I FEEL CHEATED


I have read that rule 1A for any mystery writer/screenwriter is to provide the reader/viewer enough clues to find out the truth if you pay attention to deatils eg ...the 6th sense,any Agatha Christie ,etc,etc .

In this movie you have the killers talking between themselves as if they were afraid of being killed ,how they can get away etc,etc ..which obviously excludes them as suspects.

IMHO this is CHEATING and for me it ruined the picture which was not 2 bad except for that major flaw

reply

If you bothered watching the movie properly you would see it provides HEAPS of clues as to who the real killers are! spoilers - first off, when we see the Honeymoon video at the start WE DON'T SEE THE BRIDE AND GROOM IN THE VIDEO!!!! That was a clue! When the main couple first meet the weird couple, who try to hitch a ride, one of the main couple says 'they are suitable for framing' - this can be interpreted in two ways - first off 'framing' by putting their picture on a wall (which is the obvious meaning) but secondly, 'framing' as in 'framing someone for murder', which is what they meant!

Thirdly, look at what Rocky/cliff does in the movie when he looks closely at something - HE TAKES HIS GLASSES AWAY FROM HIS EYES - Why would he do this? Because they are not 'his' glasses (they belong to the person he killed) so he needs to remove them to see better!

Finally, rewatch their conversations together! NEVER do they actually suspect the other couple of being the killers! Like when he shows the photo of the killers and says 'do they look familiar' and Milla says 'they could be anybody' they are not saying the photos look like the other couple, they are trying to figure out WHETHER THE COUPLE IN THE PHOTOS, THEMSELVES, CAN BE IDENTIFIED FROM THE PHOTOS!!!

So in short, rewatch the movie because it provides MANY clues as to who the real killers are! I loved this movie!

Definition of troll on IMDb - anyone who expresses a view different to mine.

reply

You are right regarding clues which I did miss...
I watched it late at night & was not paying much attention as I would in a theater
But I do remember well that in a couple of dialogues when they are alone they do sound frightened wonder how they can return,etc,etc...This was misleading and what I found cheating..
Good movie tough ...Hope I catch it again

reply

i agree completely, it matters not to me wether i 'solve' the mystery but having two characters having a discussion only between themsleves about the others being the killers is completely and totally illogical, ruined any pretense of a mystery as any rational thinking person would eliminate the 'real' killers, what a crock or rubbish

reply

Embarrassing. Martin, why dont you post it for us? Post us the conversation that they had discussing the other two being the murderers? Never happens. You only assumed you knew what they were talking about, which makes you the idiot, and the writers brilliant. If you watch the movie knowing they are the killers, and listen to their conversations as if you were in their shoes, everything makes fine sense. When "Cliff" says "these two have graduated," he was really refering to the difficulty they might have in killing these two and taking their identities as easily as they have done in the past. Neither of them ever say they thought the other two were the killers except for Cydney and Gina joking to each other (even though Cydney's character is really just improvising) about them both thinking that the other couple was the killers after the police came and hauled Kale and Cleo off.

You're forgiven though. I mean, it is harder to forgive your stupidity considering you are acting so arrogant and saying things like "what a crock of rubbish," when it is in fact you who is the one that is a crock full of..you get the idea. If you had just innocently made a mistake, then you could be forgiven. This however makes you a stupid person who doesn't realize it and runs their mouth like they know what they are talking about. These are the worst kinds of people

Sorry for being so harsh, but, hey, the truth is harsh, and you didn't hesitate to trash a perfectly good film, so why should I hesitate to tell you like it is?

reply

Jesus AMSAT, is it really necessary to get that nasty?

reply

It must be--for him. A good indication that he's wrestling with some overwhelming feelings of inferiority, triggered by the post to which he was responding. It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad...

reply

Getting angry at someone for being stupid doesn't mean someone feels they are inferior. It means he's angry at the dumbass with no intelligence who could possibly ruin other people's perception of the movie..

http://www.last.fm/user/OBLIVIONxSPAWN

reply

Nah, it wasn't that necessary to get so nasty. None of us are perfect and I was probably in a bad mood. However, DooleyNoted, you do realize that you have just proven yourself to be a huge hypocrite, don't you? You attack me for posting something nasty, and then go on to assume I have overwhelming feelings of inferiority, that where, somehow triggered by the post to which I was responding? Whoa. You sound like a young kid, wet behind the ears, who just got out of college after majoring in psychology.

Anyway, I found it funny, but that's because I know where I am coming from. You find it sad because that's how you choose to view it, not because you know one single thing about me. You can pretend to with your pseudo-psychoanalysis if that makes you feel better though. The funny thing is still that you personally attack me because I personally attacked someone else.

reply

You are certainly correct that by commenting on your post as I did, I was "guilty" of the very behavior that I was judging you for. Good point. I am well beyond my college years, but I am somewhat new to the message boards--that could account for my seeming young. I should have thought more about your feelings before I posted. I know how easily you get hurt.

However, I stand by what I said. To compare your extended diatribe to the handful of sentences I wrote goes to show your immaturity not mine. Our "attacks" are not entirely comparable. (I'm not sure mine can even be categorized as an "attack," it was really more of a snotty comment.) After all, you declared the other poster to be one of the "worst kinds of people." Really?! I can think of a great many worse kinds. Anyway, I hope you still find me funny. See you at the movies!

reply

You might want to take a posting vacation. I see you insulting a number of different people and, quite frankly, it's off-putting.

reply

Rick - Were you talking to me? I don't generally think of myself that way, but I may have stepped out of line (more than once!). If so, I'll have to re-assess myself and get my act together.

reply

What a dumb analysis. Attacking you because you attacked someone is just, because - you guessed it - YOU ATTACKED SOMEONE. Does NOT make him a hypocrite.

Also, you're already stretching it by calling it an attack. He could have easily denied it being so, just say it's his honest opinion.

You guys gotta be americans. The way you think is so convoluted and dumb.

reply

Incredibly well said @ AMSATcorp

reply

OK well, this cleared it up for me. lol.

I was going to say something along these lines just without all the foulness. haha.

I watched it a 2nd time and everything seems to be fine. They don't talk amongst each other about someone else being killers. They were worried about being caught and stealing others identities (the new couple they found).

reply

a perfectly good film... hahahaha
the film is decent up until we find out who the real killers are... then the film goes downhill and FAST... so basically the meat of the film totally sucks...

I mean, I know it KIND of makes logical sense, they COULD be the killers. but it goes against every fibre of reality. This film basically goes from being a thriller to a comedy in a split second.
It truly is laughable, especially from the director / writer who tries to take his audience for such dummy's. His attempt at making those two characters stick as the killers is pathetic..

the style of the film starts changing when we find out the truth.. things start making no sense.. like how the killer climbs up that cliff in about 4 minutes.
OR how magically the guy has not drowned after being shot. How he fell into the water and his lifeless body strangely found it's way under the canoe to get air..ahaha
Also, when they are running in the forest and we get that swooping black line across the screen, which is obviously some sort of homage to some old film but still, for the tone of that specific scene it simply looks RIDICULOUS, all of a sudden we are watching tarzan or something..

If you seriously think this could happen in real life, then you can accept this as a thriller..
So in the reality we all live in, could this happen?
And don't you dare say something like "but duhh.. it's a film, not reality."
From the bottom of my heart I promise you that I understand that, but in every good thriller, the basics have to be believable. Even if it's a science fiction film, the basics have to ring true.

So can you honestly tell me, just because the possibilities are there throughout the film, that this is believable??
If they would have shown us a goat every 5th scene or so in the background, would you have accepted the goat as the killer?? Or would you rather stick to reality and go with logic?
The nicest way of describing this film would be an unintentional comedy. The type of film we will all laugh at in 15years, like "troll 2".

I know, I know... Troll 2 will ALWAYS be better.. heheh

it's almost as if this film turns into a cartoon once we find out the truth about the killers. Then we have a feeble attempt at making us believe that they could be the killer's, mind you, it is in black and white.. now that's what I call believable... :)
And then a laugh out loud tender happy ending.

To people who think this is a plausible story..
I will quote our leader AMSATcorp:



"This however makes you a stupid person who doesn't realize it and runs their mouth like they know what they are talking about. These are the worst kinds of people. Sorry for being so harsh, but, hey, the truth is harsh"

all hail AMSATcorp!! For showing us the light ;)

reply

Wow you wrote all of that and didnt manage to make one point. How is the movie not believable? This is from a while ago so you most likely wont see this but I just thought you should know you wasted your time writing that much and failing to make a point other than saying this isnt believable over and over again without explaining why its not believable.

reply

luckily I came across your reply.. coz this is too good..
I wont write anything coz I see no point. I will simply quote you and then quote myself.

you: How is the movie not believable?
me: how the killer climbs up that cliff in about 4 minutes.
me:how magically the guy has not drowned after being shot. How he fell into the water and his lifeless body strangely found it's way under the canoe to get air..ahaha
me:If they would have shown us a goat every 5th scene or so in the background, would you have accepted the goat as the killer?? Or would you rather stick to reality and go with logic?
you: failing to make a point other than saying this isnt believable over and over again without explaining why its not believable.

don't need to quote again.. you get my point... So what it really boils down to is you actually wasted your time replying to my post..
"Good for yew.."

reply

Still, when they had private conversations they would have blatantly revealed themselves in some way saying straight out "they might find out that we are the killers" or something like that.

There may have been clues but a normal conversation wouldn't talk like that. I'm not buying it.

I find it amusing how some people here act like they knew the entire storyline, figured it all out like in 5 minutes. Paleeze.

reply

> You're forgiven though. I mean, it is harder to forgive your stupidity considering you are acting so arrogant and saying things like "what a crock of rubbish".

Arrogant? It's just an opinion mate, and having one different to yours doesn't make him arrogant.

http://imdb.com/user/ur2019270/ratings

reply

Even being that it is misleading, it's still a great movie. Not every movie should play by some set of 'rules'. Lots of amazing ones have been made just by doing it differently. In fact I loved the way it turned out. If you want something where all the clues are given, watch a Sherlock Holmes story. Movies like this one is what keeps things interesting.

reply

They likely sounded a bit frightened int he scenes you speak of because this couple they met, the "good" couple were kind of special characters...they were both very strong and had many qualities which a predatory criminal couple would not want have to face if choosing them as victims. Ultimately though I think Zahn's character was so jealous he just said *beep* it I can take him. Think about the whole killing yer own food thing, the survival skills, the comfort with gore, and the war story...this guy was not just some chump...and this scared him.

I respect that you watched again and payed attention to the other reply to your OP and have noticed some of the things you missed. It is nice you are not a retarded and arrogant a-hole like many people in the board for this film. Thank you. I hope you do the same thing with my comments if they are worthy enough ( I think so) and eventually feel there was no "cheating" in the plot.

reply

Cliff keeps telling Cidney to "keep the game face on". As if they had to remember that they had to look frightened. I thought it was a great movie. I almost didn't watch it because I didn't like the title. Thought it sounded like an old TV movie.

reply

OD, excellent points all, except the glasses one. I do this all the time, because I am near-sighted. It's distance I need help with. Trying to read through my prescription is impossible.

reply

When looking at the picture of the murderers on his phone, he says, "They apparently didn't know they were being filmed" or something like that. I rewinded and just watched it yesterday. I think it was unfair to refer to the murderes as "they", of course I am sure someone on here will say that he was reading those words from the post or blog, and maybe he was.

reply

that the couple are getting 'into character' and trying not to break character, and it is easier to do this by referring to themselves in the third person. Watch the part where the other girl refers to her boyfriend by saying 'he's REALLY hard to kill' - we then see a shot of Milla Jovovich giving a smile at what the other girl just said, as if she is thinking 'we'll find out, won't we?'

Definition of troll on IMDb - anyone who expresses a view different to mine.

reply

He says "they" like they are idiots referring to themselves. have you not ever done something stupid and then said wow that guys an idiot? same senario...

reply

When they're in the tent talking about the other couple, they're like "We have to get out of here. What do we do though? We can't just say "we think you're the killers". Let's make up an excuse, say we don't feel good or something". Those are not the EXACT words but it's pretty damn close. This scene ruined this movie for me (well not ruined, I still think it's a good movie--it just puts a huge hole in plot twist). Why would they be talking like that if they were completely alone? The only person who can hear them is us, the audience. It's like they're saying it to us, because it moves the story along and makes us THINK the other couple is the killers. If this were real life though, in the reality of the story, they would never say "let's leave. we think they're the killers". They do say it, and it does cheat. Without that scene, it would've been nearly perfect.

reply

While Agatha Christi's novels and other great mysteries usually do include enough clues to solve it, usually some of the clues are either ambiguous or a character misunderstands something. For instance, the reader may be made aware that a certain character has a glass eye, and later another character may report that he saw the glass-eyed character looking in a certain direction. The end reveals the character was *really* looking the other way. The writer has to walk a line between giving you enough clues to figure it out, and making it too easy.

The scene in the tent makes sense when you remember that they feared they would be caught before they had learned enough about their companions to successfully kill them and take on their identities. In the tent, they were brainstorming different excuses they could use to leave without arising suspicion (after all, they don't want the other couple reporting them to authorities). Since one of their covers as the newlyweds was that they were afraid of the killers on the loose, an obvious excuse would be that they (as the newlyweds) thought the other couple were the killers. However, they then reject that excuse as viable since no one who thought their companions were killers would say it straight to their faces.

Very good movie. Many subtle layers.

reply

I get it now! Thank you!

reply

It cheats a little tiny bit! With a slightly stronger script or slightly better performances, this movie could have been perfect! I agree with you, it nearly, nearly works, but scenes like that slightly tarnish it!

Definition of troll on IMDb - anyone who expresses a view different to mine.

reply

Looking at the police photos:

"It could be anybody..."

"What do we know about these people?"

This is presented as a logically flowing conversation. With what we learn later, it's a complete non sequiter.

reply

i thought that was weird too, until the last quarter of the movie when he says something about a rule they have to the effects of "always stay in character" so referring to the killers as "they" is just staying true to their plan...even the most miniscule mistake by them woulda given them away so they had to "over act" in a sense.

well, you don't spell it son, you eat it

reply

Or maybe they just took being in character (of those whose lives they take) so seriously?

reply

Finally someone get's it right! Nice job OrdinaryDay. I was the editor of this film and I was so surprised at the amount of people, including A list critics who did not pick up on the very things you mentioned. I read some of the reviews which absolutely massacred this film and I was astounded at the (excuse me for saying so) stupidity of some of the so called critics. I've never been very sensitive to critical reviews of films I've worked on, I mean if you don't like the film fine, go ahead and express your feelings. It doesn't bother me. But when you don't even understand the film and aren't sharp enough to get the double meaning dialogue, you should keep you're opinions to yourself. I wish we had someone like you to explain it to half the critics who dissed this great little movie. I think you may want to consider a new career as a film critic yourself, at least you pay attention to what your watching. Kudos my friend...
Tracy Adams

reply

Let's start with your arguments:

1. Not seeing the bride and groom in the video was convenient and makes a little bit of sense now that you know the ending but that wasn't something you can call a clue.
2. The framing thing was an interesting word game and once you know the real meaning it could seem smart. However I doubt that even hist partner would have understood the real meaning. However I'm willing to give this point to the writters.
3. I'll check for the glasses thing but if we're pulling far fetched explanations you could think that maybe his glasses are for far distance and he can't see with them things that are really close. It does happen to some people.

Now let's talk about the infamous dialogue between the two killers:

Cliff: "The cops in Honolulu released a photo of the killers. Apparently they didn't know they were on camera."
Now if they are having a private conversation, why talking in the 3rd person and pretending they didn't know who the killers are?

Right after seeing the picture on the phone Cidney takes a good look towards the other couple and sais "It could be anybody". I can agree that this part of the dialogue was ok but her looking at the other couple while talking about the picture being unclear is yet another not very logical thing to do.

Right after Cidney repeating herself that there could be anybody in that picture Cliff start saying without any pause to indicate that he changed the topic in any way: "I mean what do we really know about these people asside from their stories?"


Then there is the dialogue in the tent when once again Cliff and Cidney were in private and didn't need to lie or pretend and there is one more funky line. They are talking about how they could leave the other couples and what excuse they could use and Cliff then has a remark that they can't just tell them that they think they are the killers. Once again it's a clear indication that Cliff and Cidney were suspecting the other couple of being the killers.

Long story short, the writters felt like making a movie with a huge plot twist. But they simply couldn't come up with a story that would provide for such a great twist. It's likely that most people would simply figure that out and weren't surprised at all. So they decided to insert some dialogues between Cliff and Cidney that would make the audience 100% sure that they aren't the real killers. But while they did that, they didn't really care for the overall logic of the whole story.

I've seen many people claiming that the reason others bash this movie is lack of intelligence to understand the real meaning of the dialogues. I think that pretending things make sense when they don't could make some people think themselves more intelligent but in the end it's the logic that matters and this movie doesn't have much of that.

And while we're at it let me point out three more problems unrelated to the great twist:

First when Gina finds out the secret on the camera. It would seem that she was admiring some recording from that camera and then she just thinks about inserting the SD Card back into the device and finds out the other pictures that weren't meant to be seen. Well since the tape was disposed of we can assume that Cliff and Cidney were taking shots of themselves using some internal memory of the camera and that card was the only piece of evidence that was incriminating them. What I don't understand is how on earth did that Card got out of it's slot and how were they closing the camera led with the card outside?

Second, when the cops are arresting that third couple why on earth are they doing it? They do happen to have incriminating evidence on them but that's found out by the police ony after arresting them. Just because he was a former convic does that mean that he was the killer and they were looking for them all along?

And third, Nick is drugged, then shot in the head but he manages to slide under the boat and wait for Cliff to leave untill reemerging and taking his revenge. I can understand that his metal implant stopped the bullet and saved his life. However being drugged and still being able to swim could be a little tricky. Ok, let's say that the drug wasn't that strong and that he didn't really swim but rather hang onto his boat from under it. But the really fun part is that despite him having a very minor wound there seem to be so much blood in the water that could probably kill any human. I don't even want to go into the detail that the water is very clear but noone can see his body hanging from the boat.

reply

Just rewatched the scene where they talk the photo. It's a terrible scene. He even said "apparently they didn't know there was a camera filming them". They... not "us". Also, they are clearly afraid of the other couple. Why? What is the other couple planing? They couldn't possibly plan anything. He could be irritated about the fact that the other couple is just weird and he doesn't want to become them. But why? They can kill again right away.

All in all the plot is really weak. And the movie is just not well made because the badly made twist. But yes. It's not totally out of place even though it is bad.

reply

Exactly. When they are alone talking about being killed, that is complete BS. That is why I disliked this movie.

Follow me on Twitter: @ApolloEugene

reply

Here's my complaint with the tent scene. In the tent when they're talking about leaving Nick and Gina. While I thought the dialogue fit perfectly, the fear the characters were showing did not. The characters spoke the words as though they were fearing of their lives, and that made no sense. They can't fear that the others are the killers, because they themselves are the killers, and they can't fear that Nick and Gina know THEY are the killers, because it's obvious they don't. Nick doesn't suspect until Zahn and he are alone on the kayaks that Cliff is a killer. And Gina is surprised also when she finds the camera.

One of the explanations fans give is that they are "In character". I could buy that, if we didn't see them so often OUT of character. In the flashbacks, like in the hotel room, when he pours champagne on her back on the balcony, or on the beach, when they do the meth. Hell, when they take the "Bathroom Break", they lapse out of character during that dialogue sequence. To me, that's a cop-out as an excuse. They're either in character, or they're not. If you're going to say to me that they're acting fearful because they're living the other couple's lives, then they should not break character. But, as evidenced in the flashbacks, they're frequently showing their real selves, even when they're nearby other people. So they should be showing they're real selves when talking about leaving. Or at least not showing their terrified selves. Nothing to fear for them.

Notice the only time we really see them out of character is during flashbacks. The film, up until that point, edits out all the obvious out of character moments. Now, don't get me wrong, I know this is a thriller, and it has to remain a mystery, but I felt the tent scene was a cheat. I would have been much more appreciative of the film if that sequence had used the same dialogue, but with a different perspective. Them having a more normal conversation, less fearful. It would have given the perceptive viewer a clue, instead of cheating the perceptive viewer.

So I will flat out agree with everyone who's a defender that the dialogue spoken by Jovovich and Zahn during that sequence was not cheating. But the fear the actors expressed, to me, WAS cheating, because there was nothing for them to fear at that point. There was no way that Nick and Gina would figure them out unless they really started digging, and there was no reason for them to dig. Nick and Gina weren't fearful characters, and at that point, the only way N/G would discover C/C were bogus was if they revealed it themselves.

Decent movie, and I own it, but I felt some cheating was done.

I love to love my Lisa.

reply

They weren't afraid of Nick and Gina thinking they were killers. They were afraid of being caught by the authorities, who were actively out searching for them. There's a scene, can't remember exactly how it went, where they learn that authorities believe the killers are on the hiking trail and are actively searching for them. Later, we even see the authorities arrest the 3rd couple, and Jovovich and Zahn become very happy and are much more relaxed afterward. Of course, you're suppose to think this is because they think the 3rd couple are the killers, when obviously it's because the authorities are no longer on their trail. Sure, these people are crazy killers - but they are *good* *serial* crazy killers and so they are constantly looking over their backs.

I, too, think the whole "in character" theory is silly. It's totally unnecessary and actually clouds a few of the scenes. The only scene where it may make sense is when Zahn is showing Jovovich the picture from the newspaper. The best explanation for that would be that they had grown accustom to speaking about their true identities in the 3rd person just in case someone were to overhear them. Really, would you refer to yourself in the 1st person if you were on a public trail just a few feet from the person you planned to kill next?

reply

Tell me why in the tent they can't be scared? After seeing what Nick could do, and seeing Gina gut the goat, etc., and that they had their own tools (weapons) on them, and Nick's stories (which at first they dismissed, then later, started to realize might be true) starting to seem less like fiction, when they say "ok these two have graduated." It meant, these two would be much harder to kill and replace. Why do you have to assume that killers doing a job like, in the situation they were in, wouldn't be scared? In fact, Jovovich's character was the one who seemed more scared, and she was the less crazy of the two. She was more of the sidekick. Zahn's character didn't seem as scared, so it fit in with their real personalities rather well.

I am sorry for all the people who feel cheated, but, you guys are just bitter because you are probably used to being able to guess the endings (I can usually get the endings after about 45 mins at about a 70% clip, so I myself can say I can guess the endings more correctly than incorrectly, but this movie did way too good of a job at making their conversations so ambiguous) and this movie didn't give you enough to guess it...and clearly and purposefully and effectively kept you unsure. However, on a second viewing, and I have viewed every scene again, if you put yourself in the place of the killers (i know this is the biggest problem most average people [especially Americans] have, is putting theirselves in other peoples' positions and trying to imagine how they would feel or what they would do/say), their comments and their behavior makes sense.

Also, at the bottom of your post you said Nick and Gina weren't fearful characters...So you are saying that if you were in the woods with Nick and Gina, you wouldn't get nervous trying to take on Nick and Gina? Wow, you must be a real tough badass man! I mean, just the ending where Gina was pretty f-ing tough and Nick ending up catching and killing Cliff...they still aren't fearful characters huh? Or maybe you just weren't as good as judging Nick's character as Cliff was? Either way, anyone who feels cheated really just feels bitter, I think.

reply

My addition to the "in character" debate. Part of stepping into the other identities and taking on their personalities is that they are playing a game. It's fun for them to pretend to be other people. It's not just a functional thing for them as often happens in movies.

Mr Blonde3:
I'm surprised that you noticed all those points but you think they make the characters' behavior seem less believable. In the flashbacks where they are killing the people and immediately afterwards, of course they're not "playing" yet because they're figuring out what to do. Then, they started the game, pretending to be the old dead couple and starting the hunt for a new couple. If you meant the brief flashback where we saw them smoking meth on the beach, that's only *one* time after they left the other island. Between meeting Nick and making it to the beach, they never had an opportunity to get away from them to let their guard down, smoke meth, and fall out of character more.

I haven't seen anyone yet mention that we also see Cydney and Cliff start to experiment with the new characters/personalities before the flashback reveals everything. Cliff is in a tank top after the 2nd couple are arrested, my first thought was "wow, he looks kind of military," while earlier he was always buttoned down. The costumes basically hid his muscles the whole time, making him seem less capable. He suddenly wants to go off on a kayaking adventure to the sea caves, while earlier Nick had to drag him into the woods. Also, when Cydney is describing going to the lake as a teenager, I thought she was imitating Gina in how she spoke, just not with a full on southern accent.

Another thing, when Cliff is surprised in the woods and pulls the hatchet on that guy, he says "who is that female?" I don't know about you, but I tend to refer to people as "women" and "men." That sounded like military, police, or maybe even hunter lingo.

The fear they have in the tent conversation comes from Cliff pulling the hatchet on that guy and realizing that a) if that guy could find them so easily, so could the police and b) people back at the shop remember theme. They know their faces and have the names of two dead people in written records for the permits. If they give up on the hunt and go back through the woods, it will take a long time for them to get out, and they could run into many people. Cliff also really *wants* to kill them, because that's what he does. They can't kill them in the forest, though, because they now know the bodies will be found pretty quickly. They need to make it to the water so that they can get rid of the bodies and, once there, they have the possibility that there's a way to escape more quickly from the island.

reply

I never got the impression in the tent that the characters were fearing for their lives, or were even scared. I would say they were more anxious/nervous about being made. They were after all in the midst of an ex marine with acute situational awareness. They may have been worried that they would slip up, perhaps say or do something wrong and Mr. hyper vigilant would pick up on it (which is what ended up happening in the cave and could have happened at any prior moment) and force them into a confrontation they were not prepared to have. This is why they were discussing the option of bailing.

Killers in movies are always made out to be so bloody invincible, like machines almost (michael myers, ghost face etc) but they are not machines, they are human beings with the same base instincts of survival that non killers have, with the ability to over think and analyse situations, just like non killers do.... I think maybe the reason so many people felt cheated by this film was because the killers were humanised and maybe even a couple of you out there related to them before you knew they were the killers and you didn't like it.

reply

Mr Blonde3, you hit the nail on the head. The only major cheat in this movie for me is the "keep your game face on" bit. When they're alone, Cliff and Cydney keep their "game faces" on when it's convenient for the plot and don't keep them on when it's not. Still, I enjoyed this movie overall and even watched it again right after seeing it the first time.

reply

Every time they spoke in private, they were in view of the other couple, clearly trying to make it seem like they were scared.

reply

They were acting as if they were afraid of being killed, even when they were alone and didn't need to pretend, because they weren't doing it for the benifit of their victims. They were doing it because that's their way of achieving immortality and living "100's of lives". They act out the roles of their victims COMPLETELY, even when no one is around to hear them, because they are they psychologically messed up.

So of course they knew who the killers were, but they were pretending otherwise. The film made no mistakes, you were just too dim-witted to understand the plot. Shame on you.

reply

Sherlock Holmes (with RDJ) was even worse about that. That's the only thing that bugged me about it.

reply

Though I was entertained by the movie I was totally tripped up by the twist (as were many here) so I decided to come to IMDB to see what others thought. After seeing all the arguments here I decided to see it again. Here are my conclusions after a second viewing:

1) The beginning scene with them in the jeep is genius. What I mean by that is, if you watch the scene with it in your head that they can't be the killers then that's what you'll hear. If you watch the scene knowing they are the killers then it will all fall into place and make perfect sense. Seeing this the second time and realizng the brilliance of how the dialogue can be taken two ways makes it one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

2) I agree with those that have said if you re-watch the scenes where it seems they are afraid for their lives and talking about who the killers are, they really aren't doing that at all. The dialogue when Milla's character takes a piss and the scene in the tent both make sense now that I know the ending.

3) Really excellent "twist" movies (The Usual Suspects comes to mind) don't require a second viewing for the viewer to "get it". **********MAJOR SPOILER FOR THE USUAL SUSPECTS AHEAD********* When we realize that Verbal Kint was Kayser Soze all along, and they take us through all the things in the room that gave him his story, we say "OMG Of Course!" not "WTF????". A fantastic twist movie makes you say the former. A mediocre twist movie, like A Perfect Getaway, makes you say the latter.

Having said all that, I still really enjoyed it but couldn't really appreciate it fully until the second viewing. Although I don't feel "cheated" I am able to recognize that this isn't the best movie ever and can enjoy it for what it is.

reply

3) Really excellent "twist" movies (The Usual Suspects comes to mind) don't require a second viewing for the viewer to "get it". **********MAJOR SPOILER FOR THE USUAL SUSPECTS AHEAD********* When we realize that Verbal Kint was Kayser Soze all along, and they take us through all the things in the room that gave him his story, we say "OMG Of Course!" not "WTF????". A fantastic twist movie makes you say the former. A mediocre twist movie, like A Perfect Getaway, makes you say the latter.


These two can hardly be compared. They were both great in their own right, but your comparing apples to oranges.

A Perfect Getaway's twist was great because it literally made people look like fools. What I mean by that is you're thinking the movie cheated you and you're so convinced that it cheated you, but had you payed closer attention to detail, you would have seen the twist from a mile away. The movie could either be obvious, subtle, or a blatant lie, depending on your viewing perspective. That's what made it so great. The proof is there, but so many damn people missed it, and that's just quality writing.

reply

[deleted]

we say "OMG Of Course!" not "WTF????". A fantastic twist movie makes you say the former. A mediocre twist movie, like A Perfect Getaway, makes you say the latter.
I don't think I agree with this. All that is different is the degree to which the viewer was 'fooled'. At first I couldn't believe the twist at all; at first I thought "jeez, they sure cheated a lot to pull this off", but then it took a good 2-5 minutes of thinking to piece it all together: they weren't so paranoid because they were afraid of the killers, they were so paranoid because they were afraid of being found out. Every apparent contradiction my brain could think of could be explained by the reversal; it was really great.

==================
astrolupine: even with makeup, you can't make an actor's face look like a chair

reply

[deleted]

I found it very predictable who the killers were, which made it even more annoying that they seemed afraid of the other couples.

reply

Exactly Tomcat.

reply

I didn't feel cheated because I predicted the twist a little bit before the reveal. Not from all this subtle dialogue people are (I suspect in hindsight) seeing, but from the rules of thriller/mysteries.

You only have three couples in the running and as soon as the "mysterious pair" got arrested you could see the twist. They hardly appeared in the film and it was too easy, so they couldn't be the killers.

The film had dragged on with the "Rambo" pair ramping up the tension, but it spent too long doing so, thus, for it to be an 'interesting' film they couldn't be the killers.

That only left the "honeymoon" pair. Ah ha - a twist!

I agree that I wouldn’t have spotted the twist without thinking about the film as a film so perhaps could have felt cheated. But I think you can look at the film in hindsight, or watch it again, and enjoy the way you are tricked with the ambiguous language etc.

reply

I guessed the ending and I still felt cheated. Granted, I haven't seen the film a second time but as someone said earlier, a great twist doesn't require the viewer to watch the film again. It catches them by surprise and then still feels logical.

It just felt cheap. A cheap trick to me. It was an ending that I would have written and thought was awesome - and that is why I am not a screenplay writer...I mean screenwriter.

reply