MovieChat Forums > Last Passenger (2014) Discussion > Central Question left un-answered [SPOIL...

Central Question left un-answered [SPOILERS]

posted 10 years ago by tohu
11 replies | jump to latest

Who hijacked the train? And why?

This is the central point of the story, and yet we don't get an answer. I understand that the writers wanted to concentrate on the passengers. OK, That's an interesting choice to make, creatively. But it does leave a very big hole in your film.

We do get one /hint/ of a clue: Carmichael's theory about driver suicide. But it's just that - one person's theory. It's plausible, but not certain. And even if it's true, can't we get a glimpse of /why/ the driver wanted to kill himself, and why in this way? What tipped him over the edge? How does he know so much about trains? What's the significance of Hastings? Why does he ask how many passengers are left? So many lines left hanging.

There are other flaws with this film too I'm afraid, but this is the big one for me. It's like Titanic without the iceberg!

_____________

"Maybe I should go alone"
- Quint, Jaws.

[–] Zerose 10 years ago

It's meant to be ambiguous. Enough to leave it to our imagination. One character did speculate that the driver was aiming for infamy. Going out in flames would have the media's attention.

I like it, actually, because not having the film to spoon-feed us makes a refreshing change, and because it reflects real life. We can only speculate about kreal-life dead illers' motives while we look for clues in newspaper reports about them and their backgrounds.

[–] velli10501 9 years ago

Zerose: Good one.

[–] rpgn 10 years ago

I like to think it was Carmichael and he was controlling the train through his laptop as he got really excited when talking about the driver wanting to commit suicide and be in the papers. Probably something to do with why his son doesn't like him. When he realised Dougray Scott had successfully uncoupled the train he threw himself down the hole.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benman46 10 years ago

The central point of the story was not who the driver was but how the passengers were going to survive. The driver was incidental that's why we never saw him. Stay awake next time.

[–] tohu 10 years ago

Seriously, why do you feel the need to be so insulting?

I realise I'm just opening myself up here for another insult, and if that makes you happy - be my guest. But I honestly do wonder about this.

It's a film. This is a discussion board. I've never done anything to harm you or your family (as far as I know). I'm a nice, normal guy who just asked a question. Your point in response is perfectly valid - but why add the snide comment at the end? What is it that makes you want to come on a board like this and insult a complete stranger??
_____________

"Maybe I should go alone"
- Quint, Jaws.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

That was an insult???. I have seen things much,much worse on Imdb. If you consider the comment an insult then I apologise. It wasn't meant to be it was just a comment.

[–] velli10501 9 years ago

I agree that the response was unfairly insulting, but this means of communication is so inviting for any one to get their anonymous digs in that we really must remember not to take it personally. Still, maybe making a personal reply to a person who feels the need to toss off insults at random could be educational when, as is probably the case with your snarker, said person just doesn't get civility or understand that even as temporary fellow passengers we don't need or deserve the toxicity.

[–] Adler-99 9 years ago

Just watched this last night and we were very heavily reminded of the 1971 TV movie "Duel," one of Spielberg's first projects. You never see the perp completely there either, and the "Why?" is very nebulous.

[–] Jaouad-El 10 years ago

Watching this movie at least 3 times, I can tell you that the story is told by one character (Dougray Scott). So all the clues we get is what he knows so far, I believe it's called A third person point of view which is limited, that's why he was practically in every scene in this movie.

Don't try answering any questions because it was never the attention of the writers to answer them .

[–] essex9999 10 years ago

I think the idea was to show the entire film from the POV of the passengers only. We see and know what they see and know and nothing else. They have no idea why the train was hijacked, so neither do we. I thought it was an effective device.

Also, how could they have told us what the hijacker's motive was? Have him give a rambling speech over the intercom? Tack on a contrived ending scene with a police interview or something? This was a small, tightly made film, and keeping strictly to the events the passengers experienced helped make it that way.