MovieChat Forums > The Rover (2014) Discussion > Wanted a different kind of collapse.

Wanted a different kind of collapse.

posted 10 years ago by JSFound
8 replies | jump to latest

Very good movie. Anyone else think they were going to pull a Twilight Zone and have the Collapse just be Eric's disintegration, when he killed his wife and her lover? The opening card says ten years after a collapse. Later we find out ten years ago Eric saw his wife cheating and killed her and her lover. So the twist of the movie could have been a shot of normal, every day Australia after Eric buries the dog, and the event was his moral collapse into who he became. That would have been cool.

[–] JayCeezy 10 years ago

Did you understand that Eric was the only one in the film who actually had a moral code? That the collapse revealed him as moral, and revealed the rest of those left in the outback after the world's financial collapse to be scavengers without the values necessary to create/maintain/promote a civilized society?

[–] JSFound 10 years ago

I disagree, and I think so does the movie. Eric is torturing himself for killing his wife and her lover, using that as the tip of the edge when he's already fallen off it, and so he thinks he can now murder at will. The dwarf did not deserve to get shot. He crime was not letting him have a gun at the price he wanted. Hardly justifies killing. The Pattinson character followed his lead and took his advice when he said your brother does not care about you. Which was wrong as his brother did care about him but assumed he was dead. Eric broke up that family by murdering them, even if not directly. The soldiers whom Pattinson killed were doing their law enforcement jobs. Eric is not a villain but he's not a hero either. Just because he has a big motivation to find his car and (Spoilers) bury his dog, does not make his actions acceptable.

[–] sammie1863 10 years ago

IMO, the dwarf was killed because of what he did to the dog.

[–] goatman86 10 years ago

Eric is not a villain but he's not a hero either.

I don't think there was meant to be any heroes in this film.

does not make his actions acceptable.

The sad reality of that world is life with worth nothing, Australia is a 3rd world hell hole and the people that remain are corrupt vapid shells of their former selves.

I don't think we were meant to like Eric, as a character I find him fascinating but he is a crap bloke overall but who isn't in that world?

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Eric was the only one in the film who actually had a moral code?

If he was, the benchmark was set pretty low. He was quick to point guns (and pull triggers) at a lot of different characters in this film for what frequently are rather minor reasons..

BTW, the original trio who stole his car, didn't kill him when they had the chance and rather strangely didn't shoot out the tyres of their old car (which also seemed to perform better than Eric's on the road). Why didn't they take it back I wonder? Eric would have got his car back and hostilities may have ceased.🐭

[–] JayCeezy 9 years ago

Missing the point. A moral code is not the same thing as a moral behavior. Eric feels remorse and regret for his actions in killing his disloyal wife and friend when he caught them. His dog turned out to be the only sentient being in the Collapsed World who was loyal back to Eric. Until Rey.

Pulling the trigger for 'minor reasons' is also not the same as a moral code: Eric doesn't value Life. He values Loyalty.

As for 3 guys (who abandoned the 4th guy, a blood brother of one) holding guns, on the run from a violent robbery they just committed, not sure why they would trade cars back with a guy who has no gun and simply asked for it back. Their code is to take what they want, not negotiate or be generous to other people. Truthfully, they could have taken both cars after knocking Eric senseless. But that, or 'shooting the tires' would have ensured that there was no second-act to the movie.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

No buddy you're quibbling. What part of "set pretty low" did you not understand?

Yes, we gather he does value loyalty such as that between people and their dogs. And we find out he harbours regrets over the earlier murders he committed. But not much else is evident on his moral code and as we find out, murder comes pretty easy to Eric.

He's virtually responsible for most of the deaths we see in the film, including those which Rey commits, after he's "inspired" by Eric's rhetoric (Your brother doesn't care for you.) to become an avenging angel.

What I said stands. There are lines you don't cross with Eric, (such as try to charge him too much for a gun for goodness sake!) and they are set a long way away from him.

Check Henry out at the end. He genuinely thought Rey was a goner. That's why he was left behind. He also couldn't get over (the new) Rey now pointing a gun in his face.

But that, or 'shooting the tires' would have ensured that there was no second-act to the movie.

Totally agree with you. The fact remains that even though "the villains of the piece" stole his car and didn't want him following them, they didn't kill him and gave him a second chance (and second vehicle). Does Eric's moral code allow him to be as benevolent with others?

Should we then adjudge their moral codes as lower compared to Eric's? On the evidence seen in the film, perhaps not.🐭

[–] kgnbear 9 years ago

The three thieves didn't want the truck because the military would be after it