Please help me understand !?!?! (All Spoilers)
-
molly-121 — 20 years ago(August 19, 2005 06:57 PM)
Benji, it appears that you think of yourself as a quite a horror film buff, but if you think this movie is a masterpiece, you're an idiot.
Tobe Hooper had one great film.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was great, but it is not a horror masterpiece either.
You can't count Poltergeist, because he just took over the job for Spielberg.
Look in the trivia section for the film.
Tobe Hooper is a camerman, plain and simple.
This film is a prime example of his bad storytelling skills.
You attempt to give explainations for tracy's perfectly logical questioning of a stupid story, but the answers make no sense.
It's like somebody asking "why did that guy go down there?" and answering "because he had to."
Your problem is that you buy everything in the story. It's a stupid film with no explainations to back up any of the actions.
I mean come on.
<
What the hell does that even mean?
<So what "effect" did this rocker have exactly? Disturbingly enough, I actually watched the deleted scenes from this film, and clearly the chair serves no other purpose but to provide relaxation time for the tired mutant killer.
In my opinion, the only reason they included this shot, was to establish that the setting was Los Angeles.
Tracy, I am with you completely on this one. This film, while semi-entertaining (coming from a horror fan), was filled with so many plot holes that I often found myself wondering how in the hell any screenwriter could leave them unanswered. -
benji7-1 — 20 years ago(September 05, 2005 11:01 AM)
Sorry but calling someone an idoit because they have a different opinion to you on a film DISCUSSION board is retarded.
Anyway I dont think of myself in that way, she asked frankly stupid questions, especially since theyre about a slasher film not a psychological thriller.
How anyone can say 'well why was that there?' in a film trying to make it out as a plot hole is beyond me.
You can't make a list of a few plot holes that every slasher has, and then think you'll get away with putting tons more of stupid questions trying to be made out as plot holes. Almost every film has plot holes, people cant have become so moronic that they cant use their imaginations anymore can they? -
Diamond_Dan — 20 years ago(September 17, 2005 03:04 AM)
Tobe Hooper had one great film.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was great, but it is not a horror masterpiece either.
You can't count Poltergeist, because he just took over the job for Spielberg.
Look in the trivia section for the film.
molly-121, i think there are a lot of people out there who would beg to differ with you about
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
not being a horror masterpiece. And Tobe Hooper had more than one great movie. But you can't say
Poltergeist
doesn't count since Tobe just took over for Steven Spielberg, because the fact still remains that Tobe directed it, whether he took over for Spielberg or not. Its not only because of Tobe that
Poltergeist
was great, but a big part of it is. And you are definitely forgetting about
Salem's Lot
, which was a great movie, especially for being made for tv.
Bang your head, metal health will drive you mad!
RIP Denis "Piggy" D'Amour -
namco01 — 20 years ago(September 20, 2005 01:59 PM)
by - molly-121 on Fri Aug 19 2005 18:57:56
Tobe Hooper had one great film.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was great, but it is not a horror masterpiece either.
Are you mad? Not a horror masterpiece? I think 99 out of 100 horror fans would disagree with you there.
I didn't think much of The Toolbox Murders either but to ask all those questions like tracyademoski did in the first post is just ridiculous. How do you ever understand any film tracyademoski? Do you need everything explaining to you? I'll bet you're one of those annoying people in the cinema that sits there asking "why's he doing that?", "who's he?", where's he going now?" "how did that happen?" etc etc.
Plot holes? Hardly. Just use your loaf. -
molly-121 — 20 years ago(September 23, 2005 01:50 PM)
Yes, I guess I am "really stupid". After seeing the movie, I read Tracy's post and agreed with the majority of her questions, although there were A LOT. Then Benjis "answers" to those were awful and made no sense.
by - benji7-1 (Mon Sep 5 2005 11:01:09 )
"Almost every film has plot holes, people cant have become so moronic that they cant use their imaginations anymore can they?"
Well then you could have just let them be rather than making the ridiculous answers that you did. The only moronic post was yours. Go back and read it, seriously. Then go learn your grammar!
Although I consider myself a horror movie fan, I stand by MY OPINION that TCM was not a masterpiece, although I enjoyed it. Perhaps you all can say that makes me an idiot, like jumble.
by - jumble1962 (Sat Aug 20 2005 18:47:29 )
"Molly, youre and idiotTobe Hooper have lots of great movies."
You're right Jumble. I am AND IDIOT AND TOBE HOOPER DO HAVE LOTS GOOD MOVIES!!!
It's hilarous that you're all attacking me and calling me stupid when none of you can even spell! -
icepack79 — 19 years ago(December 29, 2006 06:37 AM)
molly im with you 100% i just saw this movie last night and it was utter crap. when the highlight of an entire movie is 15 second a chase scene in a stairwell then. so sad cause i really liked tobe hooper.
but molly its pointless to try to make them understand so drop it, its just gonna get you frustrated hahaha -
veve1 — 20 years ago(October 23, 2005 11:25 AM)
I am sorry but I will have to agree with tracy, molly and the other posters who felt The Toolbox Murders had way too many plot holes to justify it as a way for the Director to get the viewing audience to use our own brains. I love to interpret movies and come up with my own conclusions as to why this or that happened, BUT, you have to have a foundation to build those assumptions off of to begin with. I think this is where some posters are getting a bit confused. Sure every movie has some plot holes, and yes, a movie is truly a horror/suspense masterpiece when we are not only able to be suprised and shocked by it's content but are allowed to have some mental input- but this movie is so shoddily put together (as far as storyline is concerned) that you can not even generate a possible reason why anything happened or what it means ultimately at it's end point.
Now I know the building had a spell on it and that there was history as far as it's occupants (those already dead and hidden in the unknown rooms), but the building and the spells and killings were not why I was left brain numbed at the end. I wanted more history as far as who "coffinbaby/killer" was and why any of the going-ons throughout the course of the movie happened. I do not need a total background check either, but a little more than "he was born of death" (although I thought it was really original using the birth why his mother lay in a coffin and having to be pulled from her womb - was anyone else interested in seeing a backflash visual of that!?) would have been helpful. A movie needs to be stimulating in this area in order for the viewing public to be able to postulate and form an opinion/reason for what is going on. I became extremely interested in the storyline when the blueprints were found and our protagonist located all of the hidden rooms. When she was investigating the building I felt like, ok, all of these deaths were leading up to something really interesting. I even got psyched when the old man started telling us the story of the killer (he was born of death). But it all went down hill for me when your killer dies uneventful by being hung outside of a window by an electrical cord, and then the movie fades out. I'm sorry but we deserved just a tiny bit more than that. Nothing added up in the end. For me these were my main questions:- Why did he need to use the needles (I am assuming it was to stop the pain)?
- This is sort of an extension of ques 1, Was he slowly deformed over time because he could not die; was he a deformed birth; did he become this way from the spells?
- I would love just a little more on the black magic/spell side. The information I got really interested me but it was just thrown in there as a way to make the movie seem more macabre. So what of the spells, was it to keep him in, to keep him alive (both perhaps?)?
The killer's character was interesting but just not developed in my opinion.
Isnt it nice that we can come & post posts that are thought provoking or otherwise senseless?
-
PurpleNiobe — 20 years ago(October 24, 2005 09:10 AM)
I watched this movie last night with my husband. I first I was quite annoyed with it. I even held on to the remote insisting I was going to end the movie because I just wasnt feeling it. Yet, I couldnt bring myself to stop watching.
Eventually, my only problem with the movie was the walls. Why couldnt anyone in there hear people screaming bloody murder as they were being tortured? The repeatedly stated throughout the film that the walls were paper thin or like cardboard. The dialogue was a bit weak in parts but tolerable. I did get sick of seeing this skinny woman running throughout the dark corridors of the building by herself when something obviously isnt right, but where would we be without stupid people in horror movies?
Other than that, the movie was fine for what it was. It gave me chills. No, I wouldnt call it a Masterpiece either, but it was fine.
Personally, I think Chas was a ghost as well. When Nell and her husband ran into him in the Hell House Chas has blurriness to him. I instantly thought, Oh, all this time Chas was some spirit trying to lead Nell in the right direction. When he stepped into the light the blurriness went away, but it was what Chas said that still made me think Chas was long gone: He knew I helped you! (or words to that effect). I highly doubt Coffin Baby, who seems to kill people as soon as he grabs them, would just bring Chas down there to wander around.
And Mollyyou can bash peoples grammar and spelling all you want. You couldve stated everything you said without the insults. Once you do that this turns from an adult conversation about a movie to a flame war. Grow up.
I roared, and I rampaged, and I got bloody satisfaction. -
wheeler6985 — 20 years ago(October 28, 2005 07:30 PM)
"But it all went down hill for me when your killer dies uneventful by being hung outside of a window by an electrical cord, and then the movie fades out. "
Did you miss the part when the police officers looked out of the window and there was no one hanging from the end of the cord?
As far as the "rocking chair" is concerned the only reason it was there was so that when Nell (on her quest to solve the mystery) looked out of the window there was something to pique her interest (as if to say "now that's odd) and give her a reason to explore that area, hence finding the "trap door". If she had looked out over the roof and did not see anything out of the ordinary she probably would have just turned around and went back downstairs.
IMO Chaz was the killer's "caretaker" someone that looked after him and probably took care of him (getting food and medical supplies). After Chaz told Nell of the "secret" the killer saw it as a betrayal and killed him too.
Chaz kept warning people that renovating the hotel was "bad" but what was he really supposed to do? Say: "hey everyone my freak relative is living in a "hidden" room and has been killing people for years so be careful NOT to disturb him."?
When Chaz told them about how the killer was "born" I really did not need to SEE that scene re-created (my imagination was gruesome enough). Although if there is going to be a sequel they might show it then.
The box of teeth that was a bit of "foreshadowing", the killer had bizarre/dead things stashed all over that hotel.
I'm thinking the killer and Chaz are either siblings or father and son. I don't necessarily think that the killer is "immortal" (although it maybe undead, but I don't think so). If the hotel was originally built in the 30's - 40's and at the time Chaz was in his 20's, he would only be in his 80's now (which he looked). Therefore if the killer was his child, it would be more than likely be several years younger. Just the fact that he was at the funeral is evidence that the killer is younger than him.
As far as the killer's appearance, I know that enbalming fluid is extremely caustic and would have done extensive damage to the unborn child. But this is a guess.
Overall it's just a good slasher flick!
I really did not have too many questions that I could not "extrapolate" answers for.
Speaking of "horror movie clichs" when Nell was standing in front of the medicine cabinet at the end, how many of you expected to see the killer's reflection in the mirror when she closed the door? When it did not happen the first time (when she almost closed it completely), I thought for sure he was going to be there after she reopened it and closed it completely but he was not (which was pleasantly surprising). Leaving the final shock (the killer coming through the window) to come out of the blue.
Was it "Citizen Kane"? No but it was not completely flawed either. -
justlikethatbird — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 09:53 PM)
Aha, I think the idea of Chas being CoffinBaby's caretaker of sorts seems to make sense. Maybe Chas was "alive" because of the same spell that was keeping CoffinBaby alive, and the reason he finally died at the end was that CoffinBaby was mad that he (Chas) exposed him (CB), so he had him die/stopped keeping him alive with that spell or whatever.. And so that's why in the deleted scene Chas was all decayed, as if he'd been dead for a long time.. I don't know..
-
Fenris Fil — 20 years ago(October 30, 2005 11:51 AM)
I think some people get too caught up in films not seeming 100% like reality and forget it's just a film and in a genre that usually requires some suspension of disbelief and has a lot of creative license. I don't think this had more plot holes then a lot of classic horrors if you were to try and do "comparison to reality" analysis. The questions have been answered, so instead I'd like to answer (in a way) the reasons for the questions
I think there are three things to keep in mind when watching any horrors (especially if your not a bit time fan of the genre): -- Not everything has to be explained. Mystery has always been a big part of horrors, after all we are supposed to fear what we don't understand. Plus puzzles are always interesting (and people love the "metaphor" discussion). Ever seen a Lynch, Cronenberg or Kubrik film?
- The way people act in Horrors isn't always like they would in reality. Sometimes it's because the plot needs advancing, sometimes because the writters/director are trying to make some kind of social commentary and sometimes because it's what is expected of the genre (whether it's a self referential moment or just giving the audience what it expects).
- Horrors sometimes focus on arty audio/visuals rather then creating a deep and clever story (or even having it make sense). There is usually an amount of balance to this but there may be some scenes that sacrifice one for the other, even in horrors with clever plots.
I think Horrors (and dark psychological thrillers, which you could probably call horrors anyway) are probably the only genre that has all of these. Although the odd director will throw them into other genres they aren't required as a whole.
-
lrotella1 — 19 years ago(October 15, 2006 08:50 AM)
Just wanted to say I had many questions after seeing this movie, but you answered most of them for me. Thanks! I thought it was a great horror film, but I was unclear on quite a few things until I read your reply.
-
nikkix3 — 19 years ago(November 06, 2006 04:41 PM)
its pretty obvious they left A LOT of things out of this movie and just did a horrible job at explaining everything. but my guess is that they actually expected this movie to do half decent so then they would have money to make the second one and in the second one they could fill in all of the plot holes.
clearly they were mistaken because this movie wasnt all that great. and i didn't even hear about it until a few days ago when i watched it. haha -
shadowgrey_fox — 20 years ago(October 27, 2005 04:50 AM)
I saw this film last night, and personally I thought it wasnt too bad (considering I bought it for 5.99, and it came without any extras.)
I would like to voice my opinions on some of the questions brought up throughout this thread.- Why didn't anyong rush to help the poor women screaming bloody murder?
Well, it was brought up near the begining of the film. Basically no one cares, plus, people dont want to rush to help, for fear that it was all a mis-understanding (the two guys reading the lines? anyone?). It was a seedy hotel/apartment building. No one cared about the couple fighting did they? - The rocking chair, what meaning does it have?
Does it honestly matter? You can't call that a plot hole, I mean come on. "What significance does that chair have being there?" is like asking "What significance does that extra have? Why is that guy walking down that street? A guy just walked behind him, why? That guy's walking a dog?!"
I hate flaming for no apparent reason, even if I dont know that person, but seriously, thats just idiotic. - Why did the killer keep using tools to kill people?
This is gonna sound like an stupid answer but, its called the ToolBox Murders, plain and simple.
Its like asking, why did leatherface use a chainsaw? Because its the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Why did the Jigsaw Killer keep leaving Jigsaw piece symbals on his victims, or somewhere near them in Saw? Its because its called 'Saw'. Everyfilm villian needs a 'thing', it just so happens that Coffin babys thing is tools. - Was chas a ghost or human?
Now, thats a tricky question, because at the start of the film he did appear to look human, but by the end, when we meet him again in the secret chamber, he does appear to look either much older, or kind of ghostly. I can only theorise on this question. I, personally, think he is human, but affected by whatever spell is on the building. He COULD be somewhat like CoffinBaby, perhaps related in someway. Every Evil needs an exact opposite counterpart, and maybe if there is a sequal we see more of Chas. Chas does seem a little to lively to be whatever age we assume he is. You would have thought that he would be at least 70 or even 80 years old, so i think he's still alive and active because of the spell on the building, just my theory.
(does that make sense?)
Anywho, those are my thoughts on some of the questions.
peace
- Why didn't anyong rush to help the poor women screaming bloody murder?
-
PurpleNiobe — 20 years ago(October 27, 2005 08:14 AM)
Does it honestly matter? You can't call that a plot hole, I mean come on. "What significance does that chair have being there?" is like asking "What significance does that extra have? Why is that guy walking down that street? A guy just walked behind him, why? That guy's walking a dog?!"
I agree. I didnt get anything from the rocking chair except thats where Coffin Baby sat to look at the view and unwind after a long day of torturing people to death. Probably the only time he gets outside of the building.
If I wanted to take it a step further, without that rocking chair there to catch her eye Nell probably never wouldve figured out how to get into Coffin Babys Townhouse of Hell.
I roared, and I rampaged, and I got bloody satisfaction.