Throughout the whole movie I wonder who the one-eyed guy was. He finally comes back and I still don’t know. He’s not Alex because Alex was in the street being kidnapped. So who is he? And then that last line bombshell that CLC III saved Alex’s life? It was watchable but, in the end, unsatisfying.
shareYep, just watched it and not a clue 🤔
shareMy take on it is that the one-eyed man is Alex. Charles Lake II paid the Moles to kidnap (rescue) him from his abusive parents. Alex didn't know what was happening and tried to escape, but they caught him. Then, Lake staged Alex's "suicide", changed his identity, and sent him away to live somewhere safe. Now, since Charles Lake III (who was probably also involved, with his father, in Alex's rescue) has been arrested, and adult Alex has come back to clear it all up and get CL III out of trouble. This is why he says Charles saved his life. The POS Moles didn't know they were actually involved in a good thing, and were only following directions to get paid. The jerk, weirdo, parents really thought Alex was weak and useless, and was either murdered or committed suicide. They were probably happy to be rid of him, so they wouldn't have to hide him, anymore, and they wouldn't get in trouble for the tiger mauling. So, in trying to solve the kidnapping, Abby, who was a screw-up as a result of what she'd witnessed, got a lot of it wrong, as she realized when Alex came in. I'm still not sure about the pictures in the box. I know the Moles took pictures (documentation), at the Lake's direction, of Alex's injuries. Maybe that was mistaken as being child pron (intentionally misspelled so my post doesn't get flagged, if that happens out here). Anyone have a better synopsis?
shareThat's how I understood it. There seems to be so many confused, I'm surprised. What confused me was the story of the main character before she came back to Canada, lol.
shareHow is that a “laugh out loud” statement? Really, I expect an answer. Was it nervous laughter based on personal insecurity! Like “whatever,” “lol” become a refuge for the inarticulate, so I’m going to confront it.
sharehe prolly just has a differnt cents a humer then u. Innit grate he nevr ansered yo dum azz? Imma gonna b on me wae now.
Here's a phrase you'll understand clearly. Stick it up your backside you arrogant, pompous, troll. ROTFLMAO!
Pacer, your synopsis is pretty much how I saw it, too. Abby was severely traumatized by what she saw that day, and that led to her having “episodes” where lying and exaggerations took over her life. That gives the movie an extra layer, because as she delves deeper into the mystery, we (the audience) aren’t sure if she might be having another episode. It makes all the evidence suspect.
Another fascinating layer is, outside of Abby and her problems, no one else seems to be capable of telling the truth. The podcast guy has formed his own theory which, if we are to believe the end of the movie, is false (and slanderous). The Moulins are full of lies, or so it appears. Mr. Lake III may have been a good guy after all, although the movie doesn’t hang around long enough to bear that out. The Moles are strange folks, with Mrs. Mole seeming downright despicable.
In all honesty, I prefer movies like this in a more linear fashion. Let the mystery play out, but give solid answers along the way. Disappearance at Clifton Hill wants to skirt a fine line, a twilight area, if you will. That’s ok. Overall, I enjoyed it.