Mom and Dad were watching this movie last night, and I just glanced at the front, and found a loophole, or a place that deserves more thought.
The male protagonist Adrian and the female protagonist Laura tried to hit and run after hitting someone with a car, but found that the car broke down. Then came a middle-aged driver, a so-called eyewitness. What Adrian told her when she first approached her lawyer was that Laura had all the ideas at the time, so it was Laura who came up with the idea of using a two-car crash to cover up the accident to deceive witnesses. Looking back on the male protagonist's elaboration on this matter, Laura is the most assertive and proactive in everything. So she pretended that she was the owner of the boy's car, and she lied that it was her car that hit the male owner's car, and the two were negotiating to deal with it. He took the dead boy's phone after the phone in the boy's car rang, and finally dropped the phone at Thomas and Elvira's home.
According to the last statement of the lawyer (the deceased boy's mother Elvira), all the roles of the hero Adrian and the heroine Laura are reversed. That is to say, after hitting someone with a car, it is the male protagonist who says he wants to hit and run, and it is also the male protagonist who thinks about handling things after the car breaks down. And Laura was the one who panicked at the scene of the accident and had a bad conscience afterwards. So in that case, why did the deceased boy's phone get into Laura's hands? Since all the characters look in reverse, and she is so passive, how can she deal with the situation calmly?
I think this can be regarded as an incomprehensible doubt in the whole play, but it can not be regarded as a loophole, because it can be explained by an explanation, that is:
Laura was not as innocent as lawyer Elvira said.
View more about The Invisible Guest reviews
