MovieChat Forums > Locke (2014) Discussion > It doesn't take 90 minutes to drive to L...

It doesn't take 90 minutes to drive to London!

posted 9 years ago by JaysonT
16 replies | jump to latest

My friend Helen and me decided to watch this because we like Tom Hardy. We were incredibly disappointed. A few things come to mind--

1) It does not take 90 minutes to drive to downtown London. Unless he was working in a different country, England is not that big. I've been to London many times, and the trains got us from the airport to downtown in a flash. The fact that the traffic was light and there was no gridlock confused us; how is it taking him an eternity to drive to the city? What a horrible commute.

2) You can't get fired if you're the boss. He owned the company and built skyscrapers. He got fired for no reason. Donald, the idiot coworker, should have been sacked for being a big whining baby on the phone to him. The fact that he continued to want to work after the fake termination made us cringe more. He was making six figures- he made the decisions, not Donald or the other guy he spoke to in the Indian restaurant.

3) His wife was a real tool. All he did was sleep with his secretary. *beep* happens. He was going to see the baby. That was it. She could have been more reasonable.

4) No conclusion. His commute was so long that even after the movie ended he was still driving. Didn't make an ounce of sense.

[–] dayvit78 8 years ago

Well Helen and Jayson, seems you were really confused by not actually being able to see the actors. I think you're trolling, but I want to correct some misinformation in case others pass by:

2) You can't get fired if you're the boss. He owned the company and built skyscrapers. He got fired for no reason. Donald, the idiot coworker, should have been sacked for being a big whining baby on the phone to him. The fact that he continued to want to work after the fake termination made us cringe more. He was making six figures- he made the decisions, not Donald or the other guy he spoke to in the Indian restaurant.

Locke is the construction director, a 9 year veteran of the firm, which has its headquarters in Chicago, USA. His overriding goal was "doing the right thing" which included making sure the foundation for the skyscraper was set up correctly.

Donal (not Donald) was his assistant (? or foreman?). He had been at the firm as long as Locke, but was not confident enough yet to step up to take the big job. He had every right to complain, as technically, it was Locke in charge, not him.

Gareth (listed as "Bastard" in the phone) was Locke's boss, and reported directly to HQ in Chicago. Gareth is the one who fired Locke after discussing the situation with HQ, and yes, the termination was real. If you assumed it was Donal, then that may be why you said it was fake.

The guy in the Indian restaurant was Cassidy, a local council member. They needed his approval to close one of the roads. He did not work at the construction company, but Locke had met him before in regards to getting approvals for a different job.

[–] QueenCandie 8 years ago

I blocked you for your ignorant opinions. Your parents have failed you utterly

[–] tgabber 8 years ago

It shouldn't take him 90 minutes for the simple reason that the opening scene shows him getting into his car in... Central London! (near Liverpool Street station to be exact).

For that reason I was a bit puzzled when the dialogue later had him driving to London and not away from it. Sloppy filmmaking when it would have been so simple to make the dialogue fit the location.

Also his supposed 'biggest concrete pour in Europe' is nothing of the sort. The amount of concrete quoted is in fact quite small by large building standards (see the goofs section). Again sloppy since it would have taken someone five minutes on the web to research an appropriately big number to put in the dialogue.

Otherwise an enjoyably different film, but why be so lazy with details?

[–] mirta1 8 years ago

Just think of it as taking place in a fictional universe which is very similar to ours. After all in the real world there is no one called Locke whose life is falling apart while he drives down the M6, either.

It made sense in terms of human beings, which is the main thing. It's interesting that the amounts are so far out, because it's the opposite of how Ivan Locke would have handled that aspect of the script. I really think it's a subtle joke, playing on the character.

[–] smoke0 8 years ago

I've seen myriad movies / TV shows that take place in NYC with ridiculous travel times, and just learned to deliberately not notice it or question it so it won't ruin my enjoyment of the plot as a whole. Characters in different parts of Manhattan travel to other parts of Manhattan in 5 minutes, to upstate NY in 5 minutes, from one borough to another in 5 minutes, travel to other states in 5 minutes, and so on. It never makes any sense but if it serves the plot to have a character in NYC drive to New Jersey for one plot arc and then to Pennsylvania for another, all in less than an hour, then that's what they'll do.

Revenge is a dish that best goes stale.