MovieChat Forums > The Rover (2014) Discussion > excellent film. but one big problem:

excellent film. but one big problem:

posted 10 years ago by rozroz
35 replies | jump to latest

i really liked the reason why Pierce does what he does for the car.
but the whole plot point of his car taken from him.... meh

why did the 3 robbers leave their track? it was better than the car, still in good condition after the crash (and how do they come out of the crash not half broken??)
they could have taken BOTH the car and track, btw.
why did they even prefer his car? they could have all easily trade back the cars.
the track seemed a better vehicle, also, the car already had a broken window.
they took a great deal of putting Pierce aside, near the track, off the road,
just throwing the keys a few feet away... WHY??
if the reason is that they are still human and "polite", it's too far fetched for the film's "reality". they weren't nice people. if they were, again, they should have given him back his car.

what i mean is, the writers could have solved all these problems quite easily i guess. i just want to understand why they chose those specific actions.

[–] Maverick356 10 years ago

I wouldn't say the truck was better than the car at all. The Commodore was the superior vehicle.

As for leaving the car, they probably thought they were stuck for good and seeing that Eric's car was right there, they decided it would be a better option.

they took a great deal of putting Pierce aside, near the track, off the road,
just throwing the keys a few feet away... WHY??

Yeah, I thought the same thing.

[–] El_Gallo_LOCO 10 years ago

"they took a great deal of putting Pierce aside, near the track, off the road,
just throwing the keys a few feet away... WHY??" it's just decency they had already killed people why kill more if you don't have to

[–] tracygee 10 years ago

They just murdered an Army guy. Spending their time trying to roll over their car and keeping the car that was used in the robbery was probably not the best plan. They had a car they could take...and they did.

--
http://tinyurl.com/k6hhn2d
Fear the man with nothing left to lose.

[–] Makkers1 10 years ago

As soon as saw these absurdities in the story I switched off (no pun intended). The trio had a history of murder yet they didn't do anything to a guy who was pursuing them. And then they just pushed the car off the road, didn't make it undrivable and chucked the keys only a few feet away. Mike from neighbours got onto his feet after coming to and not only does he look for the keys he finds them!
Afterwards, that dwarf gives Mike full control of loaded guns as he starts haggling the price. The dwarf deserved to get shot.
Right at the end those army guys get shot by Robert Pattinson's character. Hell, aren't they supposed to be professionals? Sorry it was just too daft. Plus the plot was wafer thin.

[–] rozroz 10 years ago

i was not as harsh as you.
once i settled in after the bit of quirky writing with the 3 robbers,
i got deeply engaged in the movie.
not sure they were real murderers, just robbers who go involved in a bad shootout.
and perhaps if they didn't want their old truck (if the army was indeed chasing them),
i can accept that. i kind of agree with you about the dwarf. at least don't give him a weapon LOADED.

[–] lojack84 10 years ago

Yeah the first scene was a bit hap handed but the rest of the movie was really enjoyable. The folks who couldn't last longer than the first 5 minutes are getting what they deserve by missing out on this film.

[–] bigbeataudio 10 years ago

I thought the beginning was fine.
They hit him in the head, they thought he was dead, or at least close to it. Brother was bleeding bad in the leg, they were in a hurry, they only really drove the car off the road, why, if anyone was following them that would have been an extra clue as to their location, threw the keys and ran. Plus, they didn't seem like deliberate killers to me, more desperate to survive, like everyone in the area.

[–] baspiers 10 years ago

I agree. Every move they made was in order to ensure they weren't followed. They were fleeing a robbery where they had killed people and got their truck stuck after an accident. Obviously they aren't going to take time to try and maneuver it out when they think they are being tracked down. And leaving the truck and an unconscious man in the road while continuing to flee is also a bone head move. Pulling the truck off and the man off the road wasn't any sign of kindness it was to save their ass in case anyone were to see him or it in the middle of the road.

[–] z99 10 years ago

Right at the end those army guys get shot by Robert Pattinson's character. Hell, aren't they supposed to be professionals? Sorry it was just too daft. Plus the plot was wafer thin.

This, considering Rey was so shaky with the guns (note the scene where he shoots the girl through the door and how he points it at his brother). Coming back, sneaking in, killing 3 commandos.. PLEASE.

Anyway, the whole plot was one big hole -- it was only bearable because of atmosphere and acting which was alright. I was further put off by the constant music -- it really helped in places but having it MOST of the time quickly got old.

------------
23

[–] Lukeg100 10 years ago

Certainly a little far fetched. The only thing you could say is that they we're probably not Straya's finest military, stuck out there in the middle of nowhere, 'policing' a dust bowl outpost. Nothing to suggest they were commandos, just army grunts. If you get the jump on someone, then you have the advantage. Not to be too much of an apologist, but it wasn't beyond the realms of possibility.

[–] modman-2 10 years ago

you have a hard time believing he was able to muster the courage to save his friend but not shoot his brother?

[–] Talidan 10 years ago

I'm not entirely sure they were just out killing whoever they wanted. The military-like folk seemed to be police of sorts, and there's no telling what the situation was. The 3 guys could have had a huge misunderstanding and ended up killing some "officers" because of it, but it doesn't make them bad people.

Their hesitation killing Pearce's character showed they weren't serious murderers. The line at the beginning when they're yelling at each other in the vehicle, "We killed people!" implies they don't do such things very often.

They left Mike with a way to get back, tossing the keys so he'd have to spend extra time looking, giving them time to get away without worry.

The dwarf, just didn't seem smart at all. Mentally deficient, infact. That whole house seemed kind of messed up, possibly a little in-bred even. Seemed like they were possibly once a circus troupe, with plenty of freaks.

And the army guys, it was explained pretty clearly that Rey managed to sneak up on them. Only 2 guys out front, sitting right next to each other, and the third sitting at a desk inside, weapon likely out of reach.

Not huge plot holes, really.

[–] Makkers1 10 years ago

For me personally, if a film has a plot flaw then the whole enjoyment of the film is ruined. The robbers kept saying at the beginning that they kill people; so a sudden change of character for one moment to keep the flow of the movie makes the whole film unwatchable. Another thing, in a situation like this where the owner of the car was in pursuit wouldn't curiosity take the better of you and just take a look in the boot? I am not being overly harsh it's just I can't be a psuedo lemming and pretend the film was good when in fact it was plain daft.

[–] blackbeanie 10 years ago

The gang members were actually looking for work in the mines and in the mean time they did robbery but they weren't murderers. That's why they were upset in the car, because the last robbery turned out to be a fiasco and men were killed. They didn't know how to get out of this situation, changed cars after the accident, then decided it was probably good to drive another car but didn't want to make another victim on their way out. That's why they left the keys not far from the truck, they didn't want to leave Eric in the middle of nowhere, in the heat, without water. They just wanted to escape. It were amateurs and it made sense to me.

[–] rozroz 10 years ago

yea, i was thinking the same.
didn't hear them claiming they were "killers" or something.
just got into a heated robbery, that's why they also needed to ditch the car anyway.
and about the dog in the trank,
maybe they DID open the trank, saw the dog and did nothing.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rozroz 10 years ago

i think most of your questions (beside the truck),
are just missing information that can be answered..
there was a collapse, but you can estimate to what degree (not a WW3 apocalypse)...
i presume some kind of economical collapse, so some people still can live somehow,
collect valuables, etc.
besides, at those wild areas, i think they almost live the same way TODAY, LOL.

[–] goatman86 10 years ago

Reposting these links, you need a desktop browser
http://therover-movie.com/#map
http://therover-movie.com/#timeline

This gives a bit more detail into "the collapse"
Basically the Western Economy collapses and the East becomes more dominant and first world.

Australia is still a country but now essentially third world, so there is still utility but much more neglect, Reys line about the roads being bad links to this.

besides, at those wild areas, I think they almost live the same way TODAY, LOL.

I had a friend who worked for a year on a sheep station (ranch) smack bang in the middle of the Outback and he mentioned there was one other worker there who never had his birth recorded, no official documentation, no license or anything so basically this person did not exist and he said many of the guys out there work and do their own thing and avoid most technology, other people and modern society, basically live close to what many people did in this film, without the killing as far as I am aware >.>

[–] jslavik 10 years ago

I get what you're saying, but when you think about it, if every character in a movie acted completely rational and intelligently, you'd rarely be left with a movie. Plots are built on character actions, and more often than not, that involves stupidity. Pretty much the way things happen in real life anyway.

[–] thelastbaron-50-319056 10 years ago

You seem to miss the main point of the film, which is, admittedly, not stressed enough and unclear throughout the film - the handling takes place 10 years after a global economic collapse. The car is his LAST possession; he is attached to it, as can be seen when he recovers it and sits in it, unwilling to come back out and go get the four thieves. Many people would be willing to fight for the last thing they own, representative of a former life.

As for the car keys thrown into the weeds close to the car, well, yes, that was a little weak, but unless you wanted to spend 110 minutes watching Guy Pearce hunting through weeds for his car keys, the device was not implausible.

I agree with you about why they dragged him aside with the truck. After all, having killed as many and as often as they did, why would they then suddenly decide to spare Pearce's character?

Good questions, although some of them are easily explained.

[–] z_amy 10 years ago

I thought the reason Guy Pearce was so set on getting his car was explained in the last scene: He wanted to bury the dog.

He told Rey that he should never stop thinking about a person he killed: that was the price he paid for taking a life.

The guy was trying to make a certain type of code of personal ethics for himself in the new crazy world with no real law or civilization.

* * * *

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/2766374-amyjzed

[–] jslavik 10 years ago

SPOILER

It's not really the car itself he wants back - it's rather the contents of the trunk. That's the beauty of the film. You spend the whole length of the movie thinking, all this for a car? Then the truth is revealed in the final seconds.

[–] eighteen_percent_gray 10 years ago

You spend the whole length of the movie thinking, all this for a car?

I wasn't even thinking that, just watching.

I've been reading some of the reviews and I think it was very bad form for many of the reviewers to point to the end of the film. The one or two I read before I saw it didn't do that which I'm grateful for. So, the end just came upon me and caught me unaware.

"Now are we sure. that this. is what. we want?"

[–] poopfock 10 years ago

I don't think anyone else mentioned it, but I'm pretty sure they left him and the truck behind to be found by the military. This was alluded to more near the end when guy got nabbed by the military and they basically said "we got you now" when he was being "interrogated" (if you want to call it that). They found the truck, and he was the one they thought was involved.

So, leaving the truck behind was likely very much on purpose. Let someone else take the blame.

[–] rozroz 10 years ago

not bad, man..
they thought of using him to take their blame..
interesting.

[–] eighteen_percent_gray 10 years ago

I didn't pick up on that either. I thought I just missed why they dragged him off. Very good.

"Now are we sure. that this. is what. we want?"

[–] blackbeanie 10 years ago

I don't understand though if they arrested Eric because of the robbery that went wrong in the beginning by Henry and the gang or because of the murder of the little child and the military man at the motel. The man who talked with Eric mentioned a name (Abbo or something similar) but was that the name of the motel, IDK.

[–] goatman86 10 years ago

(Abbo or something similar)

Abbo is a shorten sometimes slang or even derogatory term for Aboriginal, so by saying ""Abbo Town" he would have meant an Aboriginal settlement, I am guessing the military or PMC are payed to protect indigenous settlements?

[–] blackbeanie 10 years ago

Thanks for clarification. The little girl who was killed by Rey, wasn't she an Aboriginal? I think so.

[–] poopfock 10 years ago

For all the military knows, he was involved in both. From what I gather, they're probably only aware of the general look of the perp and that vehicle the perp was driving. Eric and Henry look similar in build and by this point he's with Rey anyways (while Henry was with Rey during the initial crime). So, mistaking Eric for Henry was easy to do.

If you notice the scene where Eric gets caught by the military, they seem to make it a point to show the truck in the background...to me it seems like just another pointer that the truck is more to blame for Eric's detainment, but also that he was seen with Rey at some point. I imagine the little girl at the hotel was a lure for Rey since it's obvious the military was waiting outside, so clearly they could have reported seeing Eric with Rey and thus mistaking him for Henry.

Eric, I imagine, has no clue why he really got nabbed, but likely he thinks it's due to killing the military guy at the hotel.

[–] blackbeanie 10 years ago

That's an interesting idea: the little girl being used as a lure for Rey. I thought it was incidently, she was bringing him a blanket. After all it was risky to use a girl to get him open the door, on the other hand, a child's life wasn't that important anymore.

[–] rozroz 10 years ago

and that's what i like about these kind of movies..
you can still come up with logical ideas for "plot holes" weeks after you watch it.
great stuff :D

[–] blackbeanie 10 years ago

True! This kind of movies makes the message boards on Imdb so interesting, unlike movies where the story is told from A to Z, there's not that much to discuss about anymore

[–] Talidan 10 years ago

That partly seems to be a big feature of the film. They gave all the pieces to put together, but they let the viewer figure it out. It's not handed to us.

Nothing seems so ridiculous that you really need to suspend disbelief in any explanation, you just piece together what makes the most sense.

[–] Mary_Jane_Abba-Zaba 10 years ago

From the initial conversation in the truck, the robbers didn't sound like they were killers. That's why they didn't kill the guy. Maybe they just admired Eric's determination or the size of his balls?

They wanted to keep the car probably because the soldier at the beginning could have reported seeing the truck before he engaged them. Also, witnesses could have seen the truck leaving the scene. Anyways, they probably figured it was less risky to have a new ride.