MovieChat Forums > Ransom (1996) Discussion > Fatal Plot Hole

Fatal Plot Hole

posted 9 years ago by SnoozeAlarm
9 replies | jump to latest

Once the first half of the movie, in which the story is set up, is over, the whole plot of the second half hinges on the battle of wills between the father, Tom Mullen (Gibson) and the head kidnapper, Jimmy Shaker (Sinise).

And this battle of wills in turn hinges on the plot twist, when Mullen offers a bounty for Shaker.

The whole drama centers around this point:

- The FBI Agent, Lonnie Hawkins (Delroy Lindo), calls this sabotage
- His wife goes back and forth in her support of Mullen
- People all over are debating the point
- Mullen and Shaker argue over the point
- Mullen arranges this dramatic confrontational scene with Mullen's wife, to get her to convince Mullen to change his mind

Now Mullen offering the bounty is based on his firm belief that if he pays the ransom, the kidnappers will not return the boy but rather will kill him. And all the people doubting Mullen dispute this.

And here is where the fatal plot hole comes into play:

The kidnappers have already proven without any doubt that Mullen is 100% correct!

The kidnappers gave Mullen instructions as to how to get the boy back: go through this elaborate maze, get to the kidnapper waiting, give him the money, and get the address.

And when Mullen gets there, the kidnapper Cubby Barnes (Donnie Wahlberg) genuinely has no clue about the address! This means that Shaker had not even told his fellow kidnapper what to do when Mullen gets there with the money. Which is insane! Here we have this kidnapper team with all of this detailed preparation, and they didn't even discuss what exactly to do when the drop-off occurs?!

This is another fatal plot hole. The whole scuffle between Mullen and Barnes, leading to the FBI intervention and the death of Barnes, and the whole thing going awry rests on an impossibility: the failure of the kidnappers to realize that they should plan what will happen in one of the most crucial moments of the whole scheme, the drop-off!

At any rate, the kidnappers have now proven that they have no intention of returning the boy when they get the money!

When Mullen gets back home, he raises this point, but then it gets conveniently lost, since it is a fatal plot hole.

After Mullen tells Hawkins what went down, Hawkins says: "Tom, you've got to play the odds, man. I've been doing this for eighteen years, and if I were a betting man, I would bet on the people who pay every time, out of the gate."

And Mullen gives this cryptic answer: "Did you bet on the ones where you got back a corpse?"

Major plot hole! Don't give the agent some mumbo-jumbo answer! Tell the agent: "Fine! I believe you that in most cases, paying is the way to go. Because in most cases, the kidnappers just want the money, and once they get the money, they give back the kid! But I just went the paying route! I did everything they told me to do, and I brought them the money, and they didn't tell me the address like they said they would! They out-and-out lied to me! They have proven that they have no intention of returning my son!"

That is what the character would have said in reality! Nobody is going to tell Mullen: "Yeah, you're right! You paid, and they totally lied to you, but you should pay again." But since it ruins the whole set-up for the plot twist, this crucial point is left hanging.

And when Mullen next speaks to Shaker, and Shaker starts yelling at Mullen, Mullen doesn't bring up the point at all! Major plot hole!

Obviously, Mullen in reality would have said to Shaker: "Look! What are you yelling at me for?! You told me to bring the money, and you'd give me the address! I did absolutely everything you said! I brought all the money! And I was about to hand it over to your guy! And your guy had no idea about the address! He didn't even know anything about an address!

"If your guy had just given me the address, like you said he would, then all of this would have been over! You'd have the money, I'd have my son, and your partner would still be alive! Why didn't your partner give me the address? Why didn't your partner have any clue what I even meant by the address? Why did you lie to me about the address in the first place, if you really wanted to give me back my son? Obviously you guys never planned to give me back my son! So how on earth do you expect me to pay you, when you've already proven that when I do pay you, you have no intention to return my son?!

"So I'm not going to get fooled by you again! I've already proven that I'm sincere and serious about paying the money, but you have proven that you are not sincere about giving my son back. So if you want the money and you're sincere about returning my son, then we have to do it differently this time. We have to arrange a way of doing the exchange that I will have a guarantee that I get my son back when you get the money."

This screams out to be said, and Mullen doesn't even raise the point.

The whole plot of the second half of the film rests on the tension: is Mullen's hunch right and he should not play their game, or is his hunch wrong, and he should play their game?

But there is no tension! There is no doubt! The kidnappers have completely tipped their hand that they won't return the boy! So the whole basis of the second half of the film is completely absent.

And everything I've written until now rests on another point which may also be regarded as a major plot hole:

Really, why did these kidnappers not simply return the boy? They concocted a good plan that would get them 2 million dollars. Why not leave it at that? Why not play it the way kidnappers generally do it (according to Hawkins): kidnap the boy, get the money, return the boy. They didn't know Mullen personally. They had nothing against the boy. It just doesn't make any sense for a team to form this whole plan for money, and then, for no good reason, to turn it into a murder. There's absolutely no motive. It needlessly complicates things and endangers the whole plan. Of course, there would be no plot so that's the real motive, but from a realistic point of view, it makes no sense whatsoever.

It should be against the law to use 'LOL'; unless you really did LOL!

[–] gpapa1998-24-961204 9 years ago

You know what? I agree on every word you said. And I'm tired of other people accusing Mullen of jeopardizing Sean's life. I totally agree with you my friend. I feel the exact same way. If Tom had told that to the agent and to Kate (his wife) they would understand and they wouldn't dare tell him again to pay the ransom. And if he said all that to Shaker, he would put him in a corner and therefore Shaker wouldn't be able to lie to Tom anymore. I totally agree on everything you said my friend.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 8 years ago

>>> You know what? I agree on every word you said.

Thank you my friend. It's sadly rare on this website to make a simple straightforward point and get some agreement! So much appreciated. ;)

Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan

[–] soulsk8ter225 9 years ago

I think most people agree on what you said. These may be character flaws, but I don't see how they are plot holes.

A plot hole would be something like Mullens paying them millions but he is a homeless person.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] gpapa1998-24-961204 9 years ago

Yes you are right on that. It's more like character flaws.

[–] McQueen1980 9 years ago

my viewpoint is why was that scene with barnes in the movie as it makes no sense whatsoever
why does shaker bring mullen on a long(albeit entertaining) drive where he jumps in a swimming pool, changes his clothes and a bit of chat why does shaker not tell barnes about the address and give it to mullen?? why does shaker just sit in his car and just stare at proceedings jeopardising his big payout?? it is possible he wanted barnes killed as i think they had a huge row beforehand i think
also didnt barnes know the address, wasnt he there with the kid??
also mullen shouts out during the barnes shootout or maybe after it I DID NOT AUTHORISE THIS!....THIS IMPLIED HE WANTED A CLEAn exchange between the cash and the kid and WAS willing to pay originally
also if in the swimming pool dumping his tracers how did the fbi track him down??

[–] joe-420-748098 8 years ago

hi there. I'll be happy to answer. I have surely seen this movie more times than anyone else alive (its been my daily workout routine movie for many years). (several dvd's have worn out playing it)

why does shaker bring mullen on a long(albeit entertaining) drive where he jumps in a swimming pool, changes his clothes and a bit of chat why does shaker not tell barnes about the address and give it to mullen??

To answer all your questions, I think we need to assume a few things

1) Shaker actually hates Mullen. As a cop in NYC he is tired of rich people being "pretty damn good liars". Shaker hates Mullen so much he even explains the Moorlocks and the Eloi's in the movie Time Machine. Shaker sees NYC as a Rich Eloi world and Moorlock underworld. The kidnapping is how Shaker has chosen to "effect" an Eloi this is evident when he hangs on the phrase "Drags em down there"

2) Shaker doesnt really want the $2m - so much as he WANTS TO BE TOM MULLEN. He's followed Tom to the Four Season's Restaurant, to the Met Opera. These are not places a young Sean Mullen would be brought - and you have to know this to understand the IMPORTANCE of those lines. Shaker was not learning the Mullen "Family" routines - so much as he was watching in the shadows, envious of Tom Mullen's life on the town. This single part of the movie is absolutely interesting - especially if you know what its like to be a "little person" in a world of rich people.

3) the Movie is not so much about a "kidnapping" for the RANSOM "itself" as the Kidnapping being the only way Shaker feels he can become an Eloi.

4) the Film ends on upper Madison Avenue - the GDP of that neighborhood is about equal to the Country of France. probably 50 to 75 Billionaires and 10's of thousands of multi-millionaires. Why end the movie there at a lamp store? this is a very deep movie and needs to be studied. Shaker when he goes for the ankle piece to Kill Tom is not simply taking out revenge for Tom messing up his $2M payoff (now $4M) - its his one last chance to destroy what he will NEVER BE - a successful, rich, famous ELOI. Again SHAKER's HATRED not "GREED" is the piece of character motivation you need to understand.

why does shaker just sit in his car and just stare at proceedings jeopardising his big payout??

I think he doesnt know what to do. he doesnt want the money? he wants "Hurt" Mullen out of envy. this is about TOM Mullen - and taking something from him. Sitting there, he's actually cherishing having control of Tom. What kidnapper PERSONALLY shows up at a Drop? why not use a Dead Drop?

also didnt barnes know the address, wasnt he there with the kid??

If Shaker told the Barnes's brothers what to do, they could decide to give the kid back on their own. keeping them dumb give Shaker control. watch the scene when They dont even know who should take the gun and go down into the Quarry. nothing is planned or at least TOLD firmly by Shaker.

HE WANTED A CLEAn exchange between the cash and the kid and WAS willing to pay originally also if in the swimming pool dumping his tracers how did the fbi track him down??

The head agent in the office communicates with the agents at the rec center

Located the packages. They're empty.
Sir, we've got four vehicles ID'd in the
perimeter, one with a broken taillight.
Put out a description
of those vehicles.
Have all units grid out
and locate them.

To enjoy this movie watch it a few times - its really good. what keeps it interesting for me is the character motivation.

[–] KingBrian1 8 years ago

The FBI spooked the kidnappers causing the situation to spiral out of control. Shaker felt he had eliminated them when he had Tom jump into pool but the FBI are resourceful able to track down the car to the payoff point. Had the payoff gone without a hitch Shaker would have called Tom and said something cryptic. With the bag man running off with the cash Tom realized he was been played with and pursued him. He did not wait by the car hoping to receive a message from Shaker to deliver the boy. Instead the bagman would have headed into the getaway car and that would be the end of the kidnappers. Tom sitting in the car waiting for a phone call to say here is the location of the kid.

[–] gpapa1998-24-961204 8 years ago

Well me personally if I were Tom I wouldn't believe Shaker on anything after Barnes refused to provide the address. If someones lies to me once I don't believe him even when he tells the truth.

[–] thetaylors604 8 years ago

Barnes was obviously trying to say something just before he died, and what do you want to bet that it was Jimmy Shaker's name. He was probably too confused to get the address out and just Jimmy's name would be enough.