If you like non-linear narrative films such as “Invisible Guest” and “Crash”, and are addicted to the climax pleasure brought by the brain-burning movie, then this “Twilight Lake” is also a popular film that cannot be missed.Most suspense films use forward and backward narration, and then at the end of the film, the two timelines are reconnected into one, and the truth comes out. This film uses the whole flashback. When watching the film, you need to concentrate on it. Otherwise, you will be a little distracted. Sorry, you can’t understand the plot behind.
Act 1 Friday
In this scene, the audience can learn the following events:
1. Andy, Ed and Chris robbed the bank. The three people are wanted. The person responsible for this case is Andy’s brother Zike;
2. Andy and his lover have made an appointment to meet at the twilight lake. It’s really death when they wait. The man who shot him had a tattoo of “state champion, support each other” on his right forearm;
3. Dawkins, the president of the robbed bank, died in his own home.
Another detail is that when his colleague Ed waited for him many times, there were always different people in the passenger seat he wanted to sit in. There were four times before and after this scene. Does the director have any other intention for this recurring image?
This is the first act of the film, and indeed the last act of the event. Due to the lack of the cause of the event, the audience is in a fog, but the successive murders have stimulated the audience’s adrenal hormones. It can be said that there is no foreplay, and the audience is about to climax.
Act 2 Thursday
In this scene, the director told the audience about the hidden relationship between more characters:
1. Andy went to his lover’s house the day after robbing the bank. Her lover was Ed’s wife, Stephanie, and gave Andy a gun to tell Andy that the money had been taken by Dawkins;
2. When Andy went to Dawkins’ house to ask for money, he found that the president’s sleeve was broken, and the two people were killed by mistake when they were in charge;
3. Chris died in the hotel wearing only underwear.
Because the timeline is advancing backwards, in the second act, we learned the causes and consequences of some events in the first act. The relationship between the characters seems to be complicated, and everyone is connected. It seems that the dog bites the dog caused by the uneven distribution of the stolen goods, but it seems that it is not so simple.
Act 3 Wednesday
In this scene, the director gives more clues about the contradictions between the characters:
1. Stephanie’s son died in an explosion in the drug factory of Ed and Chris;
1. Chris was injured in the explosion of the previous drug factory, and his head was a little dull. He was supposed to meet Andy at 10:00 p.m. in the cornfield, but Stephanie was invited to the hotel in the name of Ed;
2. Stephanie told Dawkins that he had what he wanted, so she also invited the bank president to the hotel;
3. In the dispute between Chris and Dawkins, Dawkins shot and killed Chris. The president did not get what he wanted from Stephanie, but took the bag of money back home.
Here is the film. Two of the three robbers involved in this case have died, and there is also a bank president. The biggest winner should be Ed and his wife, but why did Ed never show up?
Final curtain Tuesday
In this last scene, we can know the causes and consequences of all events:
1. The reason why the bank president agreed to act as an insider was that Ed had a video tape of him and a young boy;
2. Ed’s right forearm was given many times in the film. There was a tattoo there, but the subtitle gentleman didn’t give a translation. I don’t know what the tattoo means;
3. It is estimated that in the third act, many viewers have guessed that the real operator behind the whole event is Stephanie, perhaps she is to revenge her dead son.
If this is your answer, I can only say sorry. At the end of the film, there is also a reversal. Don’t forget that there is also the brother of the marginal character Andy – Zike.
What is the truth? I’m not going to spoil it here. I’d better leave it to readers to find it for themselves. As for the details of some directors in the film who did not give an answer at the end, welcome to leave a message for discussion. Perhaps your answer is the one closest to the truth.
