MovieChat Forums > Derailed (2005) Discussion > Astonishingly unbelievable (spoilers)

Astonishingly unbelievable (spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by tay-15
10 replies | jump to latest

Even by Hollywood's standards ... major spoilers below ...

The film was slickly made, and rife with improbabilities.

The lead-in “affair” might have been convincing enough, but the film “derails” about five minutes into the “thriller” portion. It’s completely unbelievable that Owen would pay the $20K blackmail demand. Who, in that spot, would decide paying 20K makes more sense than going to the police? Simply because a woman you didn’t even sleep with says going to the police is out of the question? Oh, and the fact you’re not wealthy and have a dying daughter with massive medical bills plays no factor?

Further, expecting that payment would end any further demands is completely implausible – but if you think not, then how would the $100K demand fly? Let me get this straight - the psycho already took your $20K, ignoring the first “deal,” so logically you conclude paying him even more money will end it??? On what planet???

Even if you assume the character is completely stupid (within the film, nothing indicates he’s supposed to be dumb, unless he’s a dumb teacher) ... the criminal then shows up at his house (!) – here, the film is beating us over the head like we’re morons – even assuming everything before made any sense, there’s no person that wouldn’t run to the police immediately at that point.

We’re supposed to believe that he takes these insane risks, risking his own family, draining his bank account (effectively his daughter’s death warrant), simply because that is preferable to inconveniencing the life of a woman he barely knows.

And that’s just the start - among (many) other things, nearly everyone is miscast (aside from Cassel, convincing enough as a psycho). I appreciate Aniston stretching here, but she’s supposed to be a cynical grifter - there’s no edge to her performance and it’s just as unbelievable she would be hanging out with a low-life scumbag like Cassel. What would they even talk about?

Stuck in purgatory.

[–] Zerbye 13 years ago

This is an excellent write-up of why I had difficulty suspending disbelief. These are also all the same alarm bells that screamed that Lucinda was in on it. Watching the movie, I couldn't see any other explanation for the direction of the "twist".

[–] aloep 12 years ago

I agree with everything you say, except:

(aside from Cassel, convincing enough as a psycho)

He was probably the worst piece of miscasting in the whole film.

[–] ashleybrownmedia 12 years ago

are we all forgetting that charles saw lucinda "raped" and couldnt save her so was wracked with emotional guilt over that which meant he was more likely to be sympathetic towards her when she said don't go to cops?

also if the parents divorced/argued over the affair imagine the strain on the ill daughter?

[–] SataiDelen 12 years ago

No, I'm not forgetting that, however, at some point, enough is enough, and if it was me (and I'm a woman), even I'd know it was time to go to the cops. ESPECIALLY with a daughter who's ill and has ever-increasing medical bills... At some point you have to say, "Affair or no affair, my family has to come first, and I have to truly protect them, so it's time to call the police." Let the police worry about whether or not to involve the other person.

[–] ashleybrownmedia 12 years ago

I think you missed the point there

[–] evikeaz 12 years ago

When he followed her and she and the boyfriend are still in town after 100k+!! What idiots..you not only have the chance of Clive finding you but the police if Clive ends up telling. Up to this point I thought it was pretty good. A guy trying so hard to right a situation on his own w/o involving his or her family. ..but after this..I gave up!

[–] sammarie87 12 years ago

I have to agree with the OP completely. I recently posted a similar thread which stated my biggest issue with this entire film.

Even if he watched Anniston get beat, raped, murdered or possibly worse... A FATHER WOULD NEVER SPEND A DIME OF THE MONEY THAT COULD POSSIBLY SAVE HUS DAUGHTER'S LIFE!!! Maybe there's a possibility to the extent he would have gone in order to save his name or his family, but he would have never sacrificed his daughter's life to do it.

[–] tay-15 11 years ago

Exactly ... this type of film is the perfect example of filmmakers who have no respect for the audience's intelligence.

The bear does not quit. The bear will not die.

[–] Synthia7 11 years ago

I thought the OP was going to present some compelling facts that made the movie unbelievable.

Nope. He is simply questioning the writer's characterization. HOwever, he's ignoring a lot of Chuck's motivations that go beyond protecting Lucinda.

1. Chuck's agreement not to go to police after the initial assault was believable. He also wanted to hide the attempted affair.

2. After the villain starts contacting Chuck at home, his wife and daughter are in danger because this criminal knows where they live and has spoken to the wife, familiarizing himself with her. Chuck, who is quite naive and weak, did what a weakling would do: give into a bully and a blackmailer. His wavering on going to police fits his character who also had a hard time making a decision about choosing a hotel and whether to go through with the affair. Chuck was adequately depicted as a person not confident enough to make hard decisions. He was also depicted a person who takes orders from anyone ... from Lucinda to the Xzibit character to LaRouche. When we first met him on the train, he couldn't even stick by his decision about when to pay back the money. He let Lucinda twist his desires and boss him around, even if playfully. You're expecting Chuck to be someone he's not. He acted according to his character flaws.

3. Then the OP questions Chuck's "logic" for giving the $100,000. Fear is not logical. Chuck's primary flaw was fear and that was the flaw he had to overcome by the end of the movie. It's symbolized in every scene, especially when he lets LaRouche grab and twist his balls.

The OP's problem is that he doesn't know how to interpret movies. He wants to impose an arbitrary and typical set of real life actions without considering the unique character, the character arc and what the screenwriter and movie are attempting to emphasize. YOu can't speculate on what anyone would do in that situation and suggest there is only one true and believable course of action. People do irrational stuff everyday. People don't just act on logic; they act on emotions and warped psychology. *That's* real.

Chuck's actions are not just about Lucinda; it's about him acting out who he is. He has internal reasons for why he doesn't go to police, doesn't challenge the villain's authority and doesn't make bold moves (until the end).

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]