MovieChat Forums > Chained (2013) Discussion > Don't Understand Why People Are Whining ...

Don't Understand Why People Are Whining About the Ending (spoiler)

posted 12 years ago by stsinger
5 replies | jump to latest

I must admit I'm a little stunned that there are people whining about the ending.

It is NOT a "twist," where it changes everything we've seen before. In fact, it answers a question and fills in a plot-hole. And that was, why did Bob (the driver) kill Tim's mother in the first place. He clearly was a real cab, and picked up regular fares (we saw this). He never took a woman who was with someone else, much less a young son. It was so out of character that I assumed it was just "because if it didn't happen there's no movie" writing laziness.

But the ending explains it -- and explains it rather nicely. It clearly explains why Bob chose a completely atypical victim. It explains why he was almost "ready" for Tim to be there. It didn't change anything that happened before, but it filled in a hole and explained a hanging question. I'm not sure why some people have a problem with that. You might not like it -- that's subjective as with everything. But it's not a cheat, or a silly twist, or anything else. It explains a key plot point.

[–] Mac-59 12 years ago

i totally agree. that is also why the husband insisted on them not taking the bus.

[–] nank71 12 years ago

Also, we are given a hint. The father and Bob say the exact same thing. "In one ear and out the window". Dad says it in the car at the beginning and again in the house to Collin.

[–] fakeslashdash6 11 years ago

I didn't have as much issue with the dad being behind it all as much as how it was done.

First we're being told that Rabbit made it out of Bob's place, and came all the way to his dad's house - How in the world did he do that?
Remember, he was 9 years old when he last had his freedom.
Did he have money for a cab? Would he even go into a cab afer everything he has been through? I doubt he knows anything about bus routes or GPS.
And if, as some people suggest, Angie helped him, shouldn't she have taken him to a police\hospital first? They would have contacted the father before he would have met him personally.

Second, after he tells the dad, he just says "I'll tell on you"?
Really? That was his big plan, rub it in his face? That's... dumb. Even by a child's standards.

Third... So suddenly the father goes completely psycho, even though the kid never took any abuse from him when they were together. There was nothing to indicate the mother had any either. So what the heck?

Fourth, after going completely mental on the kid, the dad decides to beat up and possibly rape the new mom - in front of his kid? When his other kid is upstairs? I'm not getting into "decent morales" issue, I'm talking practicality. He was already fighting with Rabbit, would he just flat out stop to go rape the mom? That's dumb.

Lastly, the way the new mom staged the so called robbery was just dumb.

It was a decent movie, not amazing but not terrible either. The attempt to make a twist at the end was nice, but it was done badly. They should have written it better (even if keeping the concept identical)

[–] ChanceX74 11 years ago

Really? That was his big plan, rub it in his face? That's... dumb. Even by a child's standards.

I going to go out on a limb here and say that someone who is brought up in an isolated controlled environment with absolutely no experience with social cues and interaction probably has a different way of thinking, experiencing, and dealing with things.

Much of what we learn comes from day to day experiences and interactions. Remove those, and you can't really compare thinking from the benefit of our normal social programming to the thinking of one who hasn't had that. People kept under the thumb of oppression generally aren't far-thinking, which is one reason it was illegal to educate slaves.

So suddenly the father goes completely psycho, even though the kid never took any abuse from him when they were together. There was nothing to indicate the mother had any either. So what the heck?

Define abuse. He seemed fairly verbally abusive by today's standards. There's also the small issue of being instantly confronted with an extremely dire situation, one that can be proven, and has not only hos son standing before him but his wife taking a stance against him. If he has had a somewhat secure life up until that point, the threat of losing all of that and being backed into a corner is a good trigger. People snap.

the dad decides to beat up and possibly rape the new mom - in front of his kid?

I'd venture to say he didn't have much of an attachment to his own kid, which is validated by the story as presented in the film. If you want to talk practicality, one isn't going to see someone they've had virtually no contact with for nearly 15-20 years as anything more than just another person, blood related or not, when they didn't seem to show much of a connection to the kid the first 9 years.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

There was no indication that the father was ever abusive, including verbal abuse. Did you see how Tim's mother reacted to Bob in the cab? She didn't seem the type of woman to just swallow and take abuse from her husband, verbal abuse included. Sure, parents will fight sometimes, say stupid regrettable ish or nag/reprimand their kids, but that's not necessarily abuse either. And I doubt the first wife would've taken any abusive ish from her husband.

I was under the impression Tim was a teenager, about the girl's age, 18-20. So I think only 10 years have gone by. Some people may find 15-20 years enough to cut any lingering connection with a child/parent/sibling, but for many, a parent's bond to a long lost child isn't easily broken. But that wasn't the other poster's point, his point was that he was confronted by a demon from his past (Tim), and instead of trying to incapacitate bot Tim & the 2nd wife quickly, the father decides right then and there to rape the 2nd wife in front of someone who could stop him when his back is turned.