MovieChat Forums > Derailed (2005) Discussion > I don't get this...

I don't get this...

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

A couple of things I don't get -

After he figured out that he was conned, how did Charles know that it was happening again to someone else, that is was gonna take place in the same hotel and WHEN it was gonna take place?

Charles was not a suspect of the whole shot-out in the hotel, as we know. We saw that the cop guy who suspected Charles of Winston's murder was there, and that Charles deliberately avoided him. Now, normally, wouldn't the police check the books for a list of EVERYONE who was in the hotel at that time? Charles' name would've been among them.

Can anyone help with this? Maybe I'm missing something.

Mitch: "Curly, I'm sorry we buried you, but you looked so dead!"

[–] elchiponr1 16 years ago

youre right man, i was surprised by him knowing where to go and when, too.

also the fact that he could just walk out of a crime-scene where four people got shot, was just too fake to be credible. Also funny that one of the officers says: "pretty straightforward, two people getting mugged, security comes in and everyone gets shot." As if the security-guy from the hotel is armed with a big-ass desert eagle, or whatever gun x-zibit was carrying.

I really think this movie wasn't thaught out enough and the actions of the main character were so unrealistic that it was impossible to connect to him. Like the fact that Lucinda's kid could be taken away immediately stops him from going to the police, and he sacrifices all the money he saved for his OWN daughter.

[–] sim7396 13 years ago

I really think this movie wasn't thought out enough

That's a generous way to say it! (This movie sucks!!)

[–] darkjinni2 13 years ago

Walking out of the crime scene was a stretch but the problem you had with the cops assessment I think is off because the security guard could have just as easily ran in the room with no guns. The cops could have assumed that the robber came in with a number of guns and the security guard wrestled one away.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't find out that he really wasn't a security guard there. Or that during the investigation of the murder of four people that they wouldn't have gotten anything that connected 3 of the people together that have obviously been running a scam for quite sometime.

I also agree that he did a lot of things that seemed unrealistic including not going to the police because he intended on having sex with someone, using $10K of work funds when he could have easily just took it out of his own money like he did the $100K, etc.

[–] Mind_Breaker 16 years ago

Well it was obviously going to be the same hotel, part of the plan is to use that hotel every time because the manager was in on it. As for when they were going to be there, he probably either followed them (as he did at the restaurant) or just staked out the hotel for a couple of hours, it's not rocket science.

[–] WhoWantsIt 16 years ago

in the book he goes and lives at the hotel for months and waits for them to come back. Its an awesome book.

I have spoken

[–] jabberttp 16 years ago

Bigger question for me is how did he get the $100,000 back?

Did I blink when that happened?

I saw he got it back, but how? Did the French guy HAVE the $100,000 with him when he was to do another mugging? If so, that makes even less sense than any of the other valid points in this thread.

[–] WhoWantsIt 16 years ago

IIRC the money was still in Charles' briefcase, which the criminals had kept behind the counter of the motel. Which is a bit of a stretch lol

I have spoken

[–] jabberttp 16 years ago

Yes, agreed, thanks.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]