MovieChat Forums > Haute tension (2005) Discussion > ok, the plot holes/gas station scene/dad...

ok, the plot holes/gas station scene/dad dying

posted 15 years ago by ryoki9-1
60 replies | jump to latest

As it has been stated in numerous threads about this movie, there are plot holes. However, what needs to be noted is again that this movie is from the perspective of a crazy person...If it makes sense to anyone fully then they need to get checked out! Ok now that we've established that, lets move on to the more pressing issue of the gas station scene, as well as the scene where the dad dies, and other scenes in the home.

Gas Station Scene
As far as this scene is concerned, you can look at it one of two ways. Either you can see it for what it is that she's the only one in the gas station the whole time, which is what the video shows. Or, if you're like me and you wanna know why the gas station clerk was talking to some woman and winking at her, then you could say that points of view are switched. Go back and look at Marie's dream sequence in the beginning where she is being chased, which in the end is actually Alex being chased. (This also applies to the dad dying and who witnesses it). For all we know the whole time Marie is actually the old man, and Alex is Marie. Alex is the one who escaped some how from the truck and the clerk noticed her, not Marie as we saw it. But thats just another mind trip. How that fits into the car chase sequence I don't know but it helped me have some resolution to the scene.

Fathers Death/Truck
Ok, so going along with the previous scene discussed above, one could argue that it was in fact Alex who watched her father die, not Marie. At that point in the movie, Alex's where abouts are actually unknown. It has not been visually established where she is at that point in time. The only one who was "awake" was Marie to see it all. One could also argue that the whole time in the home Alex wasn't actually chained up at all. At this point in the movie, most of the movie could be out sequence when you think about it. This could explain how Alex gets the knife, or you could say that Marie really did belive that she wasn't the killer at the time and really did give her the knife but then why didn't Alex just stab her then? And if you notice, Alex doesn't look at Marie directly in the back of the truck ever. Just all around the place. Also, if the scenes are in fact out of sequence then seeing Alex tied up did in fact happen just not when we think they did.

Was Marie Ever Actually A Guest In The House?
Flash back to when Marie first came into the home. She was never invited into the home, she followed Alex in. This begs to question, is she a friend or a stalker? If you are going on the stalker thing, then this could explain the events in the home. She goes upstairs and gets herself settled, then she goes and eats something with Alex, but then imediately goes outside to smoke, which is when she sees Alex showering. This is where you see the switch in Marie. It is implied that there is the attraction from Marie to Alex. Shortly after this, the killer enters the home. Going with the stalker theme, why does the father seem surprised by the old man when in all actuallity it is Marie? Especially if she supposibly has a photo on the mantal? Also, did anyone else notice how Marie's photo is not on the mantal at all? Again makes ya wonder if she was ever actually a guest. (Please keep in mind that this story can't make 100% sense because it is being told by a crazy person to a camera via the beginning of the movie) Continuing on...So going back to the dads death, Marie goes upstairs after seeing the dad die and makes it appear that she was never infact there. Erasing herself completely from the home, so was she ever really there? If we went back to the whole switcharoo of points of view where Marie's point of view is actaully Alex's, then could this actually be Alex hiding in the room that was never actually entered at all by Marie? Or was this Alex's room? (Note that you only see Alex's room when she's tied to the bed) So did Marie just simply clean up where she had been, or was she ever a guest?

Please note that these are just ideas not facts about the movie, and any comments or other theme ideas are welcomed. And please excuse any random thought jumping. If you made it through my novel aobut this movie then congrats!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ClintJCL 14 years ago

Yes, but we also see an old serial killer in overalls. What you see isn't necessarily real :)

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

I appreciate what you wrote about the film but I think you are looking into it too much. I'm really not in the mood to type a whole lot so I'll just touch on your first point which was the gas station scene:

You have to realize that this movie is all in Marie's head. Some of what we see on screen (the killings) actually happen, other things don't. When the gas station attendant (Jimmy) winks at Marie, basically saying (don't worry, I won't let this guy kill you or hurt you)...I don't think that ever actually happened. I don't think Jimmy ever winked at her. Marie is psychotic and even though she killed her friend's family she always wanted to fantasize about being the hero and saving the day. When you see Jimmy wink at her, I think this was just another delusional image that happened in her head. She imagined that Jimmy winked at her because that would mean he was trying to help her, which would make her the "victim" needing help from the male "killer". When in fact, there is no male killer and Marie isn't a victim, rather a suspect.

So in conclusion: even though the film shows the viewer that Jimmy is winking at Marie....I don't think that ever actually happened in real life. It was all just a figment of Marie's imagination.

[–] chris-m-c 15 years ago

No one has yet answered - where did she get the friggin van full of power tools from? If that was her getting a blowie from the severed head of her first victim, how does that fit in with her driving across most of France in the Peugeot with her mate, when she hadn't arrived at the scene of the crime? How did she drive both the van and the Mustang? She had injuries at the end which supposedly are caused by the tumble in the Mustang, however if she wasn't driving it, how did she get all the scratches on her head? No one person caused those injuries and if she was imagining the whole thing, including stealing the car, she wouldn't have a head covered in blood at the end. Where did she get the shotgun from to shoot the boy? Or the chains to do the bondage on Alex?

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

I will try to explain this again, but I don't really see why I am going to do this, as you have already solidly made up your mind and I can see that nothing I say will change your views and you will still look at it as "that is soooo stupid" or "that doesn't make any sense". But here I go anyway:

Keep this in mind: Not everything we see in the movie, on screen actually happened. You have to understand that the story is told from a psychotic mind (Marie's) so SOME things we see on screen actually happened, but other things we see on screen were completely fabricated from Marie's mind; it's your job to decide which parts are real and which parts aren't.

First of all, the van wasn't "full of power tools" the only power tool you see is a chainsaw type thing.

The "getting head from a head scene"...I think this scene confuses a lot of people. You guys are trying to decide "how does that fit in with the story" but I've said this before and I still do believe it: I honestly think that the head giving head scene was put into the movie by the director's solely as a "SHOCK FACTOR" and nothing more. It has absolutely NO relevance to the story and it doesn't mean anything. I just think that was a shock factor by the directors to tell the audience that they will be shocked during the movie and that not everything you will be seeing makes complete sense. If you think about it...that way of thinking does make sense, right?

She did NOT drive both the van and the yellow sports car. Remember, Marie is psychotic, and she is absolutely in love with Alex. The reason Marie kills Alex's family is because she wants Alex all to herself, she doesn't even want to share her with her own family. That's how messed up she was. But at the same time, she didn't want to be the "bad guy" in all of this, so she made up another story in her head which would make her look like the good guy. The story she made up is that "there is a male killer and Marie is actually the one trying to follow him and rescue Alex". Which is exactly what you see during the movie. All Marie wanted was to be Alex's "knight in shining armor" so to speak. So when you see the male killer driving with Alex in the back and Marie is back there too...Marie isn't actually in the back of the truck, Marie IS driving the truck. When you see Marie chasing the killer's van with the yellow sports car....that never happened. There NEVER was a chase scene. That was once again, just her way of telling her own crazy mind "look, I'm the hero in all of this, I'm going to save my friend Alex from the crazy killer by chasing him down and stopping him" she was trying to justify her actions...but really there was NO chase scene, and Marie was just driving the truck.

Yes she does have injuries in the end...but no they aren't caused by the "chase scene" why? Becuase there was no chase scene. We don't see everything that happens. You have to remember that a movie doesn't show you every second of what's going on. There are time lapses where you just imagine nothing important happened, but for all you know, maybe something did. For example...since there was no chase scene, the only vehicle involved was the van, which Marie was driving. Well...it is completely not far-fetched to imagine that at some point, Marie herself crashed the van in the forest. Now, we don't actually see this happen on screen, but it definitely could have. But that is just one idea. There could have been a lot going on to cause her injuries that you don't see on screen. Also...remember when Marie is fighting with the "killer" in the greenhouse and she keeps hitting "him" with the stake full of barbed wire? That obviously didn't happen because there was no male killer. This brings me back to something I touched on before. Remember how Marie just wants to be the hero in all of this? She just wants to be Alex's savior. So, keeping in mind that Marie is completely and utterly out of her damn mind, crazy as can be...is it so hard to imagine that Marie herself caused her own injuries? Of course you won't see this on screen because that would give away the twist, but think about it. Marie causes her own injuries to herself (maybe even with the stake with barbed wire) and she beats herself up. So that way in her mind she actually believes "see look, you are all beaten up, you are the VICTIM here"

Where did she get the shotgun from to shoot the boy or the chains to bound Alex....I think you are just picking at straws now. Seriously, in EVERY horror movie with a killer, the killer has some sort of weapon and usually we don't question where he or she got it. It doesn't really matter where Marie got the shotgun or chains...does it? All we know is that she really did have the shotgun and chains. Maybe the shotgun was in Alex's parents house somewhere and Marie found it. Is that so hard to believe? They did, after all, live out in the middle of a farm with no one around. A weapon for home-protection actually makes sense, doesn't it? So maybe the shotgun was in the parents house...maybe the chains were in a barn near the parent's house...does it really matter? No. All that matters is that Marie really DID have a shotgun and chains and she used them, who cares where she got them. There is no plothole here. Just because you aren't shown on screen where she got them doesn't mean that they just appeared out of thin air. As I said before movies don't show you every single second of what is going on. She could have found them "off screen" where the viewer did not see her find them.

Anyways....sorry for the extremely long explanation.

[–] mats_bj 15 years ago

It's more probable that Marie is in fact the old man, and "Marie" is just one of his screwed up personalities. This explains the decap-fellatio at the beginning of the movie, and the fact that "Marie" is driving the old ugly truck.

The tension of this movie is beyond pretty much everything else I´ve seen (probably because of superior acting and setting), but I feel the plot could have been better.

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

Well whether that's more probably or not, is subjective. But the director clearly says that Marie is in fact, Marie. She is not just a personality of the old man. The old man does NOT exist. HE is made up in Marie's mind. This is straight from the director of the movie.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Good_Citizen 13 years ago

Shut up, *beep*

[–] tvrdjava 15 years ago

well, this explanation makes sense too me :)

[–] Hollastar 15 years ago

Everything you said sounds like a cop out. To translate, you're saying either the director cheated, or anything in the movie makes sense just because she's crazy. That doesn't mean the movie itself shouldn't make sense.

If you nailed jesus christ to the cross and are 100% proud of it, put this in your signature.

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

If you want to label it as a cop out then go right ahead. You've obviously already made up your mind and there is no changing it. Good day.

[–] Hollastar 15 years ago

that's also a cop out.

If you nailed jesus christ to the cross and are 100% proud of it, put this in your signature.

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

^^ You're not going to "trick" me into giving a long explanation.....AGAIN. I've explained myself and this movie dozens and dozens of times on this board. I've repeated myself dozens of times. So just because a little douche like you wants another explanation all for himself and I won't give it, doesn't mean it's a cop out.

Like I said, you've obviously already made up your mind and you won't believe anything else that differs from your belief, so there's no point in me explaining anything. And why do I owe you anything? I know this movie is awesome and that's all I care about. I couldn't care less what someone like you thinks.

I thoroughly enjoy narrow-minded people like you who don't have the mental capacity to grasp this movie, so you revert to bashing on it since you fail to understand. Too bad for you.

GOod day.

[–] Hollastar 15 years ago

are you confusing my posts with someone elses? i'm a douche, why? i never once bashed the film or gave any type of "view" so i'm not understanding your narrow minded comment either. i didn't make up my mind on the film, i just said your post was a cop out(which it was). and chill out with the overly defensive responses, it kind of ruins the illusion that you aren't being affected by someone disagreeing with you.

you think you're open minded just because you've managed to twist this film into making sense in your head? the fact you're the only one who agrees with you should be a hint that your theory may be wrong.

If you nailed jesus christ to the cross and are 100% proud of it, put this in your signature.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pixtureske 12 years ago

Caliman, rest yourself, mate (You did now that this trend is old).

One good thing about movies is to make people think. If people are trying to figure it out, points to the movie. Now if they get lazy or can't be bothered, is their problem.

I agree with you. I already posted about how I think the movie works. Nothing better to portrait crazy minds than confusing people. Is that how it is. They are all confused and lost, our advantage is to be able to look at that with calm, one, two, as many times needed. But during the course of the movie, watching the first time, following its pace, we are as helpless as they are.

I think that many of the things that happens in the movie probably didn't happen as shown - some people feel "cheated" here, which is stupid. I mentioned an example in the other post, comparing how the killer kills Alex's father and how Marie can't move a piece of furniture in her bedroom. Those things aren't there for no purpose. People fail to pay attention to the details and blame the movie. I also don't think that the truck exists or even the car scene with the driver being "chainsawed" in the end.

Another thing that came to my mind during the film, but I kinda put aside, dragged by the movie, is when Marie says, in a very creep way to Alex that she is glad to finally meet her family. I thought then that she could be the murderer or be related to the murderer.

[–] spdiana9 14 years ago

"The "getting head from a head scene"...the scene was put into the movie by the director's solely as a "SHOCK FACTOR" and nothing more. It has absolutely NO relevance to the story and it doesn't mean anything. I just think that was a shock factor by the directors to tell the audience that they will be shocked during the movie and that not everything you will be seeing makes complete sense..."

i agree that this scene was orchestrated for shock value, but disagree that it has no relevance to the movie. i think the scene was essential in that it immediately established that something morbidly psychotic was afoot.

[–] ChazzJazz 14 years ago

it s what they call a "red herring" technique to disguise your real intentions

[–] ptb4life 14 years ago

actually it was just STUPID. many of the "plot holes" can be explained, but not that one. It pretty ruined the movie

[–] Stardust21 12 years ago

I agree with most of your explanation except for the fact that the head scene doesn't mean anything.
It does. (to me at least)

And to understand it, one must understand what goes on in a lesbian mind.

Marie obviously wished she was a man. She transforms as one in her mind. And in a lesbian couple, there is often one who is more manly. Therefore, in her sick little mind, this (the head scene) is what she would do IF she was a man.

It doesn't mean the scene happened. But it shows her sick fantasies.
Marie has gender issues as well as a double personality. As a lesbian, she goes for straight women she knows she'll never have. Why in her mind she doesn't choose to be a handsome guy? Probably because all her feelings of rejection are linked to her sexuality and she puts all this ugliness and frustration on her alter ego. (as confused as she is).

That was my take on this scene. :)

[–] craiggors 12 years ago

That's kind of an ignorant post. All lesbians do not wish that they were men. Just because a woman might choose to express herself in more traditionally "masculine" ways than "feminine" ones does not mean they wishes that she was not a woman. There is nothing in the film to indicate that she has gender issues. Her issues are ones of rage. And obviously she doesn't "know" that she'll never get Alex, she just things that there are obstacles in their path, which is why she kills the family, to ensure that "nothing will come between" them anymore, as she says.

Be careful of the generalizations you make.

[–] Stardust21 12 years ago

read my post properly before calling me *ignorant*. I did NOT say ALL lesbians want to be men. I said *MARIE*. Quite a difference. Please read properly before correcting people and calling them ignorant... How do you look now?

[–] robinfisherthefox 9 years ago

Keep this in mind: Not everything we see in the movie, on screen actually happened. You have to understand that the story is told from a psychotic mind (Marie's) so SOME things we see on screen actually happened, but other things we see on screen were completely fabricated from Marie's mind; it's your job to decide which parts are real and which parts aren't.

There's no need to infer what she did, because we're shown towards the end in that crude "flashback." So, the question is...what is the point? If this is all her story, then she could say anything and everything, (she does) and all the writers have to do when asked questions is point to the sign they're holding:

"It's made up. Cool, huh?"

And if she says something that doesn't make sense for a person to say, (she does) they pull out their next sign:

"Oh yeah, she's insane, too."

Au lieu de weaving a good story, they weave a poor one and stuff the holes with TWO convenient plot twists.

It may be your cup of tea, but it's bitter and you should understand why people don't want to drink it.

[–] CaliManDan35 9 years ago

That bitter cup of tea you don't like may be just right to others and you should understand that. See what I did there? I turned it around on you.

[–] hmg211 13 years ago

When Marie goes outside to smoke, we see through a window into the dad's study/office. The shotgun is hanging on the wall in the office.

[–] RustyNail72486 13 years ago

Whether you love or hate the movie, the ending is the equivalent of the main character waking up at the end and saying: "It was just a dream". The ending is a cop-out. No more. No less.

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-Dr. Peter Venkman

[–] brandygirl314 15 years ago

I feel that you love this movie so much that no matter what anyone tells you you are goin to disagree with them. First of all let me start off by saying I dont watch a lot of horror movies unless they are cheesy this one really fit the bill for that. Seriously you are saying that a director is just going to put a head giving head in there for no reason that is really silly from my perpective. Also whats with the masturbation scene really is that just so all you boys could get a little happy in your pants? The movie is silly and makes no sense and you can tell me its beacause marie lives in crazy land all you want but usually when someone makes a film you dont just guess what happened when you arent around. If that was the case I should be getting some of the profits of the movie because I have to fill in the plotholes of the screenplay in my mind. But lets agree to disagree

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

Brandygirl314--- that was just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Good job of not proving your case. :-)

Seriously though, not only did you not make any valid points for YOUR argument, your points, if anything, made my argument more valid. You mentioned the masturbation scene as being a cheap thrill by the director to just try to turn the guys on who were viewing the movie?

If you paid attention, which you obviously did not, you would notice that the masturbation scene is what sets the entire movie for Marie going crazy. Right after Marie "finishes" masturbating is when the "killer" shows up...which we find out later is actually Marie. The masturbation scene also came immediately after Marie witnessed Alex naked in the window. Which was a subtle hint to tell the viewer that Marie is infatuated with Alex.

The fact of the matter is...you can say you don't like this movie and it was "cheesy" (you're the first person on here I've ever seen use the word cheesy to describe this movie) but just because the director does something with his movie that you don't approve of, doesn't make it dumb or cheesy. It is not completely absurd to believe that the director did add the "head giving head" scene just as a bit of fun to show the viewer that not everything they see is exactly as it appears (which we find out is true in the end, when the male killer we've seen all move doesn't even exist).

So there you go.

[–] brandygirl314 15 years ago

As a matter of fact I did pay attention and I knew before the masturbation scene she was infatuated with here I didnt have to wait to figure it out. Im not a mean person I just think its cheesy. Im sorry to upset you because I don't like your movie :)
Lets all agree to disagree
♥Mrs.Starke♥

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

Like I've said before...it's not the writer's job to force-feed you and make YOU unerstand HIS movie. That's not his fault if you can't grasp what he's trying to say. And don't say his writing made it impossible to do that, because many other people DID understand it.

If you don't like the movie....that's completely fine. But the reasons you are giving don't make sense. "I don't like this movie because I had to come up with explanations instead of the movie telling me exactly what's happening!"

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

[–] macca-s 15 years ago

I just watched this movie and I have to say I was a bit disappointed, mainly due to a lot of the hype I had heard about it!

I thought the idea was good but when you compare it to similar films that have major twists such as 'Identity', 'Sixth Sense' and 'The others' I just don't think it lived up to much. In the three films I just mentioned, when you discover the twist you kind of think 'how come I didn't see it coming? It was so obvious' (I am sure that many people saw the twists coming.... I was just one of them that didn't!) They where all done extremely well and it all made perfect sense when revealed with few plot holes.

I think the main problem with High Tension (or Switchblade Romance as I know it in the UK) is that there where so many scenes 'from a crazy persons point of view' that it starts to get a bit ridiculous. And when you discover Marie is the old man, so many scenes just don't make sense......even through the eyes of a crazy person! I think people feel a little cheated by it and that the writers kind of lost their way in the story due to concentrating on the blood and shock factor too much.

I know a lot of people who love this film but I do prefer films with a little more substance in the story. I thought the way in which it was shot and the acting was good I didn't think that it was particularly scary or intense.

CaliManDan35 makes some good points about the film, trying to explain it from a different perspective, and I like that, but I think that if the only real argument is 'so many scenes where made up because she's crazy' is a bit of a cop out on the writers part.
They should have done less of these make-beleive scenes and concentrated more on character depth and history.

Act accordingly ~ Frank Costello - 2006***

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

GingerBerry, I appreciate your input but you may want to watch the movie again. You said in your post "When you discover that Marie is actually the old man..."

It's actually the other way around. The old man is actually Marie. The old man does not exist. Marie does. Anyways, I too enjoyed Identity

[–] macca-s 15 years ago

I apologise for my grammer but I think you may just arguing for the sake of arguing there CaliManDan35.
Either way it's written, the outcome is the same.

Act accordingly ~ Frank Costello - 2006***

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

I wasn't arguing at all. I was simply letting you know that the old man does not exist and Marie does, since you seemed to get those mixed up.

[–] macca-s 15 years ago

No mix up, I understood the film.
I understood that the old man didn't exist.
I undestood that Marie did exist.
It was a given and did not need explaining.

The way in which I wrote the sentence obviously made you doubt what I understood but rest assure I did understand, you just mis-understood what I meant.

Act accordingly ~ Frank Costello - 2006***

[–] CaliManDan35 15 years ago

Don't get so defensive over things...Ginger.

[–] Good_Citizen 13 years ago

I agree with ya bud. It's too bad all these stupid people have to hate on this awesome movie just because they lack brain cells.

[–] ptb4life 14 years ago

THIS!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Hamster 13 years ago

When you see Jimmy wink at her, I think this was just another delusional image that happened in her head.

You're right, and that's exactly the reason why this movie falls short. Take Fight Club for instance: hard to figure hard out the first time, the second time it all makes sense because the film does a good job at giving the viewer an explanation which doesn't discard anything you've seen until then, but instead puts a different perspective on it. Now that's clever storytelling.

With High Tension, it's exactly the opposite - whenever something can't be explained or makes no sense in hindsight, 'it's still okay because we're seeing the film out of the perspective of a delusional person, so anything's possible'.

That's just lazy and convenient writing, that's what it is. The film was very well done, and I liked most of it, but it keeps cheating the viewer (especially so during the second half) in order to make that final twist happen somehow.

Who are they? And what do they want?

[–] CaliManDan35 13 years ago

I don't feel like I am being cheated when I watch the movie. I absolutely love this movie and I love the twist as well. Whether you want to call it lazy story-telling or not, that's up to you, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the movie was great.

[–] ilk005 9 years ago

That's right! i watched the film tonight again. it was my fourth time. I still see that Marie imagines everythings in her mind. She killed everyone in the house and tied Alex from beginning of the massacre, and put Alex in the van. Alex was in the van during whole movie. Marie plays victim and killer man in her mind. Twist is just like that illness. There is no another car which follow the van up.

[–] jeffrey_bear_hug 15 years ago

You made a good point. '... whole time Marie is actually the old man, and Alex is Marie'. That explains and actaully fixes up most of the holes. but still there is something ridiculous there, e.g., the car and the truck, Marie cannot drive the two at the same time. Did the car really crash? If not, how did Marie get hurt in the head and the arm? well, enough for the questions.

Personally I think that the first twenty minutes of the movie is quite intriguing with carefully dealing in photography and ambient sound effects. Apart from the said technical aspects, it is moving forward smoothly. i'd like to give it A rank for this part. But things changed after the massacre began, it failed to continue the 'high tension', till this point my tensed nerves were suddenly cut loose and it just became another chainsaw maniac movie or same sort. However this is not the worst. Then came the ending with a farfetched twist explanation, which resulted in lots of plot holes (there were enough listed in previous posts).
Had the director ever sticked to the 'mentally horror' way and make less blood blasts OR filmed a normal ending without twist, i would keep it in my favorite list.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sm-meehan 15 years ago

I have analyzed this movie to death but you created a new angle for me to view it, thanks. I never considered the fact that during Marie's re-telling of the events, some of the stuff actually happened exactly like she said except with Marie in the trucker's stead and alex in marie's.

I actually think this "switch" makes sense in the gas station scene. Ok, Marie is obsessed with Alex. This obsession drives her to kill the family in order to capture Alex. So there is reason for her killings. However, why would she randomly kill the gas station attendant if alex was locked away safe in the truck? It makes more sense she'd kill him because alex escaped the truck. Him being a witness or helping Alex to escape would be a more viable explanation of her killing him than simply the fact marie was insane.

You can say why did she kill the little brother? he wasn't going to stop her plan, but he was a witness to the carnage, whereas the gas station attendant would not have been if marie was locked in the truck.

just another reason why i love this movie.

[–] gsxrrules 15 years ago

I would have liked the movie more had the events played out exactly the way we (the viewer) saw them happen up to the twist. At that point it started to unravel a bit if you ask me. The twist wasn't needed.

Everything else was top notch - atmosphere, tension, and gore. Definitely one of the better horror movies of recent times.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] enlil01 14 years ago

As someone said before in this thread, I saw other movies with twists (the others, sixth sense, etc) and at the time of the twists i thought that it really made sense, in this case, it didn't, because, at least for me, to explain everything as a dream or alucination or worst "we don't know what happens when no one is filming atm" is just absurd and lazy writing. There are no hints throughout the movie that show us slightly what's really happening.

Don't dream it: be it!

[–] leCielAzteque 14 years ago

I think you guys are misinterpreting the twist. The twist isn't "oh look, the crazy psycho old guy is really the girl all along." That is old, that is something we've all seen before. I think the twist is more along the lines of "Well, you thought this old guy in coveralls is what a psychotic killer looks like, no, they can look like this girl instead." We're not being told a story about murder by a psychopath (psychopaths cannot feel love, this girl had a love obsession), we're being told a story about the workings of a schizophrenic mind almost, except she has major killer tendencies. Unrequited love, desire and obsession drive her quite literally mad and she ends up taking a reality vacation. Which is why when we find out that she's really crazy, some things don't make sense. It's because they REALLY DON'T. They make sense to her, because she's insane, but we're not, so we're left confused and wondering what was real and what wasn't. In the end this is her story, the story of a crazy person and not ours. Kinda like The Yellow Wallpaper.

[–] timgc 13 years ago

A lot of people seem to forget the opening shots where Marie sitting on what looks like a hospital bed and repeats the line "I won't let anything come between us anymore". Right after that we see a video camera pointed at her with the red light blinking and she asks "Is it recording?" Then it cuts to Marie's dream of her running through the woods.

That was the beginning of her recollection of the events, NOT what actually happened in reality. Everything that happened up until we see the security camera footage from the gas station is just her schizophrenic memory of what took place.

If you choose to look at it as a cop out, that's fine. The way I look at it, it poses an interesting psychological question of how do you know what you see or what you percieve is in fact reality?

[–] fuchsiasattic 13 years ago

I just thought that Marie seeing the father die meant she was watching from some place in her mind, or like that personality was taking a back seat to the psychotic one. She seems to witness the deaths through some kind of barrier (windows, the closet) so the windows/doors are a visual metaphor for her mind, when really her physical self is out killing all those people...

[–] ProudTraitor 13 years ago

The idea that Marie didnt exist is the stupidest thing i have ever heard about this movie. How do you then explain the scene in the mental institution or the entire beginning of the movie? Or the gas station videotape? Was it being dreamed by the cop? How many killers dream of being female best friends? The idea that the killer is actually Marie makes much more sense, is supported by much more evidence, not to mention the directors words themselves. End of story.

[–] fuchsiasattic 13 years ago

Okay, geez. It was just a movie, calm down, you fussbudget :-P

[–] jy_rhcp 12 years ago

While I love this film and it's one of my favourite horror/thrillers, there are at least a couple clear/poor plot holes.

Many of the scenes such as the dad death/gas station/chase scene are clearly, in the killer's (Marie) mind. It's really the same as other split personality type films, such as Fight Club etc.

But two scenes stand out for me. As obviously already mentioned loads, the first 'head giving head scene'. Really dumb in more ways than one, and without doubt just for shocks. But a ridiculous plot hole all the same.

Another is the killers collection of girls photos in the truck, the signs of failed escapes of other girls in the truck (scratch marks and blood stains) and the conversation about women between the killer and gas attendant. To me this doesn't fit in with any of the story at all, and would again really all have had to of taken place before Marie had ever visited the farm/house.

The twist and script could have been so much tighter. But overall I can ignore it because the directing and overall atmosphere of the film is amazing.

[–] smirkingdevil 11 years ago

One thing I realized after coming onto these message boards and reflecting on the movie was that every time the "Old Man" appeared on screen, he actually looked like "Marie" to the other characters.

It is easy to mix things up after watching a movie with all these types of gory scenes and I can see where the confusion causes people to come up with the idea that "Marie" did not exist.

[–] richnieh 12 years ago

All I can say is that this is a poor construct of the movie. The fact is that parts of the imagination is showing in the movie are too deliberate and not suitable to have a twist like that.

My explaination will be that whenever the serial killer alter ego is showing in the scene, it is an imagination in Marie's head. Therefore, whatever the serial killer is doing, that is unreal and the real event is in fact not showing in the movie.

Again, most horror movies hardly make any sense. It is actually easier to explain this movie because we can just ignore what actually happened until the twist. Anything happened before the twist is just a crazy person's imagination and nothing real about it.

If the movie is an imagination, the only plot hole you can find will be the wound on Marie's body when she try to rescue Alex. I would just say it is a lazy work of the make up team because the car crash never happened, it is an imagination.

Like I said, it is a poor construct of the movie and the story is really thin as well. Basically you can just describe the whole movie in one sentence:

'A girl with split personality killed the whole family of her best friend/secret love and then sent to hospital as a mental patient when she failed to kill her love.'

[–] smirkingdevil 11 years ago

Gas Station Scene
Marie could never have been in the back of the van except to drop off the knife to Alex earlier at the house. You have to look at the actual facts.

Alex was tied up and thrown in the back of the van at her house. The van traveled to the gas station. There is only ONE way that van traveled to the gas station, the Old Man/Marie drove it there. This means that Marie could not have been in the back of the van to "escape" it after just driving there, which meant she could not have entered the gas station shop before the Old Man/Marie. For all we know, the gas station clerk winking at Old Man/Marie could have been the reason that Old Man/Marie killed him.