Plot holes?

Thanks for your input. I guess the protection thing makes sense. What about the cops reviewing the cameras in the store? Are we supposed to believe there were no cameras? Like that's the first thing the cops would do. And when they did they would noticed they were one bag short until Max went in there.
Every time I watch it this always bothers me but I always thought maybe I missed something.

I'm not sure you understood the OP's question. He knows what happened in the movie. He is just questioning - reasonably - WHY those things happened.

Jackie could have taken the $500k out of her bag, and left it in her car, for Max to come pick up out in the parking lot without ever having to go inside and expose himself to being seen, etc. But here is a possible explanation for why that (or something similar) didn't happen:

Michael Keaton and Jackie discuss that there will be eyes on her at all times, EXCEPT in the dressing room. That means (likely) that there would have been eyes on her car, which would prevent her from leaving it there for Max to pick up. She could have potentially left the money somewhere in the airport terminal prior to being met by the cops/ATF (they meet her in the parking lot, remember), but perhaps she just wanted Max - someone she could trust - to have the money while she dealt with the fall out from the "failed" money exchange.

It was set in 1995, so cameras were definitely around. Perhaps they chose that location specifically because it WASN'T covered by security cameras? It would be nearly impossible to do something like that in a mall today, though, precisely because of the cameras.

As to the police/ATF being so far away - they were staged around the food court, where the drop was SUPPOSED to happen. Remember, they thought it was going to be exactly like the first time, the money being given to Sharonda in the food court. Jackie didn't tell them that she was going to be "going shopping." However, someone should have been tailing Jackie from a discreet distance, and watched as she deviated from the plan. Likewise, someone from law enforcement should have been there when she went into the dressing room, and likely would have seen Melanie going in with a bag (contrary to Jackie's story afterword).

It's not a PERFECT, airtight story, but hey...sometimes we have to let things slide a little if we want to enjoy a film.



Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

They didn't mark 500K, she lied to the police and told them she would deliver only 50K, because Ordell got cold feet.
Remember when she put a load of money at the bottom of her bag, covered it with clothes and then put 50K on top? It was for the police to mark.
That is why she could keep 500K, because that money was not marked.

Finally, some common sense. Thank you.

Also, for anyone thinking it had a 70s vibe to it, there were occasional uses of mobile phones in case you hadn't noticed.

Just because the soundtrack was retro doesn't mean the action took place in that era.

It would have been good if during the interview afterwards Michael Keaton had said "unfortunately there's no CCTV to back up your story" for exposition
Ok, even if there were no cameras, she took one heck of a chance that none of the police would follow her into the store, especially when she was in there for so long.
Maybe it was just a very sloppy operation from a young agent. And it could have gone very bad for Jackie if things had gone the other way - if Ordell had someone following Jackie round waiting for the opportune moment to kill her and take the money, there was no protection.
But she uses the slack surveilance to her advantage instead, and I like the way she turns that round on Michael Keaton when he questions her - she says something to the effect of "you didn't tell me what to do if something went wrong did you?!"