MovieChat Forums > The Contract (2007) Discussion > Freeman was good, what was everyones fav...

Freeman was good, what was everyones favorite plot hole?


I thought Morgan Freeman did a good job with what he was given. That's the best compliment I can come up with. This movie reminded me of a high school student writing an essay on the bus ride to school that is due first period. It had poor dialouge and there is no way it could have been edited. There were sooooo many mistakes and plot holes that were easily picked up without even looking for them. What was everyones favorite mistake/plot hole.

I had to laugh when the trackers open fire with automatic weapons even though the man they are trying to save is inside. Then if that isn't enough to get you laughing, when he enters the cabin, he ditches the gun and goes in weilding a knife. One of many errors.

Also that was almost Naked Gun'ish when they crash the helicopter and before the dust even settles, they hop out injury free and pissed at each other.

reply

Possible spoiler warning.

A lot of armchair generals here, who obviously have never strayed too far from a Starbucks and wouldn't know from which end of a pistol the bullet emerges. It is better not to comment and be thought a fool, than to comment and remove all doubt.

The movie was actually reasonable as far as expedient black ops goes; black ops really isn't like James Bond (and hasn't been for thirty-five-plus years). No one cares much about the IQ's of field assets as long as they have a good success ratio, and for those of you who muse about the ease of weapons acquisition, well, they're everywhere, and if you want one you can get one.

Period.

Typically, the arms would have been selected for the job, distance, conditions, target and shooter, then sent to the armorer, possibly modified, fine-tuned, sighted in, practiced with, and cached long before the op got the green light. You don't just grab one off the rack and head off to assassinate someone. Sheesh.

The movie could have been much longer if the writers felt they had to hold you by the hand and explain to you such niggling details. Apparently, they assumed you had knowledge--or at least imaginations--of your own and could fill in the gaps. More fool they, I guess.

The biggest plot hole was the cabin: No one in his right mind would have holed up there knowing they would be fish in a laughably-obvious barrel. The smart thing to do would have been to vamoose. Second best, use the cabin site as an ambush: They didn't have the firepower for that though, or the time (or know-how, I would think) to setup booby traps.

The biggest groaner was the helo crash. Anyone who has seen a helo crash will tell you they don't crash like that, (so will any physicist). Anyone who has flown a helicopter will tell you such a crash in such terrain would have been unsurvivable. Anyone who has survived *any* helicopter crash will tell you their first reaction was not to lambast the pilot. Nor was it their second reaction. Nor the third.

All in all, I've seen far worse films, had a good time with it, and will watch it again one day.

I gave it an 8, because it was much better than the sloppy, incomprehensible and never-should-have-been-made Syriana, which, I see, got a 7.

reply