MovieChat Forums > Mojave (2015) Discussion > Unclear parts and final showdown

Unclear parts and final showdown

posted 8 years ago by BrianNIL25
3 replies | jump to latest

I really liked this movie. Yes, the criticisms are warranted; the plot is convoluted and unclear at times. However, I loved the dialogue. I especially liked Oscar Isaac's character. I thought, this is a person I'd love to know and talk to, if you take away the homicidal sociopath part.

It made a lot of sense to find out that the guy who wrote the script and directed also wrote The Departed. Both movies seem to rush or gloss over crucial plot points, leaving me confused and having to piece together what happened later. The stories build on an unclear foundation, and that is a failing of the storyteller. However, I really like The Departed too.

Here's an example: I don't know why the main character thinks the Oscar Isaac character wants to kill him from the start. Turns out he does, but why would you think that? Just because the man carries a rifle? This is America. Because he philosophizes about the nature of existence? The character just seems to take a big leap in initiating that first confrontation.

The climax of this movie makes no sense. These two guys both want to kill each other, and I understand that Isaac's character wants to make a game out of it, but he just sets his gun on the table in front of the other guy?!!!!!! What did he think would happen? And his game of Russian Roulette would have put the gun in the other guy's hands as well. What a lousy way to end the movie. After this whole game of cat and mouse, the guy basically just gives his gun away. Come on, brother!

I still wasn't all that disappointed, because WHAT a movie is about doesn't matter as much as HOW it's about. In other words, things like a movie's style and tone. In this case, I loved the dialogue.

[–] BrunoAntony 7 years ago

Re: the initial conflict, Oscar Isaac told the guy he was out in the desert "falling on unwary travellers", like a Biblical bandit, then was like "nah, just kidding".

I wouldn't have let a dude joking about murdering me simply walk off with his rifle or a Bowie knife, either.

Also, Oscar Isaac mentioned at the end he just wanted to result of the coin toss, then he was going to shoot the other guy while handing him the gun.

My take from the film is that Oscar Isaac's character was simply terrible at playing psychological mind-games.

[–] Tyler1986 (235) 2 years ago

This is right, Oscar Isaac's character thought he was a winner and smarter than he really was. That lead to his overconfidence and losing the game in the end.

[–] cyguration (3843) 2 years ago

Sad but true.

I was actually rooting for him in this particular showdown, because he seemed to be a lesser evil in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, he killed seven people, but the other guy was going to be responsible for a lot of other deaths via ancillary means (i.e., getting co-stars addicted, continuing to enable the coked up producer, abandonment of his family, etc., etc.).

Both were bad, but at least Jack was more honest about the damage he was causing, whereas Tom was a lot more insidious and subversive with his.

We really got to see how the inside of Tom's head worked when he one-upped Jack at the lounge scene where he explained how he would basically get off Scott-free for murdering that cop. He had already planned it out, and he had already bottled up his conscience to tell himself he was okay with it. The guy was going to go through life bringing ruin and devastation to other people's lives and justify it all the way to his grave (the scary part is that there are A LOT of people out there like that).

In many ways, Jack was the devil you know... a psychopath upfront about his pathology; Tom was the devil you didn't, because he's a sociopath whose worst qualities only emerge when you're on the bad end of the deal.