MovieChat Forums > Secuestrados (2011) Discussion > who was the guy at the start? SPOILERS

who was the guy at the start? SPOILERS

posted 13 years ago by stuffhotstuff
15 replies | jump to latest

okay I just finished watching this - I thought it was very good - okay who was the guy who's kidnapped right at the start of the film? he runs out onto the road and gets hit by a car and asks the driver for his phone to call his family ... I just assumed that it was the father of the family we spend all the movie with .. I thought it was a flash forward scene . then when we see the guy and his wife and daughter moving in to the new home. I thought the story would lead up to that scene eventually. but it didn't

so who the hells the guy at the start and what did it actually have to do with the film that followed? because after the first couple of minutes he is not in it again. and the father we spend all the movie with didn't escape and have that scene so its obviously not him

[–] pdavisparker 13 years ago

I am completely with you on this question and I too thought the same thing. Logically speaking he must have been a previous victim of the group who did the atrocities in this film.

[–] mcgillmckinley 13 years ago

I did not even think about that. All throughout the movie, I could not help but to think, "Okay, so when is he going to crash the car with that crook so that he can try to escape, only to have his wife shot in the stomach by one of the guys left back at the house anyway, or when is the movie going to go back to that scene?"

But now that it is mentioned...I agree with what you, pdavisparker, said. He obviously was a victim of the same crew, which means that the criminal in the car was very-well telling the truth when he stated that it did not matter if the people lived or died, because obviously that man did what was expected of him; yet, the crew still showed up at the man's house and terrorized his family (shooting his wife).

I am going to assume this. With the man at the beginning of the movie, he met up with the crew who did indeed kidnap him and made him empty out all of his money. I am also going to assume that the crew was able to get ahold of his wallet with his address on it. The crew must have had it set up so that the man was led to believe that as long as he cooperated, that his family would be left alone. But instead, he was left for dead and the crew still showed up at his house to terrorize his family.

And then the crew, back to their old tricks, decided this time around to not kidnap anyone and do a break-in in order to force the man of the family to cooperated with them in order to "attempt" to save his family who is stuck inside the house with one psycho pervert and another criminal who is along for the ride.

[–] EmmanKiddo 13 years ago

Obviously is a random guy, a victim from the bad guys! People, its called "opening scene"...

[–] ariocool 13 years ago

Well, same to me, I also thought that he's the father, but til the end of the movie nothing showed up. So i assume he's the another victim of the bad guys. This question should've been included in the FAQ section.

Btw, I just watch the trailer again, and just realized, that there's a scene, in the beginning where the daughter ask a man that helped her moved, how did he got the cut on the face. I think these two things are connected.

[–] KevinKR 13 years ago

Wasn't the man with the cut on his face supposed to be one of the bad guys? Specifically the "nice" one who stopped cocaine guy from raping the daughter and had that little "dance" with the father in the end before he got away with a duffel bag?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KevinKR 13 years ago

Personally, I don't think it worked at all, if that was indeed the intent here. Remember, the guy in the beginning said to his daughter on the phone that she shouldn't let anyone into the house, to which she replied that they're already there, so.. once we reached the part in the movie where the kidnappers come into play, it clearly couldn't have been the same father/daughter team anymore, because that would have rendered this the most redundant phone call ever.

[–] Dirk_Hardpeck 12 years ago

There's also the fact that the first guy's daughter was named Dani, while the daughter of the main character is named Isa. As soon as you hear them call her by name, which is right at the beginning, it's pretty obvious they aren't the same. The only way it could be the same guy is if he had another daughter by someone else and was calling to warn them, and in that case it would also solve the problem of it being a redundant phone call.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

The first guy spoke to his son, not daughter

[–] trigger_jam 13 years ago

I agree with Paulo's answer. It makes complete sense.

[–] nfaust1 13 years ago

SPOILER.

The guy at the beginning is a red herring that set up the violence to come. Was confused at first, myself, but afterwards I realized the opening not only sets the stage for mayhem, it also tells us that the world of the movie is one where upper middle class families are not safe in their own homes. This is a world of kidnappers and victims. I believe the film offers a political subtext for those of us who wish to discover it. That's why the whole thing ends on such a no-win note.

Even though this house invasion formula uses the same tricks that we can trace all the way back to DESPERATE HOURS (the play that Bogart's version is based on), this director turns the tricks into something, if not new, at least immediate and wildly gripping.

[–] soco-81 13 years ago

I'm glad Paulo explained this scene cause I had no clue what it meant. I will say it did mislead me into thinking things would be okay though. Very clever.

It's a sad thing that your adventures have ended here

[–] sm-meehan 11 years ago

I think it was a gimmick by the director to throw the viewer off so they'd think he was the father/husband in the subsequent story.