MovieChat Forums > Out of Time (2003) Discussion > I'm going to sound stupid for asking thi...

I'm going to sound stupid for asking this but (contains major spoiler..)

posted 18 years ago by lucynickson
9 replies | jump to latest

At the end of the film, when she thinks Denzel is going to give her the money, he shows her the briefcase or something....why does she then try to kill him?

Surely she wouldn't be worried about him shopping her to the police as he couldn't do that without landing himself in trouble? So why doesn't she just take the money (she doesn't know there is no money in the case) as dissappear?

I can't understand the point in trying to shoot her so called child hood sweetheart? (Yes I know she obviously doen't love him cos she's conned him but to just shoot him seems a little....I don't know...pointless?)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] banana_bonce11 18 years ago

Can't offer you a solution to this, but I do agree. I'm also trying to work out why the villains went to all that trouble, wasted a life policy (which they could have cashed in for a reasonable sum), and burned down their house, and destroyed all their possessions for about $150k each????

Oh yes..I was also very impressed by how the two lovers achieved such shattering orgasms without removing any of their clothes..that's really something to admire (tho' perhaps a bit messy)

Finally, (and perhaps I'm being too rational here) if the main character had come clean about the affair from the outset it would have explained all about his being a beneficiary of the life policy and his presence at the house.

Not one of Denzel's best....the plot was about as flimsy as that hotel balcony.

....

Wake up kids, we've got the dreamer's disease :)

[–] ChristianEdwards81 17 years ago

Oh yes..I was also very impressed by how the lovers achieved such shattering orgasms without removing any of their clothes..that's really something to admire(tho' perhaps a bit messy)

______________________________________________________________________________

I wondered about that too. They could a least shot them from above the waist. That would give th illusion they're not wearing any pants or underwear.IMO

[–] MariMcCabe 17 years ago

Good lord it's a PG-13 movie, they can only show so much, lol.

juicy-flawless.org

[–] fire-baby 16 years ago

if you notice most of denzel's movies where he has love scenes, they are almost always fully clothed love scenes...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Binkconn 17 years ago

I assume she was going to shoot him because she knew Denzel would eventually find someway to finger her for the money without implicating himself, and Denzel would be pissed that she on the side of her husband all along, after all the masquerades of him being abusive (and who Denzel didn't like much to begin with!).
On the sex, couldn't they have been doing it during the moaning sounds and pulled on their underwear before the dissolve to them talking? Der!
Fun if somewhat slight movie, but all hail Denzel!

[–] frog2077 16 years ago

They had stolen a lot of money, if she gets away with the money Whitlock (Denzel) is screwed she knows that he knows this, but even if he did decide he loved her and was willing to go to prison they would still get her, what with her dead shot husband lying on the boat...who is after all meant to be all crispy in the morgue.

Not to mention the paper trail that Denzel followed leading to the guy in the hotel that if not back to her would at least lead back to her husband, who she shot.

What I found odd was the fact that it is a sort of small community didnt anyone think it odd that a black man was at the scene of two murders but was never captured esp the hotel lobby guy who saw him twice and was even punched in the face.

[–] ze_goose 10 years ago

*Spoilers*

...Denzel would eventually find someway to finger her for the money...

From what I saw in the movie, I would say he already knew some ways to finger her, money or no money.