So confused


SPOILERS

Generally I'm a proponent of suspending disbelief, and giving a movie some credit when it comes to logical omissions... but for the life of me, I couldn't believe that all that was needed to stop the train was to get someone on the front car. There were so many ways they could have done that, before resorting to trying to derail a speeding chemical bomb in a town!

- Try using a helicopter again -- it only failed because of bad luck in timing, that caused the previous person to get hurt
- Try using a speeding car alongside (just like they ultimately did in the end -- why in gods name would it have to be someone from the train that jumped on board?
- Or, as I think someone suggested elsewhere, jumping back from the train car they got out in front.

... It just seems like such a glaring omission. It's not as though I'm coming up with a creative solution to the problem, that they just chose to ignore -- sometimes that can be a cheap shot to criticize a movie -- it's the very solution they ended up using to stop the train, they just waited til the end for some reason to try the easiest plan.

Not a bad movie, but annoying.

reply

Because it would be even a shorter movie. It was already approximately a 100 minute movie. If they did it like you pointed out, it'd just be a really expensive 1 hour TV drama (90 minutes with commercials).

reply

I started watching about halfway in so I missed why the train was unstoppable and any kind of helicopter attempt. Imagine how ridiculous that ending seemed to me. I was like "wait so all they had to do was get someone into the first train, are you effing kidding me? What about those helicopters?"

reply

You aren't using your noodle ... This wasn't made to be Oscar material. It was made to sell tickets and popcorn. By the time you see these glaring omissions the maker has already met the #1 goal - separated you from that 10 spot in your wallet/purse !!
Whadda ya gonna do - sue ? Not trying to be a wise a**, its just the truth of the matter.

reply