MovieChat Forums > ATM (2012) Discussion > it doesnt make sense

it doesnt make sense

posted 13 years ago by Finkle-is-Einhorn
5 replies | jump to latest

1.the killer doesnt go close to the atm becuase of the cameras so how would intend to kill his victims if he plans on framing someone for the crimes so to not get cought becuase he doesnt enter te atm he could only kill someone if they ran out and if that happens how can someone inside the atm be framed as the camera would show the person was killed when thy left the atm no while they were inide it.

2. if there is always one person intended to live so the killer can frame them, the police/detectives are going to noticed that alot f the poepl framed keep mentioning the same guy in the parker, and that he is the real killer, so surely this would eventually lead to it being know there is a killer out there

and if the killer doesnt always intend to leave someone to set up for the crime, then the police surely would notice alot of similar crimes taking place aroundthese sort of places, late at night, with similar deaths.

3. was he killer trying to get in the backdoor of the atm so he could alter the camera footage, because he never made it into the atm so how was the camera footage damaged, the guy the innocent guy was hitting the atm but not the camera so why would that have damaged it, and not only that but the footage seemed to be damaged in the exact right places.

if he wasnt trying to get to the cameras tape,why was he trying to enter throught he back once in the atm he would have been on screen.

4. the guy who is framed also would not have any dna evidence on him from both the security guard and guy with the dog whos blood was splattered so he wouldnt have evidence on him, aswel as the victims who would have fibres or something from there killer, wouldnt the police think it alittle odd that a guy in just a shirt left no dna on 2 of the victimshe had just bludgeoned

it just seemed very careless, and made little sense from the killers pov

[–] Zikten 12 years ago

the answer is that the person who wrote the script knows nothing about real police work. the ending is the most illogical movie ending I may have ever seen. nothing about what happens after the cops show up makes any logical sense whatsoever. and the movie tries to make it look like the guy is going to prison for murder. but even if the cops really were this stupid, no jury would convict this guy. there isn't enough evidence.

[–] Natron 12 years ago

Not enough evidence? The main character choked an innocent person to death on camera and then claimed he didn't do anything as he was being arrested. You don't need much else.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 11 years ago

But it's not at all a documentary about real world police work or jury tendencies or anything like that. Watching it in that frame of mind suggests that you don't really get how to watch films.

http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] ForTheNonce 11 years ago

1. You are assuming the killer has no backup plan. Given his extreme level of...well, planning...it is safe to assume that isn't the case. I think if they ran out, he killed them, and no one was left to frame, oh well. The killer still isn't on camera and is covered head to toe minus the space for his eyes. He still isn't leaving evidence and he can't be identified reliably by any stray witness.

2. You're assuming he always dresses the same way and works the same area. Anyone with that level of planning wouldn't, though.

3. I thought he was just trying to panic them.

4. But the killer left no dna either since he was covered head to toe.

While a lot of stuff was terribly convenient I still found it pretty entertaining.

The error I raised an eyebrow at the most was when Blonde Guy's card was eaten by the ATM but the 3 of them still run back through the door.

[–] Narcissist00 11 years ago

It was mentioned early in the movie that the door was actually broken.