MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > Unbearable flaws... Please add to the li...

Unbearable flaws... Please add to the list (spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by chik3npoo
18 replies | jump to latest

This movie was so bad that I watched it at night and had trouble sleeping because I kept thinking about everything wrong with the movie
Here's my list:
1. The audience is forced to believe John picks Warrick house-- both a psychopath and a detective.
2. As someone so calculating and careful, Warrick lets John get away with a picture of them together
3. Warrick puts gore makeup on John for the sole purpose of shocking the audience-- it serves no other purpose especially the neck makeup where the audience believes for a second that Warrick slit John's throat. It is just stupid because the guy is a cop who housed a convict and he throws him in his front yard for everyone to see?
3(a). You can argue that he put on the gore makeup because he fantasized about killing John and took pictures of him with the makeup on but why throw him in front of his own house. Hes a cop and especially with the nosy lady next door is this really a realistic move?
4. In the end when the detective confronts Warrick-- the audience is forced to believe that they will have a causal dinner where Warrick will serve the detective wine a torture or possibly kill him. The detective is pretty much convinced Warrick is guilty and he accepts this invitation? Seriously?

That's all I can think of for now. I have never seen a movie that irked me so much. Just my own opinion.

[–] pink_panther228 13 years ago

I just didn't understand why John would bother to go door to door in the first place. Why not hide out somewhere else if it was only for a night? Why risk being seen by other people who could potentially turn him in?

I wasn't as bothered by the movie since I was able to suspend my disbelief. I think the twists were interesting but the script just didn't do the power plays believably enough so it wasn't as if I was hanging on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen to the character.

[–] sandifay62 13 years ago

The OP is too delicate for movies. This was an entertaining movie. There was nothing unbearable about it. I saw it, saw it's flaws and survived unscarred. Lol

As for John going door to door, John is stupid. A lot of real life criminals are that stupid, too. A lot of real life criminals on the run who find that their plans have gone wrong resort to the tried and true door to door attempt. Tat's how most of them get caught. On the way to the next door and hiding in backyards. Ever watch 'Cops'? Lol

[–] jejozi 13 years ago

But John isn't stupid. Naive with the girl, but not stupid.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

sandifay62^

Agreed, on all points.

One time on our street, a person was trying to 'get away' from a crime, picked our street, drove into the driveway of my neighbor across the street, tried to get into the garage (couldn't do it as it had a keypad code to unlock the door), then tried to get in by the side gate to the backyard, but then the neighbor's dog started barking, and then went to the front door, tried the doorknob (was locked) and then rang the doorbell.

I was watching from my window, was on the phone with 911, but the cops who were following him were already there by that time, had seen his car in plain sight parked out in the driveway and him standing on the front porch, in front of the front door.

They were handcuffing him as the neighbor was opening her front door, to answer the doorbell.

He would have been better off, driving to McDonald's or something (not that far away from our street), leaving the car in the parking lot, and then casually hoofing it down the street, into a street mall store or something -- there are lots of people who walk down that street, and then finding another way out of the area.

Criminals don't often carry Mensa cards ;)

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] fidelio1980 13 years ago

And do you think that guy could have beaten Warwick at chess, and then successfully crossed the border and lived as a fugitive without being caught?

[–] prooples 13 years ago

<i>In the end when the detective confronts Warrick-- the audience is forced to believe that they will have a causal dinner where Warrick will serve the detective wine a torture or possibly kill him. The detective is pretty much convinced Warrick is guilty and he accepts this invitation? Seriously?</i>

This, to me, was the most unbelievable aspect of the film. No matter how incompetent the writers wanted the detective to be conveyed, it's really hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone who works in law enforcement would be dense enough to casually confront someone he suspects of this sort of crime without covering all his bases first.

I let myself buy into the coincidence that John found Warrick's house-- there's no movie otherwise. I chalked a lot of Warrick's mistakes up to the fact that he is so unstable. The writers go out of their way to give us encounters solely for the purpose to show us that John absolutely sucks at BSing. I can believe he'd be dumb enough to make all the mistakes he did.

Off-beat, quirky movie. For me, it doesn't really have any rewatch value but it was decent enough.

[–] AmericanMovieFan 13 years ago

I loved the second act. The first act held very little water. There was virtually zero explanation as to why John would be going door to door in a nice neighborhood trying to con his way in and for what true purpose? He's showing his face to people he isn't planning to kill- like that Mormon (or whatever she was) woman.

Like others said, I was able to suspend my disbelief as to the idea that John would just stumble upon a psychopath like Warrick, at home. And I can reason that Warrick, in his schizo glory, would be brazen enough to do the make up thing and leave John's "body" out where people could see it. I think he did that because he wanted to get his photos for his collection AND freak John out- embarrass him to the point that he'd never tell soul what happened, but at the same time he'd lead Warrick to the money.

The only completely unjustifiable part of the story was the final scene of Warrick's subordinate HANDING him a piece of evidence like that and just kinda saying "you're guilty. you know it. i know it. but...fine, i'll come over for dinner, i won't mention this to anybody else. we can decide if i should arrest or at least investigate you later."

No, in real life- or anything remotely plausible- that guy would have flagged down a superior not named Warrick, they would have grabbed the nearest lawyer from the D.A.'s office who would have run a super fast search warrant down to whatever judge was available and then they would have stalled Warrick while they went to his house and began searching it, or they would have put a tail on Warrik or done something.

Also- the way Warrick was acting around them and the way his house looked- seems to me that someone would have looked into Warrick's financials years ago. Honestly, Warrick was a terrible liar. Horrible. I mean, he put on a convincing face but he couldn't keep his lies straight and sounded like he was trying to convince the detective. So yeah, the last scene caused the entire thing to crumble for me.

Otherwise it was a fun two hours.

The Penis Monologues: AKA World History

[–] liisbdn-907-683473 13 years ago

also, had the other cop (Ben?) gone to have dinner with him and had Warrick done what he usually does - what did he think would happen afterwards? I mean, whether he kills him or not, how would he explain a dead/missing cop? No matter how he spins it, he would be found out.

and like others before me said, the other cop would never have acted the way he did - I agree, and furthermore, they wouldn't have even let him leave the precinct, I mean that just gives him time to get rid of evidence, doesn't it?!

and how did he explain the knocked out parking lot guard? he could have possibly seen his attacker.. unless he blamed it on John somehow. and don't those buildings have security cameras?

but what really got me thinking afterwards was that if he had these 'dinner parties' regularly and one person was always 'real', then who was it supposed to be the night John showed up? I mean John just wandered into his lap, how does he usually find his victims? did someone not show up that night?
Or does he just hold his dinner parties and if someone happens to wander into his house, he'll kill them or pretend to kill them?

[–] AmericanMovieFan 13 years ago

First off, this film clearly has more holes in its logic than a whiffle ball. It's clear to me that DHP was a schizophrenic with multiple imaginary friends with whom he always had dinner. I'm guessing he was going to sit down and have a conversation with them, probably how he does things every night.

But the ending was just stupid. It's the kind of low rent approach to police that Hollywood takes where someone goes "holy crap my superior officer is the perpetrator. But he's my superior...What to do, what to do. It's not like this is a major metropolitan city that has an Internal Affairs division or that this building is filled with hundreds of other police officers, dozens of detectives, etc. that would have no problem apprehending a murderer even though it's a high ranking detective."

It's completely illogical.

The Penis Monologues: AKA World History

[–] jllong4 11 years ago

I think it's easy to make a number of assumptions that aren't necessarily supported by the film. And I think what some might call "holes" in the plot might also be deliberately placed "spaces" for interpretation. That's kind of the trademark of a *beep* movie, right?

First off, who's to say Ben really let Warwick off? The movie ends after his confrontation and the ensuing dinner invitation, but we never see the rest. We don't really know what happens. All we know is that it's the beginning of another chapter. Just as we're left to debate whether John sent the Polaroid or Warwick did (I prefer to suspect that Warwick did), we're also left to imagine that Ben decided to gather more evidence on Warwick. Perhaps he followed through on the dinner party with a SWAT team carefully listening into every word, collecting information that would ensure Warwick was never released.

We also don't know that Warwick is a serial killer. We might assume that he only released John because he knew who he was from the beginning and thought he might follow John's trail to the cash. Or maybe he IS a serial killer. Did he knock the parking garage attendant out? Or kill him? Honestly, the only crime we know for certain Warwick has committed is taking possession of the stolen money.

I think the take-home message of this movie is that however certain something seems to be, things are not always as they appear. I think it's more fun to go back through every twist in this movie and try to decide whether that moment in the move was the action or a reaction of something else. We're led to believe Warwick is schizophrenic, although people with such severe mental disturbances are rarely able to turn off their delusions when it suits them (the way he does with his neighbor). Is this a "hole" in the plot? Or just a perfectly sane, but bored detective having fun with those around him?

Honestly, that's the brilliance of this movie. And clearly intended to be. "For every action, John, there is an equal and opposite reaction." For every implausible explanation, there is an equally plausible explanation. And vice versa. Not to say the plot is flawless. Just mindbending enough to allow the viewer to write their own interpretation of just about everything. Which makes for great forum discussions, right? :o)

[–] dylangod 13 years ago

STILL SPOILERS

What are you talking about?

1. The audience is forced to believe John picks Warrick house-- both a psychopath and a detective.

Huh? He was picking randomly. How was he supposed to know Warwick was a psychopath and a detective?

2. As someone so calculating and careful, Warrick lets John get away with a picture of them together

It's not that he let John get away with the picture. He didn't notice he had taken it. He wasn't watching him all the time, he was also busy dancing with the other guests. Sure, he was calculating and careful, but he was still a lunatic.

3. Warrick puts gore makeup on John for the sole purpose of shocking the audience-- it serves no other purpose

Of course it does! He uses it to terrorize his victims. He only needs it to use it on himself. For the video he shows them and possibly to sometimes entertain himself, it doesn't matter. The only mistake was that they didn't show us John seeing himself at any point inside the house. Surely he passed a mirror at some point. But it doesn't matter. The point is, that's what John though he was going to get, so Warwick still wanted to mess with his mind even after letting him go. Because he's a lunatic.
We don't know exactly when Warwick (that's how it's spelt, by the way) decides to let him go (but we can imagine why), but he did know who John was. He heard the broadcast when John turned the radio up, and obviously he was already familiar with the case. So he uses the make-up for fun (he's a psychopath!) and to scare John.
Of course then the blood on John's throat was not particularly necessary, and that's more for the benefit of the audience. No big deal, I'm sure Warwick thought it would be funny to have John have a heart attack when he saw it. And why would he bother leaving him anywhere else? It was his word against Warwick's, as far as he knew. He could have come up with a million explanations for the makeup... But at the end, it doesn't matter, he knew John wasn't going to call the cops. And if anybody found him, John would run away or tell them not to call anyone.

the audience is forced to believe that they will have a causal dinner where Warrick will serve the detective wine a torture or possibly kill him. The detective is pretty much convinced Warrick is guilty and he accepts this invitation?

The audience isn't forced to believe anything. Who says the other cop will actually show up? But then again, only we know what Warwick has in mind. The other cop doesn't know what "dinner" actually means. As far as he knows, Warwick lied about not knowing John (who is alive, so he has no reason to suspect him of being a killer, right?), and possibly of taking the money.

_________________
"A right must exist independently of its exercise."
- Inside I'm Dancing

[–] jlkap 13 years ago

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Dylangod - Thank you for explaining the logic behind what all these people didn't seem to understand. The ending was what it was. It ended at exactly the right time. I actually loved the ending with all his multiple personalities walking out behind him like an entourage. Just because the other cop accepted Warwick's invite doesn't mean that it was going to play out just as Warwick thought it would. It was so completely obvious that the other cop knew for damn sure something was up. His guard was going to be up the entire time. - and how did we know that the other cop wasn't about to go get a warrant between that meeting in the office and dinner time?

Just a small little tid bit of "DON'T JUST WATCH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU!" Use your imagination just a little.

I give this film 3.5 out of 4 stars mainly for the fact that I stumbled upon it and it exceeded my expectations. The fact that we found out about his real profession much later on told me that he probably knew about John all along.

By the way...DHP's character was a lunatic!

[–] supadude2004 13 years ago

Sorry OP but,

dylangod > chickengod.

But I'd just like to add an addition to dylangod's excellent explanation:

"As someone so calculating and careful, Warrick lets John get away with a picture of them together"

Indeed he does. Remember that they are both psychopaths. Regrettably for the rest of us, such people tend to be extremely smart. And smart as Warwick is supposed to be, remember too that he still lost at chess to John - which suggests that John, flawed as he is, is still another very smart psycho, i.e., if he was able to beat another psycho at chess, he must have been pretty smart. Chess is, after all, the most meritocratic of games...

[–] dylangod 13 years ago

LOL

My nick is actually sort of an anagram of the comic-book hero, but I love the multiple associations with poo that you've created, I'm guessing inadvertently (it goes from dog to god to animal poo - dog vs. chicken). Talk about mind-freaky :-)

_________________
"A right must exist independently of its exercise."
- Inside I'm Dancing

[–] JeterzGirlNJersey 13 years ago

John was NOT psychotic. He was just *beep* up. What about him said psycho? Warwick was the psychotic one. He had this house of torture and had an excuse for everything. And as the other poster said, he did not let him get away with anything. Warwick was too busy acting like an idiot to notice that the picture was taken by John. The OP was right though a lot of this movie did not make sense.

It's nobody's business but ours.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TwentyCenturyFaux 12 years ago

well surely when the detective comes for dinner he would have told it to someone like his wife? He cant just disappear in the dinner party.
Second he would also bring his car so if the host kills him he will have to get rid of the body and the car with tons of eyewitnesses about the car being parked at his house overnight.
www.indrajal.com

[–] PsychoDingo 8 years ago

4. In the end when the detective confronts Warrick-- the audience is forced to believe that they will have a causal dinner where Warrick will serve the detective wine a torture or possibly kill him. The detective is pretty much convinced Warrick is guilty and he accepts this invitation? Seriously?

He accepted the invitation, but what is to say that the detective actually showed up, or that he didn't show up with backup?

The invitation may have accepted just to keep Warrick thinking he was in control of the situation, when he really wasn't.