Why at the end of the movie did time (2 yrs) pass for him...but when she waited by the mailbox why didn't the time pass for her? Was that a mess up? Or I am I just not getting something?
n if u have nothing nice to say skip this question
2007-01-04 22:24:24 · 10 answers · asked by butterfly 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I really liked that film. I guess time only passed for him, because it was him that had to wait.
2007-01-04 22:48:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sandra bullock's character realised Keanu Reeves' character had died two years ago, so wrote him a letter (knowing he would get it 2 years ago) to help him avoid being killed. She was 2 years ahead, and he must have remembered she would be at the mailbox in 2 years time, and then gone there.
So it seemed as no time had passed for her, but he had to wait 2 years. I think....
2007-01-04 22:32:35 · answer #2 · answered by Elle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't think of it as "passing for him", but "not for her" and you will be able to understand it easier. Here's how I see it.
Both of them lived during the same time period, as they had previously met each other at the party. He later died, and her life went on. In the real world this is what happens, right?
Okay, because of some ability to time travel and change the past, she was able to stop him from dying. This means he lived during the same time as she did, and in essence, he didn't have to "catch up", he just needed to know where she was. That's why she sent him the letter, making sure it would arrive before he was supposed to die, thus they were able to meet again at the mailbox.
Does that help?
2007-01-05 01:06:12 · answer #3 · answered by crash 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well in the easiest of terms, This is a movie and ANYTHING can happen in the movies. NO, I am not trying to be mean. But this is the same thing like as in superman. NO ONE can withstand the bullets he eats or the explosions he walk through. BUT again this is the movies.
2007-01-04 23:04:23 · answer #4 · answered by GRUMPY 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You forget that she was two years in the future so he was that had to wait, time didn't pass for her.
2007-01-04 22:30:48 · answer #5 · answered by phoenixdarkness 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
think of it like this....present day is the day of sandra bullock...she's exchanging letters with someone who is two years behind present day....now since he is two years behind her he is still alive...present day though he isn't alive....thus why they are able to converse this way....now she warns him...and think of it as he escapes death and then his life is kind of fast forwaded to present day...and then knowing where she would be is how he gets to her....obviously this could never happen in real life because it's using some sort of time reversal here but that's basically the jist of it.
hopefully that helps!! :D
2007-01-05 04:39:55 · answer #6 · answered by Elise 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea it wasn't done good but if you want to see a better movie with the same twist watch "an affair to remember" with cary grant. and deborah kerr
2007-01-05 03:45:21 · answer #7 · answered by july8_02 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I noticed that. On the whole I thought it was a pretty rubbish film full of inconsistencies. Like - how come she didn't remember him if he supposedly 'died in her arms' at the beginning?
2007-01-04 22:27:55 · answer #8 · answered by Misha-non-penguin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So you could see what she was waiting for, i.e. what she was to hear.
It could have been much better.
2007-01-04 22:27:47 · answer #9 · answered by PvteFrazer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cause its a movie
2007-01-04 22:36:16 · answer #10 · answered by littlebabe382003 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋