MovieChat Forums > Switchback (1997) Discussion > Loose Ends (SPOILERS)

Loose Ends (SPOILERS)

posted 19 years ago by ihfnd
22 replies | jump to latest

Just saw the movie on TNT and loved it. Just happened to come into it and was interested because of Ermey. Rented it at the video store to see it all the way through, and although I really liked it, some things didn't seem to make sense:

The magic number was 218, but the train on which the final conflict came was the 20-10, isn't a bit of a stretch to assume he'd figure that out and get on the right one?

I've never heard of a person taking office the day after the election? Do they do that in NM?

Goodall claimed to have a son staying with his sister. Goodall was black, the boy is white. No one questioned this?

Who was it that had the boy? The numbers next door to the house they went in were 8895, making the house they went into 8897, not 8899. The woman doing the wash was at the next house, making it 8899. She was white, so she probably wasn't Goodall's sister, so who was she, and why did she have the boy?

The boy was old enough to talk, he recognized his Dad, he didn't say anything in all that time about his parents, his home? Nobody questioned anything?

Other than these questions, the movie was great--suspense high. Typical good job by Glover and Quaid. Glover is great as a bad guy and as a good guy--not many can do that.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Janeckb 19 years ago

The whole sister thing was a lie. Remember he was refering to Andy as his son, which also wasn't true. It was just to get Lane to go along with his plan. The deal was "Kill me to find him". By giving Lane the address where LaCrosse's son was, it was possible for LaCrosse to find his son once once Bob was dead.

[–] nikiachaney 19 years ago

I figure that Goodall was paying someone to take care of the boy. Maybe a no questions, no ask type of thing. The number 218 on the train was a clue to get LaCrosse to get on that train and find the other train, 20-10 in at the stop, "Believe". Remember the writing on the back of the picture of the boy? The only thing that I couldn't believe was that both Lacrosse and Goodall survived car crashes with no scratches whatsoever? Still loved the movie, though.

[–] TequilaMockingbird5150 15 years ago

When did he do that?

The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Samuel Beckett

[–] TheGraveLittleToaster 14 years ago

Right before he crashes his car over the ledge.

Government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.

[–] YxlsMom 15 years ago

You're surprised the kid recognized his father right away? Seriously? It had only been 3 months. Have you ever seen what happens when the military guys come back from deployments and long assignments (like Iraq or Korea)? These guys are gone for 6 months to over a year, but of course the kids recognize them.

I don't know how elections for sheriff are done, but this was in Amarillo. That's Texas, not New Mexico. Also, the sheriff was being held in jail by the FBI, so that probably hastened the newly elected sheriff to taking over.

Glover was lying about the kid being his because he needed to get the info to the other guy so Quaid would get it. I think that part was contrived also, but that's why he said it that way.

[–] polfuss 19 years ago

a white child in a black family is possible.. they made a whole movie about it.. it stars anthony hopkins and nichole kidman, dont rememeber the name and too lazy to look right now. NM is the same not given office same day, but its a movie, lots of movies do that. every movie has its flaws, these ones are mines and some can be elxplained if looked into (ie white son to a black family... all it needs is one white person in his genes somewhere)

hope this helped.

~Stacy

[–] kingrao 19 years ago

I also saw this at the end of April. Maybe I wasn't paying close attention but how did the bad guy change from the one who rang the doorbell to Quaid's house to Danny Glover? Were they in cahoots?

Kathy

[–] kingrao 19 years ago

[–] Jester2000154113 18 years ago

The guy at the beginning was just some guy that Danny Glover used (probably paid) to distract the nanny while he slipped into the house. Later they mention how that guy was found as a supposed suicide victim, and he had detailed notes and stuff related to the murders, so the police called off the investigation thinking the killer was dead. But Danny Glover was the real killer the whole time, and I think it's safe to assume the guy didn't really commit suicide. Danny Glover just used him, first to get into the house, then to get the police off his tail, and got rid of him when he didn't need him anymore.

[–] djsnafu23 17 years ago

I find the 2-18 thing lacking creedibility.

My quesiton: why did Glover invite Quaid? What did he expect to get out of it? Did he have soem sort of plan and where did it go wrong? It just seemd liek suicide.

Finally, why he wanted to be killed and let him find the son is also beyond me

[–] bc-in-va 16 years ago

I just saw this via Netflix last night for the first time. There were either some inconsistencies or subtleties I didn't catch.

So Glover kidnapped the boy to take Quaid off the case. I guess he either lured Quaid because Quaid stayed after him even though the FBI took him off the case, or because he's a physchopath. I can accept either.

I still don't get exactly what Glover expected to happen with the 218 and the other train. Quaid had to first recognize that the 218 was a train, then climb over a mountain and jump onto another moving train. Was this Glover's plan? How could he expect all that to happen? Or was he going to get to the 218 himself somehow, or what?

On the train we learn that Glover was setting up Leto. He saw him check in to the hotel, and followed him on the road so he could pick him up. Unless he knew where that trailer was stopping, he got awfully lucky to pick Leto up without following directly behind them. But maybe he asked around. And then because he's setting up Leto, Glover has to rescue him from the miner bar.

But then it gets less consistent about whether he was setting up Leto, or knew he was going to die and wanted Leto to find the boy afterwards. If he's going to set up Leto, why tell him where the boy is, since if they all live, that could be Leto's way of showing that Glover is the killer? And when Glover rolls the car, he yells at Leto to not try to rescue him? Why? It almost seemed suicidal how he was recklessly driving, and yelled for Leto to get out, and then not rescue him, but after that he's all business again.

I suppose you can pass it all off on Glover being unbalanced and conflicted about his good vs. evil side. It seems pretty contrived though.

On another note, did anyone else think that the guy who came to the door at the beginning looked a lot like the guy running for sheriff? Same goofy face and smile?

[–] DCompton86 15 years ago

Well I'd like to know if the doctor guy died at the end...the one who gave Dennis Quaid the address.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

[–] canuckteach 15 years ago

Glover only told Jared Leto about his 'son' - he didn't show him a photo. The 'race' of the child was immaterial. I agree with another 'poster' here that Glover probably paid someone, a stranger, to take care of the kid, and keep quiet. The plot has some holes, and real serial killers don't do this stuff. But we, the public, have been engrossed by super-detectives catching super-criminals since Sherlock Holmes chased Professor Moriarty.

In fact, Dr. House, Lie to Me, Bones, Monk etc. are all spinoffs of Sherlock Holmes, and the later great detective Hercule Poirot, penned by Agatha Christie. Overall, though, I have a soft spot for this film -- it's a different sort of 'buddy' flick.

Concerning the 2-18 20-10 train thing:

-just watching my vhs taped version - Quaid clearly sees the '218' train from a small motel in the 'snowed-in' town. the connection is: the train - and then the name of the town Believe.

by the way: when it was released in theater, the Producers kept their cards close to their vest: Dennis Quaid was even a suspect for awhile, and we didn't hear anything about his child till he told the Sheriff in the movie. that added to the suspense. later on, when previewing the film on TV, we were told that Quaid was an FBI agent chasing a serial killer who kidnapped his son. I didn't know ANY of that when I saw it for the first time. Sometimes it pays to NOT watch previews of a film you are going to see.

I'd like an opinion about the car crash in the mountains: was Glover tossing the dice right there, figuring he was sunk if they caught him in the car after his nasty deed with the car mechanic? he did tell Leto to jump out, but didn't himself.

:-) canuckteach (--:

[–] Sapere-Aude 14 years ago

I am sorry I can't add anything further to the other posters loose ends explanations, but MY BIGGEST QUESTION always was WHY? WHY did Glovers character murder all these people who spoke so highly of him and where obviously close friends at one point or another? What was the motivation?

If anyone could enlighten me that would be great, because I really think this is a great suspense thriller, but that question always bugged me.

"Equitare, arcum tendere,veritatem dicere."

[–] shgreen4888 14 years ago

He's a psychopath!

Loved this movie! It does have some loose ends, but if you love mountains, trains, country music, good acting and a thriller script, you couldn't ask for more.

'And once you hear the truth...everything else is just cheap whiskey.'

[–] Sapere-Aude 14 years ago

>He's a psychopath! <

Sorry that's not good enough as an explanation.
Even psychopath's have a motive or a trigger, no matter how twisted the motive or delusion may be and in this movie no hint of a motive or causal back story was ever given and that's a major flaw to the story line.

"Equitare, arcum tendere,veritatem dicere."

[–] padzok 13 years ago

The magic number was 218, but the train on which the final conflict came was the 20-10, isn't a bit of a stretch to assume he'd figure that out and get on the right one?

La Crosse got very lucky, and solved the mystery almost by fluke.

But the killer was fair in his clues. La Crosse should have been able to solve them with normal detective work if he had had the FBI's full resources behind him, but he didnt.

Poor old Shorty was killed just for the precise reason of leading La Crosse to that town. (It would have been the store girl, but she got lucky).

Once in the town, the next clue was that a train running through was "218". The bureau wouldnt have needed to actually get on the train to see where it went. They could have just looked at maps and timetables etc, and had the full help of the train company's executives. So the FBI could have looked at the map and seen that the 218 went close to the route of another train which went to "understanding" and "believe".0

The only reason La Crosse needed to actually jump on the 218 train to see where it went is because he had no other alternative. But the killer didnt need to forsee that.

[–] carters6 12 years ago

In response to the poster's question about Danny Glover's motive killing so-called friends, I agree with the response that he was indeed a psychopath and for those of us who aren't it would be hard to understand how someone would kill friends. To add on to that though, what I picked up on was that he decided to kill these people once he realized that they might know too much. With Shorty, it was when he saw the police car was there once he came out of the candy shop-he may have figured out that the cop saw the car and the cops could come back to Shorty for more info on the driver of the car. For the elderly guy on the train, he saw Amarillo, TX and the name of the motel on the matches. And even though that guy still did not believe his friend Bob had anything to do with those murders (as he defended him to Jared Leto), Bob (Danny Glover) still killed him. They just knew too much, in his eyes.
SC

[–] liquidraven 12 years ago

So why was Bob setting Doc up, if all he wanted was someone to give Frank the address? Was it so there would be a public description that matched someone else, making it easier for Bob to move about with his friends?

Also, Doc lived in the end right? They never really showed much of him.

[–] Kutanamar 10 years ago

I mentioned in another post: Glover set Leto up to be either the key to Quaid finding his son, or a scapegoat to frame as the killer, depending on whether he won or lost.

[–] rickb69 11 years ago

The numbers next door to the house they went in were 8895, making the house they went into 8897, not 8899. The woman doing the wash was at the next house, making it 8899

My house number is 4528, the houses on ether side of me are 4524 and 4532. I am guessing they are 4 numbers apart instead of 2 is so that you can put a "Mother-in-law" shack in the back yard

Who was it that had the boy? She was white, so she probably wasn't Goodall's sister, so who was she, and why did she have the boy?

She was probably a friend of Goodall's and he probably told her, the boy was his white wife's son from a previous marriage, his wife died and he had to take care of some "business" and would she watch him for a while

Goodall claimed to have a son staying with his sister. Goodall was black, the boy is white. No one questioned this?

Goodall only told Lane Dixon, that his son was staying with his sister. Lane never saw the boy

polfuss posted
» Fri Apr 28 2006 01:39:32

a white child in a black family is possible.. ... all it needs is one white person in his genes

True but, only if the father is white

If a person with multiple personalities threatens to commit suicide, is that a hostage situation