Please help me understand !?!?! (All Spoilers)
-
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. -
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.