I see the possiblities of this movie, but I feel like they cut out half of the story. Who was the killer? Who was Lusm
-
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. -
bdollarb — 19 years ago(July 22, 2006 06:47 AM)
Horror films usually concentrate on thrills rather than plot. The script is often there to merely carry the viewer from one sequence to another, and to set the tone. Bar the occasional exceptions such as The Omen or The Exorcist. It seems asinine to worry about possible plotholes in a non-huge budget film actually called THE TOOLBOX MURDERS. What do you expect, from a film with that title? Usually, no genre fan ever buys or rents a film called The Toolbox Murders for a masterpiece of script writing. Why are you all so concerned about it? It'd be like watching Liz Taylor's Cleopatra merely to take a look at the snake. If I want everything explaining, I watch Hitchcock films, not slasher movies. Hope you all took time to notice the on-purpose camera wobble moments in this film anyway. This was a great homage to the fairly cheapish 70's horror films imo.
-
bdollarb — 19 years ago(July 26, 2006 10:11 AM)
Probably for the same reasons that many other films in the horror genre, do exactly the same. Leaving things unexplained kinda adds to the mysterious allure of these films. The classic example certainly being Dario Argento's dream-like Inferno, sequel to the wonderful Suspiria. I think writers often prefer not to explain horror films too much, it's not an act of laziness, it's an act of choice. I like the way that these types films cause the viewer to think and decide for themselves. This isn't a negative aspect of these films, more a positive one. Coincidentally since I previously mentioned Suspiria & Inferno, The Toolbox Murders writers have co-written Dario Argento's sequel to both those films. I am very keen to see the results. btw this film did actually explain who the killer was.
-
alejotsv — 19 years ago(October 04, 2006 12:55 PM)
I was reading this for 'round half an hour n I think those of you who r trying to answer some of the questions r doing so in defense of horror movies in general This movie IS full of plot holes, and it doesn't matter if horror movies are supposed to, but if you try to explain things like the symbols simply by saying "it's part of some vudu", man, you ran out of imagination. I've critisized this film a lot, but in this thread I found something I'd forgot the explanation on the killer's origin is really great, but, as someone said, not well developed
The thing is that if you think that a horror movie uses the plot just to take the audience from scene to scene, maybe we shouldn't call it a movie but a Blood Feria, and that way no one would expect it to be an actual movie, i.e. A FEATURE FILM THAT INCLUDES A PLOT, CHARACTERS AND A SEQUENCE.
Now about Chass, I really thought he was human, and a friend of the killer, it is not a crazy idea the thing is that it is apparently explained in the deleted scenes WHAT THE F how can you leave out one of the few explanation that you actually bothered to create.
The rocker I imagine that you realized I didn't like this movie a bit, but it's not fair to take it on the poor rocker, it's a piece of the murderer's life, like the one i'm sitting on right now, it's there for me to sit on
Is it too hard to understand that if we pay to watch a movie we expect it to make a little sense and to be kinda good??? you know, it's like paying for a service imagine that you go to Mc Fonalds and you end up eating a rat burger instead of an average burger (nothing extraordinary), would you accept the manager's explanation: 'well, this is Mc Fonalds, if you want a good burger go to Mc Donalds'? WOULD YOU? It's no excuse and I think, like many, many of you didn't know where to discharge all the crap you think about this movie and you ran into this thread
I'm open to a discussion if you think you can defend this movie try to
-
evilshmee — 18 years ago(November 06, 2007 04:58 AM)
"Films can, and do, explain things to the intelligent audience."
You're right that they can and do, as you say, but I'm of the opinion that an intelligent audience doesn't always need everything handed to them on a plate. In fact I personally prefer a lot of them not to, in particular horror films, as I like working things out for myself and discussing other people's opinions on what actually happened or what things could mean. (Nicolas Roeg is great for this!) I have to admit though, I think I've only ever seen the second half of this film and I wasn't asking half of the questions that others seem to be on here, in particular the rocking chair and Nell knocking on the symbols to check if they were hollow. (I thought that was pretty self-explanatory.)
Whether people understood everything or not, I understand that people may not get things and would want to discuss them (that is what a discusson board is for after all) but of course there's no need to be rude to anyone.
Come. It is time to keep your appointment with the Wicker Man
L8R