MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > Should've been sooo much better

Should've been sooo much better

posted 13 years ago by Cobb05
6 replies | jump to latest

I rented this because the trailer looked cool. Now, I think the cast were great and everything about the movie was well done, except the writing.

Did Warwick actually kill the people in the book or did he just put make-up on them, like he did with John? If he wasn't a killer, what was the point of it all? I think if Warwick was a killer, it would've made the movie so much better. It wasn't like he knew who John was and figured out if he put the make-up on him, he'd lead him to the money and then rob him. So the whole plot of the movie gets screwed up. What should've happened is that Warwick was a killer and John gets away. Then when they meet in the garage, you might think he's going to kill him now. Also the whole ending makes no sense. Is he going to kill the cop or is he going to just drug him, screw with him and leave him outside? It makes no sense.

And just to nit pick, if he was this crazy guy, killing or not killing people, why would he have these big glass doors that his neighbor could see in? Hell, he didn't even lock his door.

The acting was good. If the writing made sense, it would've been a very good movie. I think the writer tried to make him self look clever, by having John end up outside, alive. But it killed the plot of the movie.

Also Warwick says he never lies, but he is a liar. So it makes no sense.

[–] my_newsletter 13 years ago

I was wondering the same thing as well... did he really kill those people?

[–] woodshoes 13 years ago

No, it's clearly makeup on Warwick's "victims". Probably people in similar situations who Warwick manipulated so they couldn't go to the police.

Warwick doesn't think he's lying.

[–] Cobb05 13 years ago

But if it's make up, then the ending makes no sense. If he just does to the cop what he did to John, drugging him, showing what a psycho he is, making him think he's going to kill him, but he wakes up outside with make up on, the cop would arrest him and now have proof.

It's a plothole that they screwed up big time with. By using the make up as a twist that you wouldn't guess was coming, it makes you have no cluse what's going to happen. But then the ending makes no sense because he would have to kill the cop to keep from going to jail. He has to be a killer for the ending to make sense, but then it makes no sense why he would let John go. Major plothole that ruins the movie.

[–] sandifay62 13 years ago

Who says he's going to do the exact same thing to the cop as he did to John? He might just put him in compromising positions, film him , and blackmail him. Then just drive him home before he comes too. There's a lot a crazy man can do to a drugged man overnight to keep a man quiet forever. That's not a plothole. The porcelain chip that John used to get loose is a plothole. Lol

Most movies can be so much better, but to me, this movie was good enough as it is. It entertained me even with all of it's flaws. Every movie doesn't have to be flawless to do it's job. People need to lighten up for light entertainment.

[–] mojo2004 13 years ago

But if it's make up, then the ending makes no sense. If he just does to the cop what he did to John, drugging him, showing what a psycho he is, making him think he's going to kill him, but he wakes up outside with make up on, the cop would arrest him and now have proof

It's obvious he is going to have to kill the cop who works with him. The other people were strangers he was playing a game with who like the bank robber were likely criminal element and couldn't call the the police.

When I watched this I immediately guessed that Warwick had drugged Taylor. Too many years of watching the Law & Orders and CSIs will do that to you. After that it was a good suspense film but turned stupid when Taylor didn't beat as fast as he could when he was freed. Warwick being a cop was a huge twist though.

Just for the record, I'm not a Dude, I'm a Dudette!

[–] leonardlikesthispost 13 years ago

I agree. This movie is a cheat. That is why so many people are questioning the writing here.

Warwick IS a liar, and given that he is supposed to be teaching his captive a moral lesson, it doesn't add up when he claims he anything but a liar. You see, if he were just your garden variety psycho killer, it wouldn't matter if he made that claim and contradicted himself. We'd buy that. It's because he goes on to make moralistic pronouncements, advocating the kind of capital punishment used in Singapore for minor crimes, that we question his character. Wouldn't he punish himself severely for lying, also?

When he steals the money, it negates his moralizing. His motivation changes entirely.

We wonder, which kind of character are we watching? Is he a psycho killer or is he just a narcissistic greedy police chief? Because once he steals the money, he suddenly has "real world" reasoning, rather than batsh!t reasoning.

It no longer makes sense to have the imaginary cops following him out the office. If he were just setting himself up as a crazy man to scare the daylights out of his victims, would we have seen these "cops" with him in the police car and the police station? That's were the writing falls apart, and we start to sense plot holes. It's either one way or the other. Either he fabricates a crazy persona to mess with people, and is truly "sane," or he is batsh!t crazy and therefore must follow his own internal logic (not wanting material rewards, adhering to a code of ethics that he alone arbitrates).

Also, the twists are pretty standard: captive becomes the torturer, girlfriend betrays leading man, corrupt police/inside job. We've seen iterations of each of these twists in various movies. Throwing them all together in one movie doesn't necessarily work. We just end up with all kinds of inconsistencies.

I will be your Sherpa up the mountain of gayness.