First of all, the fact that we can know [Lola did get the victim's mobile phone];
Second, in the first narration of the entrepreneur and in the "lure" behind the fake lawyer, we know that [Lola belongs to the "leader" in the forest (the first narration of the entrepreneur) but is very passive in the victim's home (this Very questionable), so we might as well overturn the first narrative - it's actually the entrepreneur who is in the lead in the forest (the latter movie does show the entrepreneur talking to a passing driver, i.e. the entrepreneur is in the lead)].
But can a terrified person really react faster to a calling cell phone than a terrified but still muddle through?
Hypothesis 1: Lola is the leader and the entrepreneur is terrified (according to the first narrative of the entrepreneur), so there is no contradiction in her handling the calling phone and carrying the phone with her, but it is contrary to what she is doing later in the victim's home . overthrow.
Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneur is the leader and Lola is horrified (in line with the entrepreneur's self-made image, and the film does show that), which is consistent with Lola's performance in the victim's parents' house, but the terrified Lola can Should an entrepreneur go first to a cell phone to handle calls? It's even more unlikely that the entrepreneur motioned Lola to get the phone. If Lola suddenly "has an epiphany" to handle the phone, no matter how the frightened person who just "has an epiphany" behaves, he can't fool the curious driver. overthrow.
Assumption 3: Both the entrepreneur and Lola freak out. This is even more impossible. How could they fool passing drivers if they were all freaked out and didn't suspect "the two men and women I met on the road who collided" so long after news of the victim's disappearance was released. overthrow.
Assumption 4: Neither the entrepreneur nor Lola was terrified and dealt with the accident calmly. The entrepreneur is a self-made businessman with a bit of a trick, which is the basis for his lack of intimidation. Lola didn't freak out because she was a femme fatale. This "femme beauty" and the entrepreneur successfully fooled passing drivers, but this femme fatale was surprised at the victim's house, but this shock appeared as a "sudden awakening of human nature" is not abrupt , but every fake lawyer and entrepreneur's fabrication (narrative) of a car accident sets two diametrically opposed characters, either cold-blooded or petrified, and if they portray both people as very cold-blooded, it will be more difficult for the entrepreneur. It is beneficial (that is, there is no contrast between good and evil judgments, "two cold-blooded people will not appear to be one of them is very bad", in other words, it is to step on), so the indirect expression of the image of the entrepreneur is based on the two in the scene of the car accident. Personal performance image, that is, the performance of the two characters at the scene of the car accident is opposite. So this assumption is also overturned.
View more about The Invisible Guest reviews
