I'm on both sides of this he killed him / he ran off with some supplies argument.
...actually the other side of the argument is that he ran off WITHOUT some supplies (Loomis tells Ann that Caleb said that she could have his things) which is why that option seems a little more dubious.
I submit that he died on accident, that he couldn't hold onto his with those gloves on, as weird as that might sound the visual zoom in on the gloves constantly seemed like it was trying to say something, maybe the gloves flew off his hands or something.
The question then becomes, why would he need to lie about that? I mean if it was an accident wouldn't he just fish out the body somehow (or with Ann's assistance) and simply say, "I couldn't hold on to him. He weighs 200+ with the suit. My bad."
My main issue is why he needed to be winched around the front of the cliff anyways.
Evidently, that was necessary in order to properly place the water race into the flow of the waterfall.
On November 6, 2012 god blessed America...again.
reply
share
Agent_Smoulder
9 years ago
I have no idea, it wasn't a bad movie or anything but it was an awful adaptation of the source material.
Trust no one.
reply
share
iroquoisjoe
9 years ago
Ha! Well...in my opinion a faithful adaptation of the novel wouldn't have made an enjoyable movie anyhow. So several changes were almost mandatory. ...I mean as anticlimatic as the movie is, the ending of the book is equally, or even more, obscure...with even less going on before the climax.
On November 6, 2012 god blessed America...again.
reply
share
spookyrat1
8 years ago
Well...in my opinion a faithful adaptation of the novel wouldn't have made an enjoyable movie anyhow. So several changes were almost mandatory.
Can only agree. I found this to be more interesting than the book and just a mite more positive in certain respects.
As for the waterfall scene, I think its open-ended treatment is very appropriate.🐭
reply
share
caroleanne
8 years ago
He lied to Ann, just like he had lied about leaving a boy on the side of the road after the boy begged him to kill him. He only told Ann later on that he did kill him and he thinks it was her brother.
reply
share
counter_tre
8 years ago
I thought it was a weird time (dinner with a rival) for him to bring that story up. Not exactly appropriate table chat, especially with his and Ann's relationship in question. John even mentioned boy's age. He may have been working up the nerve to come clean for a while, and chickened out at the last moment. Or he wanted to give Ann enough info to ask, if she wanted to know more.
reply
share