MovieChat Forums > Side Effects (2013) Discussion > Major Flaw in movie (The Killing)

Major Flaw in movie (The Killing)

posted 12 years ago by joelsf30
96 replies | jump to latest

There are so many flaws that I could fill up an entire screen with. But one glaring one that really annoyed me was the way the killing went down. Why would she act and look like she was in a trance and dreaming while stabbing him? She wouldnt have! I understood it would have ruined the whole twist of the movie if she just straight up attacked him and killed him. But there would be NO reason at all for her to act like she was in a trance and dreaming while she actually stabbed him and slowly walked and laid back down in bed. Since he was the only one to see her, and she knew he was going to die. Just looking back on it i realize that it was needed to keep the audience fooled, but COMPLETELY ridiculous, and a major flaw in the movie if you ask me.

[–] markfkdone 12 years ago

Maybe to keep his guard down the entire time. If he really knew that she was trying to kill him he might have fought back harder after the first stab.

____
It is hard not to sound condescending when you are explaining things to an idiot!

[–] BrunoAntony 12 years ago

Bingo. If he fought back and overpowered her, she could always say it was the medication.

Plus, she had to stage the crime scene.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Themanwithnoname222 11 years ago

Medication or not, he should have taken her down. Isn't that supposed to be a flaw?

Had I charged 2 cents for every opinion of mine, I would be a millionaire.

[–] A_Sheeple_Nation 11 years ago

Not only that but if for some reason things didn't go according to plan and he survived the attack, she would have a safety net because her husband would have told the authorities that she was sleepwalking. If she attacked him while not faking it and he survived, he would testify against her instead of blaming it on the medication.

This is not a flaw, OP needs to practice his critical thinking skills.

[–] Trev001 11 years ago

I came here to say that after reading the title of the thread.

The OP must feel quite dumb on that one.

[–] xagezos 9 years ago

the main problem is that after killing him, she goes to bed and sleeps again like nothing happened. There is no justification for this, it was just misleading

[–] Rick-34 9 years ago

"Maybe if he survived..."

Why would he survive? The entire purpose of the plan was to kill him. Once he had been stabbed three times, it would be quite easy to ensure that his wounds were fatal. She could even have stabbed him again without that affecting her legal defense.

It's a fairly glaring flaw in the movie.

And even if you buy some need to play-act before the stabbing, it makes no sense for her to immediately crawl into bed to go to sleep.

Insulting the OP is rather presumptuous. And gratuitous.

[–] Jferg01 9 years ago

They lived in an apartment someone could have heard him scream and called 911. People survive knife wounds all the time

[–] reeseslightning 12 years ago

I agree with the poster above. Had she gone at him, he would have fought back and easily overpowered her, hence no plot to the film. When he sees that she's having an "episode" he didn't want to hurt her; though he could have taken the knife away. But she had stabbed him so deep that he would have died regardless. And I think it happened so quick that he couldn't believe what just happened.

She didn't go back to sleep. The shot ends with her going into the bedroom so it looks like that's what she's doing; the confession sequence shows that she went into the room, probably practiced her act for a bit, grabbed the pillow to scream and then called 911.

Make him do it again -Ilithyia

[–] hodie 11 years ago

After she stabbed him she went back to bed. I remember that. But for how long I don't know.

Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

[–] joelsf30 12 years ago

Not trying to show off. In fact I hardly ever post comments online about movies but this just annoyed me. Obviously the movies intent was to trick the viewer which worked, but going back alot of things would have not happened as they were shown to if it really was an act. To each his own i guess

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] No300 12 years ago

It was indeed shot like that to trick the viewer into believing that shes under medication.

What I don't get is if she never took the medication wouldn't the find out in court shes lying after they tested her blood?

[–] jamesr23 12 years ago

She did take the Ablixa, it's mentioned at the end of the film. It's the only medication she actually took but according to her it had no effects.

[–] No300 12 years ago

Oh ok thanks for explaining I missed that.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tanoshiri 12 years ago

Surprised no one has mentioned modern forensic science. Pretty easy to tell if there had been a struggle.

[–] indy-39 12 years ago

Came to the site precisely to see if anyone else had posted about this major mistake- I actually stopped the movie at the point where she exited the room like a zombie with the knife in her hand and turned to my wife and said, "Who is she acting FOR- if it turns out at the end that this is all an act?" Showing the murder was unnecessary and a rather surprising mistake from such a competent director- otherwise I thought the movie was serviceable enough.

[–] tanoshiri 12 years ago

She was clearly very much into method acting. ;)

[–] ankmiike 11 years ago

She was clearly very much into method acting. ;)

Exactly my thoughts.

AFC to PUA. That's the dream.

[–] Refiniaso 11 years ago

Ha ha, that's what I was intended to say.Whatever, i think it was better to cut the scene just after the death of emily's husband.

[–] Vibradiant 11 years ago

Just watched the movie, and rewatched the scene. If you are referring to the murder scene, Emily did NOT exit the room with the knife in her hand. It was clearly sticking out of Martin's back.

Siebert had fully instructed her on how to behave with regards to mental illness, and, as others have mentioned, it seems clear that maintaining the illusion during the commission of the crime was vital in the case that she had actually failed to kill him.

Even had he been simply critically wounded, the pharma/trading scheme based on defamation still would've worked, she still would've been given the NGRI, etc, so going through the motions was vital to their ruse.

Not showing the murder would've completely changed the movie, and that would've been a mistake.

"I like to watch" Chauncey Gardiner, 'Being There'

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TerrorDementia 11 years ago

Two problems with your statement:

1. Your example about people not being able to do something while asleep that they could not do while awake is ambivalent. You cited driving as such an action. You stated that someone will not drive a Mustang while they are sleepwalking if they cannot drive a Mustang while awake.

This is where the confusion lies; are you specifically saying that a person cannot perform an action while sleepwalking that requires skills if they don't possess those skills while awake? Because that is self-apparent. Sleepwalking doesn't give a person skills.

Or are you saying that a person will not perform ANY action, be it skilled or unskilled, while sleepwalking that they would not perform while awake?

Stabbing someone to death isn't a skill in the same manner of knowing how to operate a car. To stab someone to death, you simply stab until death. You cannot compare it to the skill necessary to operate a car.

2. People have actually killed other people while sleepwalking, and been found not guilty of it.

This happens, and has happened, and will happen, in the real world. Are you really claiming that the sleepwalkers were going to kill their victims anyway, or that they just faked the sleepwalking?

You would think if it was a scientific fact that a person would not kill someone in their sleep that the courts would have heard the testimony, and the perpetrator would have been found guilty, if this were true.

[–] Mehki_Girl 11 years ago

Faked their sleepwalking...just because 12 idiots believed they did it in their sleep, doesn't make it true.

[–] dillonfries 10 years ago

the drug was untested (as most are). Doctors receive kickbacks from pharma companies, and the patients were being used as lab rats in exchange their meds were free. that's the nature of lab rats, one patient has a homocidal reaction... she gets off of murder charges and the unmarketed drug is to blame. The whole story is a scheme of the sociopathic therapist and patients homosexual relationship.

[–] Ite 11 years ago

How did u know she was acting at that point? Your post is a plot hole.

[–] stillvendetta 12 years ago

Ever seen CSI? Elementary? If she didn't act it out they would likely be able to tell that it didn't go down how she said it happened. That's why she set the table for 3 and everything. That wasn't for Tatum, that was for the investigators and for her doctor to see.

I would love to hear about these flaws that you could "fill an entire screen with". Most likely don't exist or only exist because you failed to pay attention.

[–] joelsf30 12 years ago

Are you a writer or family friend of the film or something? Didnt mean to upset you, lol. My whole point which some have agreed with and some have disagreed with was there were scenes in this movie that would not have gone down as shown, most noteably the killing and the aftermath. For me it was not realistic enough that she would have killed him in a trance acting way, but the person who claimed she actually had to
walk zombie like to bed after the killing because csi forensics would be able to detect her foot speed or something was beyond ridiculous!!

[–] z99 12 years ago

I have no doubt that in a difficult case such things as footprints would have been examined. She just acted it out completely just to be safe, in her place I'd do totally the same. It would have even made her psychologically easier to lie.

------------
23

[–] paulsdhart (277) 5 years ago

I have no doubt that in a difficult case such things as footprints would have been examined.

there was that scene after the murder where the detective talking to Emily notices both her feet soles where covered in blood

[–] MyGeorgie 11 years ago

Totally agree, I think she planned out exactly what she would have done were it real and followed through each step. Timing would have been key so she knew exactly how long she needed to stay in that bed before she could get up and discover the body. She would be able to tell it exactly as it happened.

[–] bedmanokc-611-829026 12 years ago

She has had to "act this out" for years. She has convinved herself - she is basically Deniro, throwing himself into a role. That is why I think she goes to sleep. Its how she was taught to act. She did EXACTLY what she was told & trained to do, to make it real - for her. (The Plot hole for me, is that she didnt realize she wasnt feeling groggy or the side effects from the placebo lie detector, but even that i can get thru.

[–] stillvendetta 12 years ago

Have you ever heard of the Travis Alexander case? The evidence needs to match up or people wont buy the story. It was pivotal that things looked exactly how she said they happened, else they would find holes in her story. That means acting the part. Setting the table for 3, acting as if she was sleep walking so there was no struggle and any kind of DNA evidence, footprints and the like would match up exactly to the picture that she painted for everyone.

[–] gonzo-63 12 years ago

She can't take the chance that it was ammonia penthatol. She had to stick to HER story. If she waited for it to take effect she could have told the truth during it. He sold her on the effects whether they were real effects or not so that that's what she play out.

www.youtube.com/gonzo0071

[–] denise1234 12 years ago

** spoilers **

IMHO, it wasn't a cheap shot just to fool viewers.

It was all very intentional, on the part of the filmmaker and on the part of the character.

I believe Emily was acting throughout everything, except for example when she was initially married & when she was trying to avoid being sent back to the mental hospital at the end.

Even when she was telling Dr. Banks 'the truth', I think she was still trying to portray the 'wounded sex kitten' with him.

She had her various 'roles' (dedicated wife, depressed woman, lesbian lover, victim of med side effects) fairly well-perfected.

She was going to play these roles as flawlessly as possible, so as not to make any potential error and to appear as 'natural' as possible when explaining about certain events, because so much was at stake, and even if that meant there was no explicit audience there.

And, that included during the murder.

"I'm here because I believe in a free Narnia."