MovieChat Forums > Big Bad Wolves (2013) Discussion > So many unanswered questions (can someon...

So many unanswered questions (can someone clarify)

posted 10 years ago by under-represented
17 replies | jump to latest

This movie doesn't make audience think in amusement about unanswered question but make them bang their head for stupidity shown by the characters. There are so many questions that nag your mind throughout the film that you can't enjoy ( even if you like violence), questions like:

Why everyone thought that the teacher is the child molester/killer?

Why nobody(the cop particularly) tried to search his house for evidence before kidnapping him. The cop did mention that he might have a Jar filled with toenails over his refrigerator. Then why not confirm his beliefs first?

Why did the teacher not sued the cop?

Why was there a bicycle in front of house? Was it just for plot convenience, so that the cop can escape on it?? I guess it was to distract people into thinking that it belong to some girl.

Since the cop was watching teacher all the day? How could he kidnap his daughter?? Why did the cop think that teacher kidnapped his daughter???

Also after a while, there were only 3 main characters, that too in a closed room, there was little chance that anyone other than the teacher could be the rapist/killer, thereby killing any suspense. That's the one place they could have left it open ended by not revealing who was the killer and could have left audience to guess, but they ruined it too.

[–] rc-108 10 years ago

the ending scene...
where they other detective is searching the teacher's house...
they show a secret room, that the girl was in...
thereby showing the teacher was indeed the killer.

yes.. the points you made about why they did not search the guys house...
but that secret room may not have been found then either.

Not a satisfying ending...but still an interesting movie.
It kept the intrigue up the whole movie.

[–] under-represented 10 years ago

The cop who searched the teacher's house was dumb as quoted in the movie earlier "He couldn't find a body in a morgue!" So he wasn't expected to actually find the body.

[–] rc-108 10 years ago

yes...
as you said... many stupid mistakes...

I loved the beginning...I was hooked from the start...
definitely a sad ending as far as the victims go...

the father and son...were craaaazy....
and the son so stupid as killing the suspect before finding out anything...

[–] hwoarang45 10 years ago

well its easy why the cop knows for sure this time, teacher is the teacher when he got the call, because the teacher mention "u are a father yourself right?" is when the cop pauses a second as well, the teacher has on purpose target his daughter because of revenge, and the last look he gave was to smile to the detective,

the small signs, if u rewatch the movies will tell u the killer IS the teacher, and signs like the wife doesn't let the teacher sees her daughter like there been a traumatic case, is also a key showing he is not well ....

u have to read the small signs , its not a terrific movie, but also not a bad one, really enjoyable ..

[–] under-represented 10 years ago

One more unexplained thing:

The teacher is shown to drive a bicycle to the school, he may have a car(but it's never shown) and he takes bicycle to school everyday, then how come he is able to kidnap Cop's daughter and bring her home ( not possible on a bicycle)??

[–] armagecko 10 years ago

Are you people serious? I'm not a huge fan of this flick, but I did at least halfway pay attention to it. All of your (and some other's) questions are answered in the film.

1) Everyone thought the teacher was the killer because, as stated, one person saw him near the scene of the crime. And the fact that he was interrogated by the cops and the video shown to the world on Youtube.

2) They didn't search his house because they didn't have just cause. As the police chief and others said they had no real evidence on the guy. The cop is relying on his intuition that the guy is guilty and that's what makes you question the guilt/innocence throughout the entire movie. If he had proof, we would have known as well, which would have negated the entire point of this movie.

3) The teacher didn't sue the cop because KILLERS WHO DON'T WANT TO BE CAUGHT DON'T CALL ATTENTION TO THEMSELVES BY SUING PEOPLE!!! (good grief...)

4) There was a bicycle at the house because the former occupant of the house obviously had a kid who had a bike. Or some neighborhood kid left it there while exploring the vacant house. Or....really? The randomness of life is a fundamental building block for all good fiction. The filmmaker could have shown the character running through the woods; it would have made no difference.

5) The perp had the opportunity when the cop fell asleep. Did you miss that part? The last part of your question has been addressed by a previous post.

Yes, there were only three characters which should be a bit of a clue, but since you missed the previous points, I'm surprised that you noticed this one. This wasn't an art-house flick. It wasn't an introspective of the human condition or an analysis of societal woes. It was a movie whose main purpose was to create a feeling of suspense, a puzzle. It didn't always succeed, but if the ending left the audience hanging with no resolution, it would have been a total failure.

Like I said, this isn't my favorite movie by a stretch, but if you're going to sleep through half of the story, don't project your ignorance for the world to see by criticizing the movie on IMDB.

[–] under-represented 10 years ago

Sir, I am sorry if I made you angry, al though it seems like your own problem.

1) By everyone I mean cop and the torturing guy. They didn't have a doubt, they were convinced, because of what circumstantial evidence? If you say people believe that teacher was guilty because police interrogate him illegally and brutally, then we have pretty sick people out there.

2) So you are saying, that cop who can kidnap someone, wouldn't break someone's house for clue because it's illegal? Instead of breaking teacher's bones, if cop had broken his house, he would have better chance nailing the guy (legally) and of course finding the girl

3) Well, you could find many movies where killers do sue cops to back them off and appear innocent

4) poor use of "Chekhov’s gun", that's all I am saying

5 I am not going to watch movie again to establish exact timeline, but if you can then please match timing of cop watching/torturing teacher and ballet class timings for cop's girl (which I assume should be after school) and let me know

There's one more point about teacher using bicycle to commute still being able to kidnap and bring girls home. Maybe he has a car or a van, but movie missed showing that, probably that was only to make audience believing otherwise about teacher but that's also something worth noticing.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manzuzu-1 10 years ago

The cop and the father both get obsessed with the teacher, it's a way of showing that the teacher is sick for what he does to little girls, but so is anyone given the right circumstances. They pick him because he is the only suspect and he was spotted near the crime scene, that is the only prove they have, a single witness that saw him near the house, but that is all the evidence the cop and the father need to do anything to get the truth.

I think the cop's daughter was taken at the time he was being "fired" at the police station, you can see the teacher making the sedatives cake and feeding it to the girl on the next scene, while the father is preparing the basement and the cop is getting his taser.

About the teacher's house, they did search it, but they searched his other house where he lives alone. At the beginning, after they beat him up and drive him home, as he is giving the cops directions to his house, they ask the teacher where are they going because that isn't his address. The teacher tells them it's his parents home.

So it's easy to assume they already searched his place for clues, the cops know where he lives, they just didn't search the right place. They do search the parents house one or two days later which we see at the end.

[–] SausagePourVous 10 years ago

But you get that the cake the teacher has baked for"his daughter",as we first percieve it,is not his daughter at all,it´s Miki´s and he has baked it with sleeping pills. So Mikis daughter might wake up,she just wasn´t awake when that dumb cop searched the teachers place.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pas-argenio 10 years ago

This post is awesome. Some real critics on here and you helped me understand the movie a little better. It is more nuanced than I thought, but still with a few plot holes. Armagecko, you should be a professional.

[–] samir-jankis 10 years ago

Are you guys sure that the ballerina girl is the cop's daughter?

I thought it was the teacher's daughter?

This is what I caught;

1. Teacher's talking on the phone with his (ex)wife saying "I wanna see you girls" while looking at ballerina girl and it looks like ballerina girl sees him and actually looks at him (knows him?).

2. TEACHER BRINGS A BIRTHDAY CAKE TO BALLERINA GIRL (and she blows the candles etc.)

3. Ballerina girl is dead at teacher's house.

[–] brookiniscool 10 years ago

An extra 15 - 20 minutes of filling in the plotholes and this film could hae been far better than it was - but it was still alright.

I definitely agree with the earlier statement that the killer smirked/smiled at the cop as he died - very evil of the killer because he knew he had his daughter.. The timeline still doesn't sit well with me though.. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the 'he could have had a car or van' - the film could have shown us and it wouldn't have taken long - this is where the film let itself down for me unfortunately.

A few other points that annoyed me - the killer/paedo didn't seem to be in that much pain considering he had his chest burnt, his fingers broken and his toenails ripped out - the acting didn't look very convincing.

And, as soon as I saw him hang the bike on the wall, I thought 'behind the false wall' immediately!! The police investigation was pathetic and that's putting it mildly!

Also, why was there a need to put a random Palastinian guy on a horse - utterly unnecessary!!!

Could have been a lot better but not bad...

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grantss 9 years ago

The thing that kept bugging me was: why didn't they compare DNA evidence from the suspected killer vs that found on the victim(s)? From his methods there would have been some samples on the victims. Surely that would have cleared it all up. The whole vigilante justice thing seemed unnecessary, and anachronistic, with today's modern investigation techniques.

Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free

[–] Nephilim-6 9 years ago

Because from what I understand from real life police work (one of my friends works for the police) , 1 DNA evidence is NOT conclusive and 2, getting a DNA test/match takes a long time. It isn't like CSI wants you to believe.

Awesome movie btw. Wonderfully dark ending, although it would have been even better if the teacher really was innocent

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks