapon in the train shooting was a revolver...maximum seven shots (only if it was a SW 686). The weapon used in the end sequence was an automtic.
2. There is nothing but your supposition that says that the same person committed both crimes. If it's not on the screen it didn't happen.
There are far too many holes and red herrings in this film. It comes off like a great idea for which the writer could not find an ending.
reply
share
ChrisThurston
15 years ago
Are you trying to no longer suspend your disbelief or did you never suspend it in the first place?
All of the explanations are more than plausible. I felt the ending was a bit abrupt, too however it's more of a character piece than a 'thriller'. The scar of the killer's face at the beginning was probably from a tussle with the woman, his eyes go down and right, accessing the part of the brain to do with creativity. This is where people look when they lie about a past experience. I know it's subtle but rewatching the scene you'll see there's an obvious lie.
If he did get in a bar fight for the reason he said, then it's probably because he doesn't want someone else to claim credit for his killing or he deep down wants people to understand the crime.
To me, "Lucky Phil" is one of the most interesting characters. Why did he have a photo with the killer in it? Was it taken on the same day as when he visited the caravan? I assume it was as the photo was close to the photo Lucky Phil had taken with the police hat. Why was the killer visiting Lucky Phil? I'm trying to figure out where he fits in. Any ideas?
Two more questions:
The first time we see lucky Phil is from afar when they're photographing the body of the woman in the field near the road and overpass. Was she burnt? Any meaning to that?
Secondly, and more interesting to me, is about the Wedding Ring. We notice on a close up of the woman's hand and we can clearly see a wedding ring. Later we see the husband fiddling with it in the caravan. Was it returned to him by the police? Was the hand burned to signify the killer's revenge and angst for her using him to get back at her husband?
reply
share
BirdsDoThus
15 years ago
Right when the guy walked into the office I had a feeling he was a killer. Face looked the same, the hair was only a bit shorter, it made sense to me he'd cut it since they were looking for someone with long hair.
How about the fact that he used a revolver to kill the person driving the car with the baby? Looked like a damn similar gun to me. Plus the fact that he clearly owned many guns (As seen in that Lucky Phil photo) and had quite a bad temper.
Plus AGAIN, he came in to "Drop a tip" about the killings, and as they always say a lot of killers love to be "involved". I think the officer was correct in saying he wasn't targeting the girl, he was targeting the police. He wanted the attention, and wanted to get caught (Or at least have that confrontation). He went there twice and was payed little attention, was brushed off, and he flipped.
The movie would have been lame if it made the connections any more blatant. We are left knowing what the cop and the girl knew. We draw our conclusions as they might.
And there weren't too many red herrings, there were just small pieces we couldn't see connecting till the end.
reply
share