MovieChat Forums > Haute tension (2005) Discussion > Plotholes explained... I dont think so

Plotholes explained... I dont think so

posted 13 years ago by cool_saham
22 replies | jump to latest

Well, I have read a few threads on this message board and many have given their explanations but to all who have completely understood this movie I have some Questions

First off, many have suggested that severed head blowjob was her imagination, my question is how did she imagined herself sitting in a truck that she is supposed to find later

Secondly, why would someone left a cement saw, shotgun, chains laden truck in a farm and paste pictures of women on the rear mirror.

If the pictures of girls were imagined then why being so obsessively in love with Alex would she imagine about raping other women.

Man at gas station clearly knew the killer they interacted like he usually stops at his station even asks him not to tell the manager about selling booze whereas Marie would've met the man for the first time and also, why he interacted with Marie when she was only in observation mode not actually there.

Lastly, som1 said her wound was from when she hit the man with the stone. So, she inflicted the wound of stone to herself but not the severe beating from that barb wired plank.... how convenient

Cheap thrills...nothing more really

[–] DOPE-cinema 13 years ago

Most of it was part of her story, imagination, etc.

I'm Eli Goldsworthy and I approve this message.

[–] cool_saham 13 years ago

I never said it wasn't....

Man on gas station: There's a storm coming.
Sarah Connor: I know...
*beep*

[–] moosefeathers 12 years ago

Did you notice how the man had the bullets and when they were clenched in his hands, he had manicured and polished fingernails.....?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] poserpro 12 years ago

dream deprivation is horrible.

[–] sm-meehan 12 years ago

yes, that was a cool touch.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gaiderdraco 10 years ago

@sm-meehan, "** as i stated above, she was not imagining that. it was part of her fantasy;"

Umm, a tad contradictory, no?

D.

[–] sm-meehan 10 years ago

@sm-meehan, "** as i stated above, she was not imagining that. it was part of her fantasy;"

Umm, a tad contradictory, no?

What I meant was that the pictures were all part of her story to the cops, as opposed to some imagined vision she was having. Replace "fantasy" in my statement with "re-telling of the events to the police"

[–] sm-meehan 10 years ago

First off, many have suggested that severed head blowjob was her imagination, my question is how did she imagined herself sitting in a truck that she is supposed to find later

my opinion is this scene was foreshadowing to show her repressed rage for alex not returning her love, but it was in the context of her telling her story to the cops so it doesn't have to make sense

Secondly, why would someone left a cement saw, shotgun, chains laden truck in a farm and paste pictures of women on the rear mirror.

why wouldn't those items be at a remote farmhouse? the pics were not real, they were implemented in the re-telling of the story to the cops. marie wanted the fantasy of rescuing alex from a depraved sexual predator

If the pictures of girls were imagined then why being so obsessively in love with Alex would she imagine about raping other women.

as i stated above, she was not imagining that. it was part of telling her version of the events to the police; she was painting the pic of the "monster" she was supposedly rescuing alex from

Man at gas station clearly knew the killer they interacted like he usually stops at his station even asks him not to tell the manager about selling booze whereas Marie would've met the man for the first time and also, why he interacted with Marie when she was only in observation mode not actually there.

All we know is she axed him- shown on the video- we know nothing else of the interaction, only her re-telling of it to the police.

Lastly, som1 said her wound was from when she hit the man with the stone. So, she inflicted the wound of stone to herself but not the severe beating from that barb wired plank.... how convenient

she probably had an all out brawl with herself ala tyler durden in fight club

[–] barbarossa4188 12 years ago

Well, I have to agree with cool_saham.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

Despite sm-meehan's answers?

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] RustyNail72486 12 years ago

I have to agree with cool_saham as well. The fact of the matter is that these "explanations" are only theories. Theories that probably took multiple viewings to develop. Here's the problem though: Nobody who isn't deliriously bored would care to watch this poorly made movie more than once. So for you to say "You just weren't paying attention" or "Well, if you REALLY think about it" is incredibly naive. Most people would watch a movie like this, which is in bad taste even for a slasher film, and decide they didn't care to subject themselves to it again. The filmmakers clearly seemed more concerned with grossing people out than telling a coherent story. This is a slasher film. Not Citizen Kane. I mean, c'mon, I could say about Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom: "His heart wasn't ACTUALLY ripped out, it was a visual metaphor for the cult's loss of emotion and human compassion. That's why the guy's chest seals back up". But you know what? IT AIN'T SO! His *beep* heart got ripped out. Why anyone bothers to try to defend this film is completely beyond my understanding.

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-Dr. Peter Venkman

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

It's funny, because the heart scene in ToD is a very clear and deliberate example of ambiguity, yet you cite it as something definitive. I'd say it's naive to think that stories have to, or are even intended to, be read as clear cut. Some of the most acclaimed films are rife with ambiguities and 'plot holes'.

The explanations offered (and duly ignored) don't take hours of painstaking mental gymnastics, they just require you to pay attention to the film. Although I do believe it would reward multiple viewings, simply for its level of technical proficiency, it's a good deal closer to Citizen Kane than something like Saw 6. Psycho is also a slasher film, but I doubt you'd be so quick to brush it off as such because it's an established classic.

Whether you like the film is your business, but to say categorically that it's worthless because it didn't chime with you, it was from the wrong genre and you can't be bothered to give it any further thought, means that a heap of films are going to lie beyond your appreciation.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] RustyNail72486 12 years ago

The film isn't worthless because of the ending. It's poorly told because of the ending. Even if the ending of the film did not include the twist, I see it as a bad movie. I don't think the acting is that great (the lousy dubbing doesn't help either) and the script, as I said before, seems more interested in wallowing in gore and sadism than anything else. It was a bad movie long before the ending was revealed. I know that not everybody agrees with me on that and that is fine. But don't try to make sense out of it because that is an arguement nobody will ever win. Everybody will see the film and the ending differently.

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-Dr. Peter Venkman

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

I saw the French version, but by all accounts the English dub was atrocious. For me, it's more a camp genre homage than a serious frightfest, so I guess we're coming at it from different angles.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] RustyNail72486 12 years ago

I agree. I have not seen the french version. Maybe my views might change there, but I don't really know if it would make too big a difference to me.

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-Dr. Peter Venkman

[–] timgc 10 years ago

I don't understand how, knowing that the entire film up until the gas station surveillance footage is Marie's fantastical version of events, that one could still think there are plot holes. There are many parts of the story for which we only have Marie's version to go by, and will never know what actually occurred in reality. But I think that's part of the fun of this film is to imagine what the reality of each scene would've been versus Marie's version. It makes you think and fill in the gaps with your own imagination. I can understand how the "it was all a fantasy" explanation feels like a cop out to some, but I enjoy it for the aforementioned reasons.

[–] sm-meehan 10 years ago

I don't understand how, knowing that the entire film up until the gas station surveillance footage is Marie's fantastical version of events, that one could still think there are plot holes. There are many parts of the story for which we only have Marie's version to go by, and will never know what actually occurred in reality. But I think that's part of the fun of this film is to imagine what the reality of each scene would've been versus Marie's version. It makes you think and fill in the gaps with your own imagination. I can understand how the "it was all a fantasy" explanation feels like a cop out to some, but I enjoy it for the aforementioned reasons.

It surprises me that many people don't seem to grasp this. They could have shown the car flying through the air and it would not be a plot hole because it was in the context of her story to the police.

Now, the severed head/ oral sex scene is a a little strange because it does seem weird that she would include this in her story. Also, when she is transferring back and forth between Marie and killer during the final chase scene is illogical, because it's real-time and not part of her story to the police. However, all the incongruities up until the gas station surveillance camera video are explainable as being within the context of an insane person's story.

[–] mikelepost 9 years ago

My problem with the movie isn't necessarily the plot holes. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and go along with implausibilities. My problem was that the storytelling was a cheat.

The movie could not possibly be Marie's version of events because it includes quite a few scenes where she's not even on screen. So the film is partly Marie's version of events, partly her imagination of what might have happened when she wasn't in the room, and partly "reality" e.g. when the police watch the footage of Marie murdering the gas station attendant.

In short the movie keeps switching its point of view (POV) without any consistency only to trick the audience. And the worst part is, it was a pretty decent stylish slasher right up until the twist undid everything I liked about the movie in the first place.

It just flat out doesn't work at all.

[–] Noone222 9 years ago

Without the twist your favorite movie is a book(and a movie) by Dean Koontz. You might want to read the book, if you liked the movie up till the twist. The funny thing is the twist was designed so he couldn't get sued. Now Koontz should have sued him but because the movie was so sick he didn't.

http://www.beyondblackwhite.com/-My community

[–] sm-meehan 10 years ago

I have to agree with cool_saham as well. The fact of the matter is that these "explanations" are only theories. Theories that probably took multiple viewings to develop.

What a concept; a horror film requiring multiple viewings or further reflection.

Here's the problem though: Nobody who isn't deliriously bored would care to watch this poorly made movie more than once. Most people would watch a movie like this, which is in bad taste even for a slasher film, and decide they didn't care to subject themselves to it again. The filmmakers clearly seemed more concerned with grossing people out than telling a coherent story. This is a slasher film.

Ok, so in this one statement; you spoke on behalf of everyone who watched this film and also got inside the filmmakers head about why he really made the film.

You didn't like it, that's cool. But what's with the condescending, know-it-all statements about those who do?

[–] halbian 9 years ago

"Cheap thrills...nothing more really"

How about you make a movie with expensive thrills yourself?