MovieChat Forums > The Next Three Days (2010) Discussion > button purpose

button purpose

posted 13 years ago by osamaaezaz09
61 replies | jump to latest

what is the purpose of the button at the end?
wikipedia describe the ending as:
He remembers Lara saying a button popped off as she was leaving, and notices that it is raining just as it had been the night of the murder. He tosses a piece of paper in the current where the button would've fallen off, and finds it leads into a gutter. He searches the gutter but is unable to find the button. "You really thought you were gonna find it?" his assistant asks. But it turns out the button was there, buried under grime and dust, and the detectives miss it by seconds.
when the detective is not able to find the button so how that proves that she was innocent?
whats the button purpose?
whose button was that lARA or KILLER?
i didnt understand the button theory

at the mid of the movie john was reading something and thinks that lara picks fire extinguisher and hit in her boss head.
wat was that?

[–] jleidy 13 years ago

A lot of time was spent on the button, which is unfortunate because 1) the relevance was unclear and 2) it would not have mattered. The best I can determine, the purpose was to show that she did, in fact, bump into a third person which made her denial of the assault plausible. If the button was found, presumably, she may have been telling the truth. But so what: she had already been convicted and this does not come close to proving her innocence beyond any controversy. Had they found a button, it could have beeen there for years before the murder. Also - why were they even looking? I did not understand why teh detectives started watching John when they did, but I felt they looked for the button after the break out because theu inexplicably began having doubts about her guilt.
This whle red herring is a very unfortunate distraction to an otherwise very well made and acted movie that was great fun to watch.

[–] IDream_ofJoaquin 13 years ago

The reason the button part drove me crazy is because why didn't they originally look for it the way the detective did, you know, BEFORE they convicted her? No one ever thought to look in the drain? It took 3 years?

[–] afnakfanfnskejfnsfsn 10 years ago

REASONABLE DOUBT

At the end of the movie, the police who investigated the crime goes back to the crime scene. There he looked at the angle the defendant have said in the court as follows:

1. Boss trying to open car.
2. Someone hit the boss with a blunt object (Fire Extinguisher).
3. Thief run off and bump, ripped a button and smeared blood to the dependent outside the parking lot near the gutter.
4. Defendant approached her car, opened the door tried to get inside but saw the Fire Extinguisher blocking her car's tire.
5. She picked the Fire Extinguisher and put it near the wall.
6. She drives off but failed to notice the body of the victim because it was in right side of the car (Defendant in the driver's seat Left Side).
7. A colleague saw the defendant driving off and noticed the victim's body.

This is what he thought at the crime scene then he said it was raining so he he tossed a piece of paper to prove if what the defendant have said about the button is true. And yes it was because they have thoroughly searched the place 3 years ago but couldn't find the button. He opened the gutter but failed to notice the button. Closed the gutter and heard a faint 'click'.

So he may have not find the button but this scene only proves that he will be looking at the other angle and maybe re-open the case.

[–] sholic 13 years ago

Another telling scene that Laura was innocent - the next morning when she washed the blood stain on her coat (right before the cops break into the house to arrest her), she looked more surprised and confused instead of panic. My interpretation of the button scene was the detective's theory of Laura's possible innocence.

[–] visitorq27 12 years ago

I thought the button thing was the only stupid and unnecessary part of what was an otherwise good movie. We didn't need to see the button to know she was innocent because it had already showed someone else committing the crime shortly before that.

All this talk of 'they could have re-launched the investigation' etc etc had they found the button is ridiculous. A button is pretty flimsy evidence..all it proves is that someone lost a button at that spot at some stage. They could probably prove it wasn't hers but it's hardly enough to exonerate her or catch the killer.

[–] cliclou 12 years ago

When we envision the version of the events at the end in which despite all the damning evidence against her (her prints on the fire extinguisher, the blood on her trench coat, her being witnessed leaving the scene of the crime) she might still have been innocent, the presence of the button serves to show us how all of that might have truly happened since it corroborates her version of the events that night, that she ran into the real killer fleeing the scene. But still, if the button had been found, it would only serve to make up the mind of the detective about what possibly happened, but I don't think that it alone would have been enough to take her case back to court, overthrow the verdict and clear her. The button's purpose is only for the viewer to know how she was might have been really innocent but it would have been pretty useless in a court (unless the button would have carried the DNA of a registered felon or some such thing but that's highly unlikely).

[–] Nice1972 12 years ago

The scene in the end is there only to show the viewers that she's innocent and didn't murder her boss. In reality those polices wouldn't bother going to three years old crime scene.

[–] backoffbrussels 12 years ago

Cases like this are reopened constantly!

So many dumb answers.It's mererly to demonstrate to the audience that she's innocent. Plus underlines how luck and fate conspire.

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill

[–] Gummibehrs 12 years ago

In my opinion, the button thing was ridiculous. In three years, there would probably be many buttons in the gutter. Also stupid that the button was actually still there.

[–] dcdw21 12 years ago

There's plenty of missing evidence that would be present in real life that would've got her off of a guilty verdict.

#1 The killer taps her on the back of the jacket, in turn transferring the blood from her hands to the coat. If there's blood on her hands then there should be more than enough blood on the blunt murder weapon for blood to be dripping under Lara's car where she claimed she found the extinguisher. Thus both putting into doubt her motive to stash the weapon under her car and then move said weapon out of the way and explain why her finger prints are on the weapon.

#2 At what point could the Victim after having her head bashed in, reach behind Lara and mark her coat with blood should it be proven there was no struggle with the Victim and outside of the blood on her coat, there was literally no other sign of a struggle (again the killers hands were covered with blood and probably more on her clothes as well).

#3 The body was indicated to be on the right of the car and as someone else pointed out, the extinguisher was under the left of the car. As with #1, the blood from the extinguisher would also corroborate her testimony that she didn't see the body.

Don't need no stinkin button for this trial.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]