MovieChat Forums > Backtrack (2016) Discussion > Why wait so long? (SPOILERS)

Why wait so long? (SPOILERS)

posted 8 years ago by strangebedfellows
14 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers

Spoilers

I found this film watchable but I do have some questions as follows -

Why did the boys drop their bikes on a track they knew to be active. There was plenty of space available.

Why was the signal box on an active line unmanned and unlocked?

Why did the other boy commit suicide? He had lived with the mistaken assumption of guilt for many years.

Wouldn't the accident investigation have shown pretty quickly that the tracks had been switched ?

Why would the young police woman have gone to Brody's father on her own - accused him of lying about his witness statement and then sat and waited for Brody to come back?

Why would the father have bopped her on the head when he knew - as an ex policeman that all she had on him was that he had lied about how soon he got to the scene of the accident - he could have said that he passed the scene - heard the accident and returned to help - she had absolutely no idea about him raping and killing and dumping the girl at that point.

Why did the ghosts choose to haunt Adrien Brody instead of his father whose actions had led directly to all of their deaths?

And finally - and most importantly - We see the two boys hear the train - think of their bikes on the track and both boys start running along the track. You see them running alongside the train which is going very fast and the train overtakes them both. Now this is a memory of BOTH boys so it must have happened. So - how did Adrian Brodie end up in the signal box before the accident occurred? He saw the girl pull the lever that switched the tracks and caused the accident. He must have been there for several minutes to see his father rape and kill the girl - it doesn't make any sense. They were both of a similar age and strength - they would have run at the same rate - they were shown running together.
Can someone please explain?

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

I think that some of your questions are just due to the fact that the movie has an unreliable narrator almost the whole way through--so sorting out what was real and what was Brody's character inventing stuff can be hard.

Some points that could have a reasonable explanation:

1) Why was the signal box on an active line unmanned and unlocked?

I can't say why it was unmanned. But it's not too far out to suppose that the father in his role as police officer was able to get a copy of the key.

2) Why did the other boy commit suicide? He had lived with the mistaken assumption of guilt for many years.

Brody makes it clear he's going to confess. The guy had lived with his guilt, but the idea of others finding out what he'd done was too much.

3) Wouldn't the accident investigation have shown pretty quickly that the tracks had been switched?

I think the answer is yes. I consider this a bit of a plot hole in the movie.

4) Why did the ghosts choose to haunt Adrien Brody instead of his father whose actions had led directly to all of their deaths?

Perhaps because Brody was more "open" to the influence of the ghosts due to having lost his own daughter.

5) We see the two boys hear the train - think of their bikes on the track and both boys start running along the track. You see them running alongside the train which is going very fast and the train overtakes them both. Now this is a memory of BOTH boys so it must have happened.

I think that this memory is tied into Brody's incorrect memory of not getting to the bikes in time. In reality, I think that the one friend runs off in another direction and Brody makes it to the signal house. I think that being outrun by the train is a false memory (and he is remembering being with his friend).

I think that the movie leaves too much unanswered and it can feel like there are plotholes. I think that the writers were mostly counting on the momentum of the ghost story and hoping people wouldn't nit pick at the plot too much.

[–] strangebedfellows 8 years ago

Thank you for responding. I agree that the writers were counting on the momentum of the ghost story to carry the entire film. It didn't cut it for me - if you can't write a plausible story then don't write one at all.

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

Agreed. I think that the writing was a bit half-baked on this one. Combine that with repeated flashbacks and false memories and a lot of things felt confusing and unanswered.

And then things like the policewoman going to the house alone is just a character doing something stupid for the sake of the plot.

[–] jewelsb129 7 years ago

The investigation was in the 80s in a very small town in Australia. What you must realize is that police work was different back then. My main question is, why didn't Peter notice anything wrong when his books weren't adding up? How long had he been seeing ghosts as clients? Obviously, they weren't paying customers. So, why didn't he notice when like ten people per month, or even a week, were coming to see him yet he wasn't seeing it in his account ledger or his bank acct? I guess that's the accountant in me asking questions, lol. I think the other poster answered most of the questions correctly. Although, you must take into account that it's a movie...not RL.

[–] chilone 7 years ago

3) Wouldn't the accident investigation have shown pretty quickly that the tracks had been switched?

I think the answer is yes. I consider this a bit of a plot hole in the movie.

Not a plot hole. The father led the investigation. He buried that fact.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Stovepipe99 7 years ago

The father led the investigation.

The father led the police investigation, but I find it pretty implausible that there wouldn't have been experts hired by the railroad to figure out why the train derailed.

Even in a small town, even back in the day, you would still have someone aside from the local police force examining the scene of the accident, especially one that took so many lives. To me, the idea that only the father would be in charge of officially saying why the train derailed completely goes past plausibility.

Trains derailing are really bad business for train companies, and I just don't buy that a major transportation company would let a local sheriff be the be-all and end-all of saying why their train went off of the tracks. Not without an actual train expert at least offering a second opinion or confirming.

I will say that it's the kind of detail that you think about more after you've watched the movie, and not during it. Personally I think it's an example of lazy writing.

[–] chilone 7 years ago

Maybe, but apparently there was some questionable, behind the scenes stuff going on as evidenced by the files being marked "confidential". Maybe pops had some serious influence.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Stovepipe99 7 years ago

Maybe, but apparently there was some questionable, behind the scenes stuff going on as evidenced by the files being marked "confidential". Maybe pops had some serious influence.

I suppose that's possible, but by the same token the movie makes no real gestures at explaining why everyone would take one man's word for it.

I don't use the word "plot hole" very lightly. I feel like people throw that expression around anytime a movie doesn't make sense to them or doesn't explicitly explain something.

But I use the word here because I really don't think it makes sense that a major train crash (one that took the lives of a bunch of people) would not be thoroughly investigated by either the Australian equivalent of a Federal agency (like our Department of Transportation or Federal Railroad Administration) or by the company whose train crashed.

Is it possible that the sheriff either bribed/blackmailed, or otherwise convinced an investigator to stay quiet? I mean, I suppose the answer is yes. But the movie presents the sequence of events as the local police investigating and that's it. There's never any mention of any other investigation (that I recall), and that's the part that rings very false to me. A company would want to know why their train derailed, and I really don't see them just taking a local guy's word for it (especially a non-expert local).

At the end of the day, if that detail doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me as I was watching the movie because I was so wrapped up in the mystery. But after watching the movie I had quite a few "hang on a second . . . " moments, and this was one of them.

[–] chilone 7 years ago

I agree. Some questionable stuff but I did enjoy the movie :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Stovepipe99 7 years ago

Yeah--don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. But there are quite a few things that don't make so much sense when you get to thinking about them.

[–] LordManhammer 7 years ago

The simpler answer is that he pulled the lever to put the track back in place.

__ __ __
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley

[–] phoongdan 7 years ago

Like you, I enjoyed the film but had many of the same questions. Like the other responder said, the other kid likely hung himself because he was afraid of a police investigation and he thought he was guilty of causing the train crash.

I also wondered why the ghost just didn't directly go after the old man. But I remember the ghost that was the main characters mentor said "we are your ghosts." So perhaps the ghosts needed him in some way to get revenge on his father.

Then again it's just as likely the writer just didn't think these things through very well.

[–] Stovepipe99 7 years ago

But I remember the ghost that was the main characters mentor said "we are your ghosts." So perhaps the ghosts needed him in some way to get revenge on his father.

I have criticized the writing of this movie A LOT, but I thought that there was a kind of logic to the idea that Brody's character acts like a door for the ghosts--that his humanity (something his father lacks) makes him open to letting the ghosts come through.

I think it's kind of significant that the first scene between him and the girl is him showing her kindness, sensitivity, and genuinely trying to help her--the complete opposite of his father who treated her like an object, violates her, and didn't think twice about killing her to cover his crime.

Brody acting as a vehicle for the ghosts to get vengeance also kind of serves as a redemption for him--somewhere deep in his mind he knew that he'd seen a rape/murder and helped to cover it up.

[–] jewelsb129 7 years ago

Wow, please don't watch any extremely complex movies, like Inception or Twelve Monkeys or What Dreams May Come or anything with flashbacks. Lol, you'll be totally lost if you can't use your imagination. It seems many of us came to the same conclusions about your redundant questions. Don't get me wrong, the movie did have a few holes as most do, but you asked A LOT of questions. Remind me NOT to go to the movies with you, lol.