Security cameras
Having no cameras in the restaurant or the hallways where he was fighting the guards seemed sketchy.
shareWhy do you presume they didn't? I presumed they did in the hallway if she was going to need to be believed at that point...but the restaurant still wouldn't have shown anyone else present but her.
shareThe problem is the film forces you to presume. You have to presume there was no cam in the restaurant because, if there was then you have a whole host of problems. A security cam easily would've seen the floating knife move to her hand. They also would've reviewed that footage before remanding her to the treatment center.
It's easy to suspend disbelief when it comes to the invisible suit because we don't know all the ins and outs of what an invisible suit entails. But when people in a restaurant assume you did something (without even seeing you do it directly btw), but you say you didn't, they check the footage to see if you did the thing people are assuming you did. By skipping those steps we enter suspension of disbelief territory in a place where we shouldn't.
You're overthinking it. These types of movies are chock full of plotholes.
shareI just watched this movie last night, and during the restaurant scene, I turned to my friends and said, "Did no one notice the floating butcher knife as it approached Cecilia?" I know that restaurant was busy but someone had to notice that knife floating towards them and then suddenly being next to her face!
I assumed there was security footage at the hospital, which is why she was released shortly thereafter.
Hmmm... security cameras in the treatment center poses a lot of problems for her. They would know the suit exists, which is the thing she used to cut the guy's throat while being recorded.
shareI'm sorry. I don't understand. An invisible person was clearly fighting and killing the security ppl at the hospital. She was there, but not killing all those guards, etc. I assume she was released b/c they realized something unnatural occurred.
shareAgreed. However, if they have evidence the suit exists, it casts doubt that he slit his own throat. Security footage of the fight in the treatment center could pose problems for her down the road.
It's a conundrum. It's as if the filmmaker understood that security footage was necessary for her release, but the filmmaker didn't want that footage giving clues that she committed murder, so they left anything pertaining to security footage up to interpretation.
Yeah . . . I guess they didn't think it was necessary to address at that point in the movie. It was over. The bad guy was killed.
shareThats why she needed the officer there, listening in, to collaborate her story of him killing himself.
shareYes because he is a reliable witness, someone who has a history with her, someone who knows about that technology and someone who may also want revenge of the guy who potentially murdered a friend of his and who also messed with his family.
Any decent prosecutor would tear his testimony to shreds.
Noone would believe the technology exists without the suit as proof, and its not his testimony but the audio record thats really important.
shareYes because a suit like that just appears out of no where. Not to mention they already have proof since they killed a guy wearing the suit so they do know it exists. You need to go back and rewatch the movie because I’m continually finding myself pointing out how you are getting so much wrong.
shareThey refused to believe a suit like that exists when she claimed it before and the suit was developed inside the guys private mansion by him, very likely without knowledge of anyone else.
And sorry the movie is really forgettable.
No shit Sherlock because at that point they had no evidence that it existed.
You know except the military contractors that were mention and seems he was hired by to make said suit. He wasn’t building the suit for shits and giggles He was either building it to sell or was hired to build it. He only used it for nerfarious reasons when his gf left him.
Yeah it’s not the best but so far you’ve yet to remember or get a single thing right so honestly this isn’t really on the movie it’s on you.
You are missing the most basic point of all, which is that after all she went through, they are not going to be desperate to prosecute her (remember that prosecutors push high profile cases when it will look good in front of the public, and this would not) and they know they would have a tough time proving it anyway. So they might be suspicious, so what?
shareYou keep trying to move the goals to fit your points and it won't work.
There have been more than enough times prosecutors have charged people for murder when it was against someone who abused them. Not to mention this case would involve new technology not seen before, would be a real test of skill in terms of prosecution and defence and honestly it's not that hard to prove, they have the body, they have the murder weapon, they have camera footage and they have the suit and likely information of how it works if they get the guys files and shit on how was built. Hell it probs wouldn't reach the courts and there would be a plea deal. Either way it's not like they would just let her go free with technology that advanced and that dangerous.
I don’t “keep” doing anything. That was my first comment in the thread! Try paying attention next time to who you’re talking to, my screen name is totally different from the other person you were arguing with.
shareSureeeee more like this is your alt account. Anyone who gets this upset by someone making a simple mistake, yeah nah you’re scared that someone called you out. Lol bloody alts.
shareLOL, not quite. Look at my posting history. Heck, look at Twitter: I've been on there since 2008. I hadn't even seen this movie until long after you and your antagonist started arguing. I saw it three weeks ago, as soon as it was available on Blu-ray from Netflix, and started reading and commenting in the MovieChat threads about it right afterward, not just this one.
Can you really not imagine that there might be more than one person in the universe who disagrees with you?!?
ETA: If you are trying to say "Suuuuure", spell it that way or even "Surrrrrre". When you have more than one "e" at the end of the word, it's not silent. So "sire" is pronounced "syer", but "siree" (as in "yes siree") is pronounced "surry". Therefore when you (and lots of other people who aren't thinking this through) write "Sureeeeee" it reads (at least to me) like "Shurryyyyy".
The blck cop as much as says that the officers in the hospital collaborate her story, so a security camera there is likely.
share