I can tell you're going to have a hard time in the real world. The ONLY reason I said that is because what I say is being read, not said. Surely you understand that while something may sound rude in writing doesn't always mean it sounds rude in person...
I'm glad you've read some of my other posts and I most definitely meant to be rude to some posters, have you seen some of the things people are posting? Now, since you have read some of my other posts, how many of those did I start out by saying what I said to you?
Pull out your victim tampon, MovieBuff.
Never said I was a victim, I stated clearly that you enjoy being snide and belittling people when you post, which is why you had to put a disclaimer in your first post to me, because you knew you were going to say rude stuff. True to form you could not help but be snide in this post to me. I do not suffer from the opinion of fools, so continue to fire away!
Ketamine is one of the main drugs used in anesthesia. Ever been under anesthesia? Ever been under it continually for over 25 years along with LSD? Probably not.
And you have been under anesthesia for over 25 years along with LSD? Of course not, your OPINION that it prevents Alex from telling the truth is exactly that. I have been under anesthesia before once, does that give my opinion more credence in your mind?
If you go back and watch the movie again you'll realize that Alex never lied to Keller. Keller's questions and statements towards Alex were tailored in a specific way by the filmmakers on purpose.
And "why did he take so long to tell the truth"? He never told "the truth" about anything... Keller found out from Joy where Anna was, not Alex.
The question is why did he not reveal what he knew about the girls, after saying right away "they did not cry until I left them" at the police station. He says nothing useful to Keller for 8 days. You say the reason he told the police he never saw the girls is because he was under the effects of the drug, then 48 hours later he is clearer headed enough to say "they did not cry until I left them" to Keller. But that defense does not match with his actions when Keller kidnaps him.
It absolutely would not give Keller the right to torture him! What in the world made you think I would say otherwise? Even Franklin says, "What if you’re wrong? What if you just heard what you wanted to hear? I want my daughter back as much as you do, but this isn’t right."
You repeat many times in my post and in others "What would be the point of the movie if Alex is guilty?" It seems that the meaning of the film FOR YOU is "that Keller tortures an innocent Alex, trying to save the innocent Anna" (paraphrased slighty). If Alex is guilty, it still does not mean what Keller did was right, the point of the movie (FOR YOU) is ruined if Alex is guilty for some reason. Thats "what in the world" made me think that.
There wasn't just ONE point in this film. Aaron Guzikowski isn't a one trick pony kind of guy. Yes, every single character was a prisoner of some sort in this movie whether it was physical or mental. Even the dog was a prisoner, but that wasn't the only point.
I agree with this entire statement, my point was the prisoner theme is the over arching theme of the whole movie called "Prisoners" (the "point" of the film), and I gave Kellers prisoner arch, which involves the torture of Alex (guily or not).
Here is a list I've already made from another thread awhile back. Believe it or not, the poster I was debating with actually came to agree with me after a few pages of debate.
1.) The police officers have nothing on him after searching the van AND Holly's property
2.) Franklin's continual pleas to Keller to realize that Alex might not be guilty of kidnapping the girls
3.) Holly telling Keller that Alex didn't lay a hand on them and just wanted to take them for a ride
4.) The "guilt" that creases Keller's head after saying that (the scripts own words, not mine)
5.) The shot of Keller's face after learning he was wrong
6.) Loki telling Grace that Keller will most likely face jail/prison time after what he did
7.) Alex/Barry being RETURNED to his family following his rescue and NOT being arrested
8.) Alex being a victim of Holly
9.) Holly revealing her motive and saying "turns them into demons like you" (directed at his torture of Alex)
10.) The entire irony of the movie which was Keller kidnapping and torturing an innocent Alex in order to find his own kidnapped and tortured innocent Anna.
11.) The new feeling you get while viewing the movie a second time after being able to come to the correct conclusion regarding Alex's innocence.
Plus the trailer and tagline I mentioned yesterday AND the previous examples I provided of us actually being shown the abductors in other films where the father takes revenge. That alone should tell you Alex is innocent if you know anything about Aaron Guzikowski's work. He's not going to do some Father Gets Revenge movie when it's already been done so many times.
1.The police find no evidence in RV the kids were taken in (by Alex), or at the Aunt's house (where the kids actually are) and that is evidence that Alex is innocent? I think that shows more the reason why Keller felt he had to do what he did.
2.Franklins pleas that Alex might not be guilty of kidnapping are irrelevant because Alex WAS the person that took the girls (then lied about ever seeing them later). Whether Alex is innocent of child murdering or not, he is the one that took the girls.
3, 4, 5, 9. Mentioned before, Holly's words are exactly what is going to cause the most emotional pain for Keller. A perfect reason for her to lie to him. The "guilt" creasing Kellers forhead is totally justified, he WOULD feel guilty, whether she is telling the truth or not, he does not know what the truth is. Its the same reason she tells him to put a tourniquet on his leg so he can live long enough to see his dead daughter. Her goal is to torment him as much as possible before he dies.
6 and 7. The police do not know Alex is involved, anyone that could rat on him is dead. He is in various custodies during the girls imprisonment so they would never see him doing anything directly wrong (besides being the one to actually take them to the house). Even if he did do something to girls, they are just being introduced to the drug during those times, so maybe they dont remember it?
8. That was one I listed, so we agree Alex was a victim of Hollys.
10.Your opinion of the irony of the whole film is innocent alex being tortuered to find innocent Anna. But Alex had the ability (shown when being released at the police precinct) to reveal information about the girls, and does not do so with Keller torturing him.
11. Another pointless snide comment that you could not resist adding (see the beginning of my post)
Alex wasn't under the immediate influence of drugs during the time Keller was questioning him... Keller had him in that bathroom for 10 days. That's 10 days Alex went without drinking the ketamine/LSD cocktail.
I really do urge you to educate yourself on the behaviors of people that are retarded. Not only are they are joy to work with but I think you will understand Alex a lot more. I don't believe Alex didn't say anything of real importance to Keller because he was drugged up, I know Alex didn't say anything of importance to Keller because he was retarded. Like I said before, that's why this film worked the way it did.
That is 10 days that Alex reveals nothing about the girls, as opposed to the first 5 seconds of contact/questioning by Keller outside of the police station. These 2 things do not work together. Beside his behavior (which can be faked, remember that) you have no idea if Alex is handicapped or not. The only time we see Alex when he is alone is when he walks the dog, and what is his behavior there? He looks both ways before strangling the dog (a clear indication he knows he is doing something wrong) and he sings loudly (is is clearly loud because a car drives past and Keller can still hear him singing). These behaviors do not go along with what Loki thinks about Alex.
The only reason you chose to answer the question about Holly being the only one in the RV was because you felt that it could potentially help your argument. I want you to answer the other question. What if Ralph had never mentioned the RV?
As I said before, I believe both Holly and Alex were in the RV. Did you ever wonder why Alex didn't run? Anyone who was guilty and knew they were complicit in crimes would have run. Anyone who was complicit would know that hiding in the RV wouldn't do any good.
Anywho, the real bottom line here is that Holly could have told Alex what was going on and he still wouldn't understand. I know that doesn't make sense to you and me, but Alex isn't like you and me. That's why I urge you to educate yourself.
Your other questions were 100% rhetorical, I will prove this by answering your question: If Ralph had never mentioned the RV - without delving into the trillionxtrillion multiverses that can spawn from this point: The police's first clue comes when Loki happens to see snake/pig blood guy (cant remember his name) and tracks him down. Assuming is story plays out the same way, he shoots himself, enraged loki sees the maze pendant picture, connects the mazes and.....indeterminable number of days later Holly euthanizes the girls in the pit (they were never taken into/out of the house where Franklin's daughter escapes.) What is the point of the question again? Do I need to answer the other ones? "Did you ever wonder why Alex didn't run? Anyone who was guilty and knew they were complicit in crimes would have run." He tried to run. He might have been terrified that he almost impaled himself on a giant branch and did not run from the RV, or he thinks The police in the area are going to catch him anyway? Your last statement is 100% based on you "knowing" Alex is handicapped, which I have already given evidence against.
I'm sorry but saying Holly lied to make Keller feel bad is ridiculous. Like I said before, wanting something to be there doesn't mean it's going to be there.
What I don't understand is that your biggest arguments are things that were actually shown in the film: Alex singing the song, Alex strangling the dog, Alex saying "they only cried when I left them", Alex not talking to the police, yet all of a sudden you're going to throw in there that Holly was lying when absolutely NOTHING was said OR shown to us to let us know she was lying to Keller. How does that work? You're making things up that weren't even there to begin with. That's like me saying, "Loki was actually lying too and he was working with Holly the whole time". I mean come on. Every time Holly lied in the beginning, the truth was revealed to us later on.
You seriously think the filmmakers were sitting around a table saying, "Well, we tied up all the loose ends where Holly lied at the beginning of the movie, but let's just leave her lying to Keller that Alex wasn't involved open and hope the audience gets it"? Uh, no. This movie wasn't spoon fed to us but it also had some pretty stellar filmmakers behind it. No one making this movie is going to be that dumb.
It's a cute conspiracy theory but it's just a conspiracy theory.
Interesting, you list all the reasons I listed for why Alex could be guilty, then turn around and say "absolutely NOTHING was said OR
SHOWN <boldness added to emphasize it was in fact shown> to let us know she was lying to Keller. Do you need such a statment spoon-fed to you? If she did in fact say it would it ruin the movie for you knowing that Alex was not innocent? Loki being involved with Holly would be counter to every scene they are shown together in, some which are 1 on 1, times when they could be honest with each other, so it would make no sense.
Alex doesn't "hinge" on being retarded, he IS retarded. There's no question about it.
I can't believe you went there with Primal Fear and didn't think for one second that I would point out that it was actually revealed to us that Aaron was a psycho... Therefore, your point of Alex faking it is null and void since there's no revelation that Alex was faking it. Or are the filmmakers sitting around a table again going, "Hey, I know! Alex is going to be faking his retardation the whole time, but let's not tell the audience that!"? Again, uh, no.
Does it need to be spoon-fed? You seem to believe that YOU wrote this movie, and you KNOW for a FACT the actions behind every character, but you do not KNOW. You have beliefs based on the things you see in the movie. Even if you did in fact write this movie, a movie is like any other work of art, it is open to interpretation (within the bounds of the Art, meaning your previous statement about Loki being involved with Holly would make no sense because of their scenes together, even if someone wanted to interpret it that way.)
"Because LSD accumulates in the body, users develop a tolerance for the drug. In other words, some repeat users have to take it in increasingly higher doses to achieve a “high.” This increases the physical effects and also the risk of a bad trip that could cause psychosis."
This is no way explains how Alex says nothing to the police, then tells Keller "they only cried when I left them", then says nothing under torture. The drugs are preventing him from talking to the cops, then not preventing him from talking to Keller outside the police station, then preventing him from talking to Keller when he tortures him, a convenient psychosis to say the least.
Yes, MovieBuff, I'm sure Holly the child abductor and murderer is super worried about sending the first child she abducted out on the road while he's under the influence of drugs
You missed the point, if Alex is in an accident, he could draw the Police to the house right after a kidnapping, why would she want that? It also points to the fact that Holly believes Alex can handle driving, whether on the drug or not, perhaps because she knows he can drive just fine? It is mostly to show the belief that Alex being drugged before he gets arrested is less likely.
Well, I hope drugfreeworld.org helped to clear up some of your misconceptions about the long term effects of LSD. Especially the part about causing psychosis...
the convenient psychosis again that causes Alex to not know anything when it suits you. Not a bad theory, but it is still just your theory.
I'm honestly begging you to volunteer at a school or a home for retarded children and adults. It's painful to read things like this and know that people out there actually think those people are just like you and me. Don't just research on the Internet because everyone is different. You need to experience it first hand.
"Everyone is different". So could Alex be a mentally handicapped child murderer? Again your entire assumption about Alex is from his behavior around others, which could be faked.
Yes, he does look up and down the street first. Many people have speculated that he abuses the dog as a way to get back at Holly. I'm not sure how much I agree with that although it could be plausible while still figuring in the textbook behavior of abused children abusing animals.
I don't know if I believe Alex was drugged up when Keller kidnapped him. Even if he was, the immediate effects would have worn off soon and he still didn't talk through the torture. Haven't you ever seen in the news were a caretaker was seen physically abusing a retarded child or adult to try and get them to do what they want? It doesn't matter how hard you hit them or how many times you beat them. It's truly heartbreaking but there are plenty of real life examples that backup why Alex didn't talk even through the torture. A few other posters have mentioned that even the most trained Marine would have cracked under that sort of torture. I don't know about any of that and I won't pretend to, but I do know about the behaviors of retarded people when they are undergoing abuse.
The problem is he tells Keller in 5 seconds outside the police station, then nothing when he is kidnapped. Again he was clear thinking enough to look around before strangling the dog, not under the effects of the drug, like when he was released from the police station....
I just can't get over how comfortable you are with speaking out on Alex NOT being retarded when it's embarrassingly clear that you don't even know anything about retarded people in the first place.
Well I am pretty sure that the term "retarded" is not used to describe the mentally handicapped, even though you throw it around all over the place. I wonder when you were working with the mentally handicapped if you told people "I work with the retarded", or "These retards are all so different, they are hard to categorize"
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Your first couple of quotes are just revisionist history by yourself, I wont waste time with those.
That's not the meaning of the film, that's the irony of the film. Just like in movies like Taken and The Last House on the Left where we cheer for the fathers, we are cheering for Keller. We are thinking "yeah, kick his a$$, make him suffer for what he did". The difference between those dads and Keller is that those dads had the right guy(s). Keller didn't.
Again, we saw the bad guys commit their crimes in Taken and The Last House on the Left. We didn't see the bad guy (in this case, woman) commit their crime, on purpose. Why do you think that is?
Well right off the top, the purpose (point) of Taken is an Action movie, so yeah you are going to see the Dad kick ass to get his daughter back, Last House on the Left is horror/thriller movie, you see the Dad get revenge for his daughter (think The Hills Have Eyes etc). In Prisoners you are not suppose to root for Keller beating Alex, that makes no sense. The "point" is that Keller is a prisoner to his role as Protector and HAS TO TORTURE ALEX. He must do everything he can to try and save his daughter, and he knows Alex knows something about the kids, "They only cried when I left them", which you suddenly want to throw out as a pointless phrase that does nothing for Keller (previously you said it was Alex trying.....comfort?....Keller, why the switch? The stories are also widely different in that in Taken its 1 man vs a criminal underground, and in LHOtL its 1 man vs 2-3 crazy psychopaths.
This ALONE absolutely does not mean Alex is innocent. If we went by this situation alone then it would mean that I would think Holly is innocent too.
Sure, Keller may have felt like he needed to take matters into his own hands, I'm sure EVERY parent of a kidnapped child feels that way, but most don't.
You were stating that the lack of evidence is somehow pointing to Alex being innocent, which is foolish because 1. He took the kids in the RV, 2. The kids were at the place the cops found no evidence. Keller had no intention of charging into the police station to question Alex himself, he is letting the police do their job. Its only after they release Alex that Keller's hand is forced (Again, he is Protector). None of this indicates that Alex is innocent, none of it even hints at it, it is all to show why Keller did what he did.
I must have missed that part in the movie. Please, explain to me when they show that he took them. And be specific!
Well you got me there I guess? They never show WHO kidnapped the kids, maybe it was the pedophile priest working with Holly? Maybe it was the chief of police, he seemed pretty inept. Oh that's right you have to go with clues from the movie so lets see:
Loki interrogating Alex asks him "What were you doing in the RV outside the house?" Alex says "I went for a drive" (I guess we can nix that one because Alex's psychosis can explain any answer he gives right?) Holly saying "He only wanted to take them for a drive in the RV". Alex saying "They only cried when I left them" indicating he was with the kids at some point. That is all I can remember at the moment, will maybe catch more on my next viewing.
It's not my fault you can't recognize someone who is retarded when they are right in front of you. I don't need to be told Alex is retarded (even though Loki told us a 34 year old man had the IQ of a 10 year old) just like I don't need to be told that Holly Jones is a woman and Keller Dover is a man.
Name one movie where a character was lying and it was never revealed to us that they were lying.
This is exactly my point, the only thing that makes you "KNOW" Alex is mentally handicapped is his behavior. Thats what makes YOU KNOW. All of that behavior is around others, and it is used to protect himself. His behavior when he is alone is very different. Are alarm bells ringing yet? You based your knowledge of the "fact" that he is mentally handicapped on things that are 100% in his control. I can name a movie that leaves you in the dark about SOME of the people lies, as your actual question would be a list of 10000 movies. Off the top of my head: Basic Instinct.
No sh!t, MovieBuff. Ice cream would be ruined for me if it was topped with ketchup instead of sprinkles, too that's why sprinkles are an ice cream topping and ketchup isn't. Catch my drift?
Does it ruin it for you that Alex is innocent? What are you getting out of him being involved?
If Alex was involved they would have never had Holly tell Keller he wasn't. We are supposed to think he could somehow be involved up until that time. Why would the filmmakers make him look guilty the whole time if he truly was and then all of the sudden have Holly say he wasn't?
Oh right, she was lying []
It does not ruin the movie if Alex is innocent, I am just reading between lines in my belief that he is guilty. You say the "filmmakers make him look guilty the whole time", this is widely inaccurate. The filmmakers make him look involved somehow, but as you say over and over "He looks retarded to me, how can anyone think he is guilty?". Now you are saying the filmmakers make him look guilty? Which is it?
Name one movie where a character was a faking a mental illness and the audience was never told
I didn't have to write Primal Fear to know that Aaron was a psycho. I didn't have to write Shutter Island to know that . I didn't have to write You're Next to know that . I didn't have to write Now You See Me to know that . I don't have to be a writer to know something that was stated to us just like I don't have to be a singer to know when someone's off tune.
Or did all of those people lie too? [] [] []
You're starting to sound like one poster who tried to convince me there was no such thing as facts.
Again, you need to be spoon-fed your "facts". There are such things as facts in a movie: Its a "fact" that Loki interrogates Alex. Its a "fact" that Keller tortures Alex. Its a "fact" that Holly shoots Loki in the head at the end. We know these are facts because they were events that happened. Now lets look at what are not "facts". Was Alex in the RV? Was Holly ever in the RV? Was Alex pretending to be handicapped when being interrogated? Did Alex Jones ever murder a child with holly? These are speculations that you have to look at other events to judge. The problem here is that you think its a "FACT" that Alex is mentally handicapped, but it is not. Its your belief based on what you have seen in the movie (and experienced in real life). I am under no such illusions. This movie is not other movies, it stands alone for itself. If it was the first ever movie to show a person faking a handicap and not revealing it to the audience, would that strengthen your argument?
Again, no sh!t, MovieBuff. Did you think everything that happens in movies was just a happy coincidence? Oh, Ralph just conveniently mentioned the RV. Alex was conveniently heard whistling Jingle Bells, Joy conveniently escaped.
Don't get butthurt because you were proven wrong. I mean, sh!t do you hear yourself? You're now trying to tell me that it's just a happy coincidence that Alex was continually drugged with a drug proven to cause psychosis over time. What are the odds that the filmmakers just pulled LSD and ketamine out of their a$$es and it conveniently happened to work? Good God, MovieBuff!
You are using Alex's psychosis to explain any behavior he has, which means its a *beep* explanation. What if Alex murders all the children and just forgets about it? Why does his psychosis not explain that? Also you don't know for a "fact" that Alex was ever given the drug. It is never shown in the movie, I dont remember Loki ever saying anything about a drug test for Alex. In fact if he showed massive amounts of LSD and Ketamine in his blood stream at the time of his arrest, would'nt that make them question Holly more? You have zero "proof" spoon fed to you that Alex ever even came in contact with the drug. All of your assumptions about Alex are based on his behavior, which he can fake (and has a damn good reason to do so). His behavior alone is contrasted sharply, and you fail to recognize it.
You are really grasping
Oh sure, a 100% logical explanation for why she would tell Keller that Alex is innocent is "grasping". Pathetic that you can't even cede a single counter point.
No, no his behavior is not my "entire assumption about Alex"
How could it not be, what other evidence is given to indicate his mental awareness. I do not believe that Alex's real mother ever says anything to Loki about Alex being mentally handicapped (I could be wrong there, its a short scene I dont remember it well).
Stop trying to make "they only cried when I left them" happen. It's not going to happen.
Interesting enough, it does happen. It must be hard for you to reconcile it with your "Alex is innocent of everything" mentality. Don't just ignore it though, that is childish.
Number one, if you think anyone is "clear thinking enough" to harm an animal then you have a problem. Number two, we know that Alex was drugged up when he was brought in, we can safely assume it had worn off by the time he was released. We don't know if Alex was drugged or not when he was abusing the dog and kidnapped by Keller.
You seem to think that Alex was this level headed, in his right mind, clear thinking person when he wasn't drugged up. That's why I asked you to do research on the long term effects of drugs. You try to use things that he does when he's no longer drugged up as evidence to support your case but you just learned that heavy amounts of LSD, alone, for long amounts of time "can cause psychosis" and it's not like that sh!t just goes away.
Nice try with your number 1, you know exactly what I mean by "clear thinking enough", that was cute though, try to make it look like I might abuse animals. Love it. Number 2 is interesting because we dont "know" that Alex was drugged up when he was brought in, why wouldnt the cops think to ask Alex how/why he is on massive amounts of LSD/ketamine? Hmmm this line of thinking gets us curious. Loki only believes that Alex is mentally handicapped, he mentions nothing about drugs, why do you think its a "fact" that Alex was drugged when he was arrested? Oh that's right, because of his behavior in front of the police (and you). When Loki says "geez he looks like he is on something" or "get him sobered up", you think "FACT!", but in actuality it is Loki's statement based also on....Alex's behavior. Guess he fooled you both?
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
I answered that question previously, all art is open to interpretation, independent of the artist. Spoon-fed answer: Yes, had you written the movie with the character of Alex innocent in your mind, I would tell you its your opinion. The character of Alex does not exist soley for the Author of the movie script (or screenplay, whatever), the character of Alex exists in the medium of the movie "Prisoners", and that movie is open to interpretation. If you told me "I wrote him as an innocent", I would ask the same questions.
I think this is fundamental in the way that YOU see a movie. You believe that Alex is innocent, but you claim its a fact. It is not. This is the driving force behind our debate, I have claimed over and over that I believe Alex is guilty, you claim to somehow "know" he is innocent. Which one of us is mistaken? (Your answer will be: You are! Alex is innocent!) because you do not understand the nature of the discussion.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Interesting that you would choose that excuse to run from this debate. Was it going so poorly for you?
Goodbye Speed Raecer, may flights of blindfolded and gagged Angels wing thee to thy rest!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
I know you are 100% confident in your responses to me, that has been my point all along. You think you know these things as FACTS and they are not. You refuse to answer the questions I posted because you know you cannot. You keep calling me a wall, but I have responded to every question you have asked.
Goodbye (again), keep those blinders on nice and tight.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
If this had been your point all along then I would have happily agreed with you in the beginning. Maybe you need to go back and read your OP as it seems that you don't even know what your point is anymore.
First off my OP had nothing to do with you, how could it? You are trying to twist my words around instead of giving a straight response, but you did kind of answer it also with "If this had been your point all along then I would happily agreed with you". So then you do agree that your belief that Alex is innocent is just YOUR BELIEF, and not a fact? You could have agreed to that 5 posts ago and settled it....
I have answered every question you've posted. I've countered every statement you've made. You seriously think I wouldn't continue to do so? I don't have to read your other two posts to know that you are parroting the exact same thing you've been posting throughout this whole thread. Things that I have answered more than once already. Do you want me to continue telling you what I've been telling you since my first response to you?
Your answer for why he lied to the police was that he was on the drugs firstly. After evidence that that answer does not match his actions later and the police never mention drugs at all when talking about Alex, you can fall back on its his LSD induced psychosis. Also to educate myself on how the mentally handicapped behave. Can we call your response to this your "final answer"? Why does he lie to the police about never seeing the girls? or offer any information about them?
Why does he respond to Keller in 5 seconds outside of the police station, then nothing for 8 days? Why does Alex lie to Loki when he asks what he said to Keller in the parking lot? Final Answer: Mentally handicapped lsd induced psychosis?
Why is Alex's behavior so different when he is alone? As you put it "abused the dog and sang the song"? He is clear thinking enough to look around before committing an evil act. Final Answer: mentally handicapped lsd induced psychosis?
I also refer to you as a wall because it's clear anyone who disagrees with you is already wrong. You basically said that if I had written this movie and was telling you that you were wrong, you would still say you were right because it's how you interpreted it even though I (the hypothetical screenwriter) told you there was a definitive answer. You even told me I was wrong when I told you I wasn't trying to be rude. I mean, come on, dude. Get real.
If someone disagrees with me, we have debate! If you are saying that your belief that Alex is innocent is YOUR belief, I am not saying you are wrong. If you are saying Alex is innocent is a FACT, I am saying you are wrong.
You did not write this movie, your ability to state FACT about it is zero, you have only beliefs. This is 100% speculative but I would bet that the Author agrees with ME more than you on this stance. Art is interpretive, and if he wrote Alex in a complex enough manner that 2 people could both think opposite things of him, I think he would prefer that over a 1-sided "innocent" or "guilty" character.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Um, because this is IMDb. You know, a message board where anyone can choose to respond to anything they please? Was that a serious question?
This statement makes no sense when applied to what I said. Even what you quoted, it makes no sense. My OP had nothing to do with you, or your insane claim to know "facts" about this movie.
You LITERALLY said, "I know you are 100% confident in your responses to me, that has been my point all along." [] [] []
Let me break this down as simply as I can for you, If your point all along had been saying that I know I'm 100% confident in my response to you (as YOU just implied) then I would have agreed with you in my very first response to you. Now, if this was actually not your point "all along" (as you implied) then why did you say so in the first place? Stop setting yourself up for failure from the very beginning, MovieBuff. It's getting hard to watch.
Nothing about me saying if your point all along had been saying that I know I'm 100% confident in my response to you (as YOU just implied) then I would have agreed with you in my very first response to you says that I agree that my belief that Alex is innocent is just my belief. Absolutely nothing []
Found this particular mash of words interesting. You said a bunch of nothing and avoided my question which was: Is Alex's innocence a fact, or your belief?
That is still my answer. I'm now telling you for the second time that Loki said, clear as day, "Put him in the car -- see if you can sober him up --". Why in the world would they need to state AGAIN that he was drugged up when he was brought in for questioning?
You sit there and say that they don't need to state that Holly was lying because, to you, it's clear she was yet all of a sudden you're all up in arms over them not stating that Alex was drugged up when he was brought in for questioning even though they clearly stated he was.
You're a cherry picker, MovieBuff.
Then why do the police never bring it up again? If Alex was truly drugged then they would have found evidence of it, if they found evidence of LSD/Ketamine in his blood they probably would have put 2 and 2 together when they looked up Bob Taylor's file. Or would have asked Holly why/where/how he is drugged up. They also would have been able to keep him over the 48 hours because he would be jailed for driving under the influence (when he tried to run). Looks like your answer there has some holes. Care to continue the debate on this particular topic?
Yes, via legitimate sources including the drugfreeworld.org and my own experience, interactions and knowledge based on these experiences and interactions with retarded children and adults.
What's your legitimate source, MovieBuff? Your "opinion"? You're "interpretation"? [] Riiiight. At least I have more than my "opinion" and "interpretation" to back up my answers.
Hey this is great, this is (I assume) a 100% true statement. It feels like you almost said "back up my beliefs" there at the end. "Answers" is OK, better than trying to pass them off as Fact at least. Making progress.
You expect me to accept that Holly was lying to Keller about Alex's involvement but you can't accept something from a legitimate source? That's why I refer to you as a wall, MovieBuff. That's exactly why.
Are you referring to Alex abusing the dog because of his own abuse? I never denied that. Whatever the cause of it is, its still sadism. Whether he is hurting the dog to hurt holly, or hurting the dog to make himself feel strong, it does not matter. The point is he did it, he looked around first which proves he knows what he is doing is wrong, which hints that he is not drugged up, and that he is more than just the confused "boy" the Loki thinks he is.
Do you not realize that you continuing to tell me that me stating my "belief" as a fact is wrong is equivalent to me continuing to tell you that what you refer to as my "belief" is actually a fact?
You're b!tching at me about something you're doing yourself. Or did YOU write the movie? [] [] []
Another mash of words to avoid answering the question. You stating your opinion as fact, is the same as me stating your opinion is your opinion? Again the question: Do you think Alex's innocence is a fact? Or is it your opinion?
I also wonder why you continue to say Alex did not run, when he in fact did (not mentioned in this post, but you have not answered that one either).
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Ok, let's take this slow. Do you or do you not realize that you posted your OP on a message board open for ANYONE to respond to?
I feel like all I'm hearing is a little kid on a playground saying, "no one was talking to you!" []
Are you going to continue asking the same questions? Because you're going to continue getting the same answers. Do you truly not understand that? Are you seriously that dense?
We both know this statement has nothing to do with what was said earlier. No one is debating the idea behind what a message board is, this is useless fluff you are writing to cloud the issue. You tried to make a claim that I was confused what my point was TO YOU, because my OP never mentions anything about you. Then you went off on this tangent....Nice try I guess?
If Alex had actually been arrested instead of just brought in for questioning then yes, since they suspected him of being on drugs, he would have been tested. There's also an extremely important 48 hour window immediately following a kidnapping. It's not hard to believe that the police would sacrifice the money it costs and time it takes for a drug test in order to find two little girls.
This is great! This is an actual attempt at a counter-point, thank you for contributing to the debate.
You are suggesting that the police did not have time to drug test Alex? Their prime suspect? You have stated several times that Loki thought he was on drugs, the police (loki specifically) is looking for a reason to hold Alex longer than 48 hours (he directly asks the Chief to do this). A DUI would be an excellent reason to hold him. It makes a lot more sense that they did drug test him and found nothing, so were unable to hold him.
A separate question: Was Alex being on drugs when the police arrested him one of your "facts" about this movie?
Seriously? If Alex had run then the police would have caught him in the woods, not hiding under the table of the RV.
By the way, I love that you STILL aren't able to say you're wrong so instead you call it a "mash of words" and "a bunch of nothing"! It only further proves my point that you're a wall. I mean, it's seriously RIGHT THERE, MovieBuff. It's right there for everyone to see. I mean, come on, WE CAN SEE IT! [] [] []
Again you ignore the question: Why do you keep saying Alex did not try to run when he in fact did try to run but crashed the RV in a tree? Do you think that Alex not running is a "fact"? Even though the movie clearly shows he attempted to run.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
LSD is "not one of the SAMHSA-5 standardly tested for in the basic drug test, nor is it included in the extended drug tests"
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_testing.shtml
Ketamine is also "not one of the SAMHSA-5 standardly tested for in the basic drug test, nor is it included in the extended drug tests."
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ketamine/ketamine_testing.shtml
Very nice points you make here, I wish we could have done this 20 posts ago. I was unable to find out exactly what the penn. police department tests for, but your own link adds this line:
1 - While LSD is still not included in the standard NIDA battery of tests, the price of testing for its presence has dropped considerably in the past few years. Many urine screening packages now include LSD in their standard battery.
Understanding the observable indications of LSD in a person (namely, massively dialated pupils), the police would check Alex for this, seeing massively dilated pupils they would suspect LSD.
This is all conjecture though unless someone can find out exactly what the state of PA tests for on a given basis. Lets not forget that the police are looking for a reason to hold him longer.
Considering Loki literally said, "Put him in the car -- see if you can sober him up --". I think that's at least the third time I've pointed that out to you. I will not answer this question again.
Do you always have such a hard time with things sinking in?
This is a great example of your belief in the "facts" of this movie. Loki says this because he assumes Alex is on drugs, because of his behavior. That is an ASSUMPTION, the same assumptions you are describing as fact. How would Loki
KNOW that Alex is on drugs in that moment? Again if Loki KNOWS that Alex is on drugs, why is he not charged with a DUI?
Yes, I do believe his attempt at whatever he was doing with the RV was him trying to get away from the people surrounding him, however the fact that he thought it would be a good idea to try and drive his biga$$ RV through such a wooded area easily works in my favor for two completely separate reasons that were actually combined. Number one, that he was drugged up and number two, that he is retarded and doesn't think like you and me. Or would you have tried to drive the RV through the woods?
Ok, so Alex did try to run, that is something you argued against previously, we are making progress in our debate, excellent. I agree that his actions were stupid and point to a person that is not thinking clearly (for whatever reason). Whether its because he was drugged up and mentally handicap (your CLAIM <--- important to note, not a fact), or my claim that he was panicked and just trying to get away, neither are FACT.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
You just said, "Understanding the observable indications of LSD in a person (namely, massively dialated pupils), the police would check Alex for this, seeing massively dilated pupils they would suspect LSD." Please pick a side and we will continue the conversation.
By the way, I think dilated pupils are a sign of a number of drugs, not just LSD.
Again you show a lack of understanding: "Please pick a side and we will continue the conversation" - I am not arguing for Alex's innocent or guilt here, I am arguing why you cannot know for a fact that Alex is on drugs. You completely ignore my question about why Alex is not charged with a DUI if Loki
KNOWS he is on drugs, because you have no answer.
I had yet another rebuttle to this, however, since what you pointed out would actually be considered a plot hole, continuing this particular conversation really doesn't help either one of our points.
It is only a plot hole because you believe its a FACT that Alex is on drugs. This is also a claim you think I cannot refute or deny (I did both), and claim "I have made none". There were 2 in the post you just responded to that you could notrefute: Loki
KNOWS Alex is on drugs, but there is no DUI and The reason Alex tried to run from the police and crashed the RV (you claim as a fact its because he is mentally handicapped AND drugged, but that is only your belief.)
I was arguing that Alex didn't try to physically run.
Did you ever wonder why Alex didn't run? Anyone who was guilty and knew they were complicit in crimes would have run. Anyone who was complicit would know that hiding in the RV wouldn't do any good. "
So do you think its a FACT that Alex's innocence is what prevents him from running from the crashed RV or is it your belief?
You have already contradicted your statements in previous posts, even though they were "facts". All I have been arguing since you made your first or second post is that idea that you do not know certain FACTS about this movie, and they are only beliefs. The post you edited said that I was the one that could not see there might be different ways to see this movie, but that is EXACTLY what you have been doing this whole time; refusing to allow the idea that Alex is guilty to even exist in your mind (because his innocent is a "fact") You realized that statement completely destroyed all of your posts to me and so you edited it, but you still typed it out the first time, I wonder why?
Also if you could stop with all the lamenting about how I am a wall, how I can't refute anything you say, blah blah, and just stick with actual responses that would be great. You seem to think that if you say something enough, or believe something enough it will just become FACT, which is basically the entire crux of the argument we are having. Just because you say I did not refute anything you offered, it does not make it true.
reply
share
play35x
10 years ago
Just some final thoughts after checking a couple of key scenes in the script vs the film.
1 The article from the screengrab mentions some 'phone tip' which led to Alex being found by the police. This is leftover from an earlier draft of the script in which the teenage siblings of the two abducted girls investigate the dilapidated house, find Alex and call 911. This doesn't matter.
2 The film employs some subtle but I believe crucial changes in the scenes I checked. The film (vs the script) smoothens things a bit regarding Alex:
a/ When he tries to escape with the RV, in the film it is shown almost as if he gets panicked and for some reason (implying: mental handicap) crashes it in the trees. While in the script, the crash only occurs because a police car blocks the RV's way and the crash couldn't be avoided.
b/ The 'they didn't cry until I left them' scene. Again. In the script this line is rendered as such: 'they didn't cry. Not until I left them'. Much more sinister, no?
c/ When Dover tortures Alex and he says something about the girls could be found 'in the maze', in the script Dover asks him about this maze. Then, Alex... starts to laugh.
3 A detail in the film. When Loki interrogates Alex in Holly's house, in her presence, he asks him if he said something to Dover. Anything at all. Alex is clearly nervous and it looks like he is willing to answer and say the truth but the aunt quickly interrupts, claiming he did no such thing. After that Alex recollects his presence of mind and clams up. (He lies because he's scared of Holly, or, because he wants to protect her)
4 Another detail in the film. Loki tells Dover they put Alex through a lie detector test, but that 'the detector doesn't work if you don't understand the questions.' While just minutes ago when he interrogates him at the police, Alex seems completely capable of understanding and answering questions which couldn't be much different from the ones in the test.
There were some more details which I don't have the time to post.
What I made of it all -- Alex is clearly involved, at least in some capacity, with Holly's monstrosities. Whether he actually took part in some of the killings, or he just delivered kids to his aunty, is left ambiguous. But a strong case can be made about the former--giving his sadistic tendencies. Also, Holly's line 'you should know he didn't lay a hand on the girls' seems to imply he did in the past.
My rendition: over the years, Holly and her husband turned Alex into a monster like them.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Great post Play35x, excellent detective work. While I agree that Alex is guilty (of course), this thread has devolved into me trying to prove some of the "Facts" Speed Raecer believes are actually wrong, and I am glad you are trying to bring it back on track. A few things to add:
Rewatching the RV "escape" scene, it looks like it works the same way as the script in so far as he tries to escape a normal way (he plans on backing out of the parking lot into the main gas station area, but a police car is blocking his path, then he drives straight into trees.
I think Holly's line to Keller is "You should know he never laid a hand on THOSE girls" (emphasis added by me, not Holly). Which seems to point even more to the fact that he did harm kids in the past. I am rewatching the movie now but just started so I will re post if I incorrectly remembered that line.
@edit: Also during the rewatch I noticed that when the girls first sing the Jingle Bells Batman song (before they leave to find the whistle) the scene right after that is a closeup of a tree in the foreground, with the front door (and window) in the background. Almost always these types of shots are to indicate a person watching. Since we have very solid evidence that Alex was the one who took the girls (from the Newspaper article another poster provided), this points to Alex watching the girls before they are taken (a bit more sinister also). I will point out that the forensics guy says there is no way there was a struggle in the RV or he would have found something, so at this point its still possible (even plausible) that the girls went willingly into the RV and for a ride. Also possible that he gives them some "kool-aid" in the RV and lights out.
reply
share
play35x
10 years ago
Great post Play35x, excellent detective work. While I agree that Alex is guilty (of course), this thread has devolved into me trying to prove some of the "Facts" Speed Raecer believes are actually wrong, and I am glad you are trying to bring it back on track.
No problem man. I said from the get-go that I agreed with you but _raecer's posts were so well worded that I carefully considered her POV. It led to some sort of a deconstruction of this film that I really love. It has been fun doing so, and also I think useful for me--being a writer/director myself, this sort of reverse-engineering.
@edit: Also during the rewatch I noticed that when the girls first sing the Jingle Bells Batman song (before they leave to find the whistle) the scene right after that is a closeup of a tree in the foreground, with the front door (and window) in the background. Almost always these types of shots are to indicate a person watching. Since we have very solid evidence that Alex was the one who took the girls (from the Newspaper article another poster provided), this points to Alex watching the girls before they are taken (a bit more sinister also). I will point out that the forensics guy says there is no way there was a struggle in the RV or he would have found something, so at this point its still possible (even plausible) that the girls went willingly into the RV and for a ride. Also possible that he gives them some "kool-aid" in the RV and lights out.
There wasn't a struggle. Remember, the girls felt enough at ease and secure with Alex that they even kept singing the Batman/Robin song in his presence. This corresponds very well with the notion of Alex being 'retarded' and with 'the IQ of a 10-year-old', i.e., the girls simply felt as if playing with another kid. I don't doubt Alex is in some way 'retarded', I just feel this is mixed with some [severe] psychopathology.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
There wasn't a struggle. Remember, the girls felt enough at ease and secure with Alex that they even kept singing the Batman/Robin song in his presence. This corresponds very well with the notion of Alex being 'retarded' and with 'the IQ of a 10-year-old', i.e., the girls simply felt as if playing with another kid. I don't doubt Alex is in some way 'retarded', I just feel this is mixed with some [severe] psychopathology.
Thats what I was saying about the "Watching" scene. It implies that ALex was watching them when they were singing the song, so they did not even have to sing in his presence. Maybe he even sang it first as a means of attracting the girls attention. I agree there was no struggle in the RV, but that could have been achieved by a "kool-aid" cocktail.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Can someone who has direct access please go back and watch the police station interrogation scene. Right now I can only go by what's on the script, but I felt like the actual scene was more involved than the script.
Until then, there's one thing I'd like to point out about the police station interrogation scene.
LOKI
No? They weren’t playing on your
RV?
JONES
I didn’t see them. Can I sit
down?
You are assuming he's lying. For me, it just shows that we were looking from Holly's POV when the girls were playing on the RV, not Alex's.
In another post someone said the newspaper article at the end reads "Barry delivered the girls to Holly Jones, who he had come to believe was his Aunt"
Which is pretty solid evidence that Holly was not in the RV when Alex took the girls, and he is lying to the police here.
reply
share
stellansson
10 years ago
To "Speed",
I'm one of the people reading this thread, for who knows what reason. I guess I'm interested to see whether you would concede anything at all. You are familiar with the give and take of having a discussion, aren't you? If you, as you have demonstrated, just continue to stubbornly, slippery slope yourself, you'll come off as quite childish in the art of rhetoric.
If you can't grasp the basic notion of "your opinion" vs. a "fact", you have lost this debate already.
Moviebuff is also correct when he points out that you are smug for no reason. This doesn't do you any favors. Your attempts to ridicule someone who has a different opinion than yours, by snide remarks and an overuse of emoticons is, well, just not very polite.
People do have different opinions, and especially on something that is up for interpretation, such as a work of art. When desperately trying to not be perceived as loosing (even trying at the ad plenum fallacy by using support or wins you claim you have from other threads), you only come off as an even bigger looser.
Have some dignity.
And just for your information, I don't intend to be rude.
reply
share
michaeluk26
10 years ago
I agree 100% with Speed racer. Alex was innocent and that is a MAJOR part of what the whole movie is about, as he said numerous times. Its all in the film, it lets you clearly know that he was innocent. I watched this 3 times. The first 2 I never questioned his innocence. I watched it a 3rd time trying to look at him as a guilty person and the movie does not work thematically if he is guilty. The whole point was Kellar abducted and tortured and innocent person only to find that his innocent daughter had been abducted and tortured. That is the brilliance of this film.
And another MAJOR point. In the trailer it clearly tries to make the viewer think Alex is the guilty party. Never does a trailer show you the antagonist in a whoodunit. It wanted you to THINK Alex was guilty. The movie wanted you to think that as well because it makes it all the more horrific and tragic that Alex had been abducted and abused badly already and now he goes through pure hell again as an innocent person.
There are so many other things that point out he is innocent but Speed Racer told most of them already. Moviebuff, I can see your opinion and why you feel that way. I totally respect it, I just disagree.
Haters gonna hate
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
10 years ago
Thanks for commenting Michael, I won't rehash any of my old points except to say that the trailer is a weak argument, one that Speed tried to make as well. The trailer is suppose to be suspenseful and inviting, it is not used to make a point about themes in the movie, in my opinion.
reply
share
sportinkings
10 years ago
Nah, Alex is guilty. If I was the father, I would have killed the fool and cut the body up in pieces and bag em up.
Then carry parts of the body and relocate it in various places....
If I had a pet, I'd feed them. If I was really hungry, I'd eat him with my pets.
reply
share
bacatacyborg
10 years ago
I guess you see in a movie (or any other work of art) what you want to see.
If you are a religious person, maybe you consider Dover is doing god's job when avenging his daughter by punishing Alex. If you are not so religious, maybe you think Dover is just blinded by anger and makes an honest mistake. If you are not religious at all, you could even see Dover as a bigot who inflicts torture on a man over no solid evidence, just a hunch or faith. If you are sportinkings, you should look for help. (Seriously dude, I hope you do not mean what you wrote).
On the subject of Alex being guilty or not, it makes far more sense that he is innocent, in order to create a story with less loose ends (considering it is not a Lynch movie). If Alex is guilty, the plot turns weaker, raises more questions than necessary and you have to assume a lot. Reading between lines is an easily biased and tricky task.
reply
share
jefferystock
8 years ago
Spoiler alert question at the bottom
Wow, whomever you were chatting with must have a foul mouth as all of his posts have been deleted. I just watched this movie and I have a question.
I must have blinked and missed the ending. They show the daughter of Jackman's character in the hospital at the end of the movie, did they ever find her father in the hole?
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
8 years ago
It was actually a her, and it was not so much foul mouthed as much as she pretty much had her posts broken down and eventually shown to be a hypocrite, so I think she just deleted everything. If you look at my posts I tried to caption everything as I was rebutting them so you can kind of get a sense of the argument we were having.
To answer your question: It is never shown if Jackman gets out of the hole, the very last scene of the movie is Loki starting to leave the property where Jackman is located, and he hears a faint whistling (they reference a whistle a few times earlier in the movie, that Jackmans daughter had). Loki hears a whistling, and then it fades to black, so its never answered, however I would suggest that Loki does not leave the crime scene: He is a dedicated police officer who has never lost a child (or something like that, I don't remember exactly how its worded), and if he hears that whistling, he is going to find the source. Some people think that he would leave Jackman to die, because of the torture of Alex, but I disagree. Loki does not know who is whistling, he might believe 99% that its Jackman, but it could also be another child they are simply unaware of being missing, so he is going to find the source of the whistling. Whether he finds Jackman alive and arrests him, finds him alive and sets him free, or finds him dead is up to the viewer, but I feel very confident that he does not simply assume its Jackman, and leave him to his fate.
reply
share