MovieChat Forums > Cold in July (2014) Discussion > Well acted, tense, gritty, but the story...

Well acted, tense, gritty, but the story had some holes...

posted 10 years ago by epatten67
46 replies | jump to latest

As a whole picture I thought that this was okay. However, there are some things that didn't quite make sense to me. First, Sam Shepards character. He is told that his son was killed while burglarizing a family's home. This is Texas first of all. Breaking into someones home... there is a strong possibility that the owner is going to own a gun. Now, his "son" gets killed commiting a crime and instead of accepting this "Russel" decides to start terrorizing this family. Threatening the father who is responsible for his son's death. Breaking into their home, threatening the safety of the child. Kinda sounds like Cape Fear. The whole angry stalker kind of thing. You gotta be some kind of sicko to do that , right? But later on in the story he becomes this moral figure that seeks justice. That doesn't add up.
The whole plot line with the sheriff is kinda shaky too. This random person breaks into a home and is shot dead. The cops decide to make this perp out to be this Dixie Mafia guy named Freddy( who really is Russel's son) who happens to be in the Witness Protection Program. They (the cops) want it appear that Freddy's Dead. What for? So that the Dixie Mob will stop looking for him? What do the cops care? He is now a Federal responsibilty.
Now, the cops get Russel when he tries to go to Mexico. They arrest him and bring him in for his crimes against Richard Dane and his family, right? Richard is signing the paperwork at the Station when he sees the wanted poster for Freddy but it isn't the guy he shot. He starts asking about it and goes back to the station to talk to the Lieutenant and he sees Ray(the sherriff) hauling Russel out the back and into an unmarked car. Richard follows them to the train tracks where Ray tries to make it look like Russel got drunk and run over by a train. Why? Why would they kill Russel? Russel is an ex con with a son whom he barely knows who is a federal witness. What are they trying to hide by doing this?
And then, Freddy turns out to be a psychotic whore slasher/basher, snuff film director... Who is in the Witness Protection Program... Whaaat? So now, learning the truth about Freddy, the three on them decide to kill everyone involved in the Snuff biz. Really?

[–] zanity 10 years ago

The plot is one GIANT hole- on purpose. The film is a COMEDY, like the Naked Gun movies. The difference is that this film is DEADPAN- in other words it relies on the intellect of the viewer to realise it is a sarcastic, ironic, satirical ripping of the films of the period.

Did you notice notice our 'hero' has zero motivation to join with the 'toughs'. The joke here is that the period movies always gave the 'innocent hero' some 'believable' reason to become a violent 'action man', so here the film determines that any possible justification is missing entirely.

The 'commando' baddie who defies the police, and sneaks his way into any guarded house. The cowboy detective. The FBI protected stoolie. The 'snuff' movie ring. Please god tell me you didn't take these 'classic' elements seriously? They're all taken from DIFFERENT famous genre films for heaven's sake. It is meant to be a moronic mix of different clashing concepts.

Sorry people, the writer and director of this film are laughing at you for taking the film seriously and not getting that it was a mickey-take.

[–] ptoche 10 years ago

Spot on zanity. To be fair, it is one of the most subtle takes of the comedy genre out there.

[–] Partnerfrankreich 9 years ago

You must be right -- it is the only explanation that makes sense! And it fits well in with the only point of genuine humor in the film, which was totally out of place when it occurred (the Pinto reverses out into the detective's car, the detective begins yelling at the Pinto driver, threatening to sue his ass from here to eternity, etc...until the driver gets out and proves to be "Big Mex", at which point the detective suddenly changes his tune and says "What do you say we go 50/50?" That totally out-of-place punch line joke, just at the point when Ben is about to discover the horrible truth about his son, would only work if there was a wish to "wink" at the audience and say "Look, we are playing this for LAUGHS, you idiots!", particularly as it is immediately followed by a swerve back to seriousness, as Ben takes a tire iron and says to "Big Mex", "You want some of this?",distracting him just long enough to enable the detective to get back up and knock the crap out of "Big Mex".

Indeed, one of the other plot holes, which I believe is not discussed above, is so enormous -- and the director (or scriptwriter) takes such pains to point it out to us, that it just MUST be a "leg pull". The "hero" asks Ben, "when did you last see your son"? and Ben replies "he was about the same age as your son is now", i.e., maybe six or seven years old. Yet when they exhume the body of the burglar, Ben immediately says "Nope, that's not my son" -- when he obviously hasn't seen his son for maybe 20 years. Indeed, if my memory does not fail me, when the hero shoots the burglar in the first place, the burglar is masked or hooded (anyway, his face is pretty much hidden) and once he HAS shot him, well, I suspect there wasn't much left of his face (even though somehow in the coffin he seems almost untouched by what the film has shown us is a really bloody head wound).

You have got to be right -- the director must have decided to make this a total piss-take and we have all fallen for it!

[–] bigdaddyboxmeal 9 years ago

'The plot is one giant hole on purpose' is probably one of the worst defences for a film that has plot holes that I've ever read.

That said, I certainly did notice the black comedy throughout so I think you're right on that point.

Despite the clear plot holes re: justification to go on the raid from Hall's character being a bit of a drawback (and your explanation of that being that it was a joke is nonsense) I did really enjoy this film.

The plot-holes are there to be seen but they never detracted from the overall entertainment in my opinion.

[–] flashorton 9 years ago

Do you have any evidence this was the writer and director's intention? If not, then maybe get off that internet high horse you're strutting around on. Yes, this movie is full of plot holes and genre mashups and you might even be right that it's a subtle pastiche, but I read it as a tight, noir thriller. Maybe that was because the acting was so good.

[–] kameeleoned_out (59) 2 years ago

Yeah I don’t know what that guy is on about. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. He likes the movie but the movie isn’t respectable (by his standards) so therefore that must be intentional, and what’s more, it must be a comedy, in order to make it even more of a subversive genius work of art.

The movie is really good regardless of any inconsistencies. Things don’t have to be perfect to be perfect. Guy should really take responsibility for his own tastes in movies, instead of bending reality to make himself feel sophisticated.

[–] OmStarsong 8 years ago

By killing off Sam/father the cops would prevent a trial, where an already suspicious Dexter would likely have brought up the fact that it wasn't the snuff guy son he killed, which would clearly put the Dixie Mafia back on the trail and probably mess up all the corrupt cops, baddies lucrative snuff films project.. Chuck Yeager had to go..! Haha

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

I'm not sure why these are difficult things for people to get. It's odd because most of the explanations are fairly obvious throughout the film.

He becomes a moral figure because he is helped and his life is saved as well. He also wants to find his son as well. The same son that is the only bit of him left in the world so that is why considering he was ready to kill someone as a result of that as well - it shows his son means a lot to him.

Cops and the FBI do work together a lot especially when things occur under their jurisdiction.

They were trying to get rid of his Father because they will say he tried to escape and got killed while escaping from the police. So the Feds and the police have a way of getting the public off their trail.

The whole point of the film is to wrong rights and to keep the children you have, the people in your life on the right side. Look at what Jim Bob says - he said, you're married, it's bad, you've got kids, it's bad, if you are living with your parents - it's bad. It's all based on responsibilities that you have to carry. The responsibility of Richard from his Father to his son and then Father to son from Russel to Freddy. That is the premise of the film on how we protect our own and try to have justice in our lives.

I think the film is lost on younger people because these ideas are lost but ultimately everything is explained very well throughout the film.

[–] tinoynk 10 years ago

Nothing here is lost on any younger people. If a movie makes sense, it makes sense. It doesn't matter whether it's from 2014 or 1914. Maybe in the book the way the plot progresses makes sense, but in the movie the plot is just handled terrible.

At first it looks like it's just going to be a run of the mill Cape Fear ripoff, then it gets interesting with a little intrigue, and then it just shoots itself in the foot putting a seemingly random plot about snuff porn in and basically forgetting everything else that happened in the preceding 75 minutes.

_____________________________________________________________

Live and learn. At least we lived.

[–] dalldorfw 8 years ago

"Maybe in the book the way the plot progresses makes sense, but in the movie the plot is just handled terrible."

The book does handle the plot a lot better. The movie leaves out details and even changes several plot points from the book to have them make less sense.

Spoilers!

Like in the book, when Jim Bob discovers the tapes in the "Big Mex's" trunk, he steals one labeled 'Star Wars' for payment on The Red Bitch; it's also explained that he missed SW when it came out and wanted to see it then, of course, it turns out to be the snuff-tape. In the movie he steals a tape marked 'Bating Practice' because...potatoes. That's just one of the milder examples of how this movie mishandles the story.

Read the book. You might like it more.

[–] deRider84 10 years ago

The story is just one gigantic hole. It's the most poorly plotted film I've seen in ages, and no amount of fancy lighting can make up for that. I mean really, what is this nonsense? A loving family man, whose family is being terrorized by a dangerous psychopath, inexplicably decides to team up with said psychopath, and becomes an action vigilante who helps take down a snuff porn ring. Don Johnson provides the wise cracks. It's beyond absurd. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems.

[–] yan-trussart 8 years ago

Same here : this is probably the most badly written film i've seen since, I don't know, "Three Days to Kill"?

[–] Nostromo71 10 years ago

What I didn't buy, was that, Rich, would willingly go along on a killing spree that had nothing to do with him. There was now no danger to himself or his family, so why would he get involved in murder? He could have just walked away, and there would have been nothing to tie him to it. This was a guy who nearly soiled himself when confronting an intruder in his own home, and now we're supposed to believe he suddenly has the balls to commit murder? I just don't find that believable.

The first half of the movie was great. The 'stalker/revenge' story was fine, but then it just went off on a tangent, that as you say, just didn't add up. The acting and photography are excellent, but the second half of the movie just didn't make a lot sense. Another thing I found strange was the soundtrack. The songs/music used, were great, but the mix of 80's hard rock with modern 'Drive' style electronic music just sounded weird.

[–] rc-108 9 years ago

there were some holes..
but staying with the movie...it was pretty good.
Shepherd.. and Johnson were great.

[–] Livers0 9 years ago

Well, I just watched this today and had to check these message boards to see if others felt the same. While the film was well acted and shot, it is pretty dumb in places. The main character goes from being super depressed due to shooting someone breaking into his house, to then go on a killing spree with no real motive. Additionally, following all the killings, are we to expect him to walk away without consequence from the police or his home life? If the film was any longer, the next scene would be the police knocking on his door and him going straight to jail. I know it's just a film but it needs to make some sense.

[–] ilykyu 9 years ago

And what would there be tying him to the scene? It's likely that the cabin would never even be found, much less tied to anyone

"what is your major malfunction numbnuts?!!"

[–] pmc31-1 9 years ago

First, Sam Shepards character. He is told that his son was killed while burglarizing a family's home. This is Texas first of all. Breaking into someones home... there is a strong possibility that the owner is going to own a gun. Now, his "son" gets killed commiting a crime and instead of accepting this "Russel" decides to start terrorizing this family. Threatening the father who is responsible for his son's death. Breaking into their home, threatening the safety of the child.

This part makes sense, remember he is a criminal in and out of prison, of course he is not going to accept the fact that his sons death was a lawful killing.

However, this does lead to a couple of massive plot holes, that combine to become the size of the whole of Dixie, why would you suddenly start trusting and than working with a man who has just threatened your family? And why in the first place would you assume potential foul play when you say said pyscho was being put handcuffed into the back of the detectives car? Unless you were an expert on police procedure, you would not really know if this was 100% out of the ordinary, you may suspect, but you wouldn't really know.

And I agree about the potential killing of Russell, they had enough with the attack on th worlds worst special forces soldier turned policeman, and the home invasion to put an know criminal away for a long time, and I may just be taken in by stereotyping here, but no part of Texas is known for its liberal treatment of offenders, especially those that attack the police.

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

Yep this is a pretty dumb movie...If you can think this is any good or even decent then I really cant believe that your mental capability is existent...

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

[–] wandakv 9 years ago

I think they tried to get rid of Sam's character because he posed a threat, real or imagined. I think Richard just caught up in it because he wanted to know who he really shot. I think that put him in shock, because he had never actually done something like that before. I think he helped Russel because he was a good guy and didn't want another man to die because of him. I think he was upset that they framed the guy he shot, and tried to kill another. I don't think he realized the reality of the situation. It wasn't until they watched that movie and found out that it was Russel's son that the idea of killing came into play. As far as the shoot out, he didn't actually shoot anyone. Until he was in the building and getting shot at, I don't think he really understood what was going on. As the intensity of the action grew with each scene, you could see his resolve and courage build over the course of the movie. I think he got more pissed as the story started to unwind.

I really liked the movie,