MovieChat Forums > Cold in July (2014) Discussion > Well acted, tense, gritty, but the story...

Well acted, tense, gritty, but the story had some holes...

posted 11 years ago by epatten67
46 replies | jump to latest

As a whole picture I thought that this was okay. However, there are some things that didn't quite make sense to me. First, Sam Shepards character. He is told that his son was killed while burglarizing a family's home. This is Texas first of all. Breaking into someones home... there is a strong possibility that the owner is going to own a gun. Now, his "son" gets killed commiting a crime and instead of accepting this "Russel" decides to start terrorizing this family. Threatening the father who is responsible for his son's death. Breaking into their home, threatening the safety of the child. Kinda sounds like Cape Fear. The whole angry stalker kind of thing. You gotta be some kind of sicko to do that , right? But later on in the story he becomes this moral figure that seeks justice. That doesn't add up.
The whole plot line with the sheriff is kinda shaky too. This random person breaks into a home and is shot dead. The cops decide to make this perp out to be this Dixie Mafia guy named Freddy( who really is Russel's son) who happens to be in the Witness Protection Program. They (the cops) want it appear that Freddy's Dead. What for? So that the Dixie Mob will stop looking for him? What do the cops care? He is now a Federal responsibilty.
Now, the cops get Russel when he tries to go to Mexico. They arrest him and bring him in for his crimes against Richard Dane and his family, right? Richard is signing the paperwork at the Station when he sees the wanted poster for Freddy but it isn't the guy he shot. He starts asking about it and goes back to the station to talk to the Lieutenant and he sees Ray(the sherriff) hauling Russel out the back and into an unmarked car. Richard follows them to the train tracks where Ray tries to make it look like Russel got drunk and run over by a train. Why? Why would they kill Russel? Russel is an ex con with a son whom he barely knows who is a federal witness. What are they trying to hide by doing this?
And then, Freddy turns out to be a psychotic whore slasher/basher, snuff film director... Who is in the Witness Protection Program... Whaaat? So now, learning the truth about Freddy, the three on them decide to kill everyone involved in the Snuff biz. Really?

[–] TheIncredibleJerk 11 years ago

I haven't seen the movie but read the book. In the book Russell is torn up because he feels he let his son down by never being there. The cops are concerned with keeping freddy's located a secret to appease the FBI. There is a catch-22 going on in the book with the feeds and the cops, can't really remember what it was exactly. And no the don't go after the entire snuff biz, just Freddy's circle.

I was drinking before you got out of your father's cock. Don't tell me what I do.

[–] leebmx1 11 years ago

Yep, just got out of the cinema after seeing what I thought was a deeply average film, which as you say did not make much sense at all.

1. Were the cops just waiting for someone to die in a home invasion that they could pretend was Freddie, or did they just take the oppourtunity presented to them?

2.Why did they try and kill his father?

3.Who was the guy that Michael C Hall's character shot? We were never told.

4. What was Michael C Hall's character's motivation for going on the murderous rampage at the end? What was Don Johnson's - Just that they were appalled by the snuff films? - Why would they not just go to the police?

Also too much of the film's plot hung on coincidence. Richard Dane turning up at the police station just as they are dragging Russel out. The three of them getting shunted by the big Mex's car and finding the snuff films in the boot.

The only character in the film who was believable in any way was Russel. Imo they should have just told the whole tale from his perspective and left the Michael C Hall character out, or sidelined him because I just didn't believe that this person who was a trembling coward at the start of the film, whose gun went off by accident would become an avenging angel with a shotgun by the end.
It was a shame because I was really hoping this was going to be a good, tense, pulpy-noir thriller. They were obviously paying a lot of homage to the Coen's Blood Simple which my favourite of their films but it couldn't pull it off.
It just goes to show how important plot coherence and proper character motivation is to believe-ability, because the acting was all pretty good and the cinematography OK. Poor script and average direction though.
I would suggest people go and watch Blue Ruin if they want a good modern noir.

[–] dxben99 10 years ago

"The three of them getting shunted by the big Mex's car and finding the snuff films in the boot. "

^ This actually took me out of the movie. I mean there you live in a nice quiet street, which is easy to overview and you're in witness protection AND you're producing snuff movies (These last two points together are already hilarious), which you are transporting in the trunk of your car, so of course you would just come crashing down your driveway without paying attention to anything and then by chance hit the protagonists, who were just in the process of tracking you down....did I miss something?

Seriously, this was unbelievably dumb. Does this actually happen in the book?

[–] raggoyute 11 years ago

Completely agree with these points. It was like Cape Fear mixed with 8mm and for it's retro feel a bit of Drive and A Place Beyond the Pines too. It was almost going to be a good film up until the Mexican drove into the their car and that fight broke out.

It could have been more simple. Instead of going into the snuff business they could of tied up the loose ends of why the cops were behaving like that and who the guy was they shot. The running time of the film could have been cut down. It did have some great cinematography, but went over board. Also there was a good acting chemistry between the 3 of them the story too I feel didn't really exploit this.

Oh well.

[–] Ambrosia-I 11 years ago

I agree with you about the holes in the plot and I came out of the cinema with the same questions about the whys and wherefores of what went on, but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the film and, at the time, I just went with what was happening on screen. I thought Hall, Shepard and Johnson made such an entertaining team and I ended up looking at the film as an OTT black comedy because it was so wonderfully silly. I haven't read the book so I don't know if the tone of that is similar, but I think it is one of those movies to sit back in and enjoy the ride and probably not to look into it too deeply.

[–] bronco_tim 11 years ago

Totally agree with epatten67 and other points made in this thread - could not understand why all 3 (particularly) Hall's character would want to go and kill all of them and Hall's son being on the witness protection program yet being into snuff movies and battering whores to death. Strangely average after I read several good reviews.

[–] Krustallos 11 years ago

The whole point about Hall's character was that he had insecurities about his 'manhood'. After the first shooting the cop says something like "must be tough - for a guy like you" and there are several references to his father, who was clearly a more macho sort of character. He feels inadequate because he only shot the guy because his hands were shaking with fear. So the reason he goes on the snuff expedition is out of some cockeyed notion of proving his masculinity. That's kind of what the whole film's about really, that and fatherhood.

Johnson's character is an old Korean War buddy of Shepherd's character, who once saved his life, so that's his motivation.

Whether snuff movie makers would really get away with it by virtue of being in witness protection is another issue...

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] bektaskonca 11 years ago

this is the best you are going to get from any film trying to fit a book in to 90 minutes and this is the reason i find this argument stupid, you can not compare books to films period.

[–] EndeAbgrunds 11 years ago

Actually this film was 110 minutes. And this argument is most definitely not stupid, considering movies are all subjective and more importantly.. Most of the people commenting in this thread, feel the same as the OP. Including me.

[–] bektaskonca 11 years ago

in my opinion it is stupid too even think about comparing books to movies it don't matter how long the movie is, i have been watching movies since 70s and never once heard or seen a movie good as a book unless you are talking about short stories extended in to a movie that is like 100 pages lol. i for one fed up with fan boys always bringing out the subject on each movie adapted from a novel or book it sounds stupid argument after 35 years hear in it. i believe that when reading a book it is each persons interpretation and imagination running wild in their head but once it becomes a film it is the vision of script writers and directors interpretation takes over so if you understand what i am saying you will know that it is impossible to compare books to films.

[–] ajnb07 11 years ago

1. Who did he shoot at the start of the film and what had he got to do with Russel or Freddy?

2. Was Russel really there in Richards house or was that a mental representation of Richards fear of Russel?

3. Why did the cops want to kill Russel?

4. Why did Russel want to kill his son? Freddy was scum but was that Russel's problem?

5. Why does Richard want to put himself in the line of fire for Jim Bob and Russel? He's inexperienced unlike the other two and has a family.

[–] narva24 11 years ago

I agree that the whole initial cops conspiracy angle was poorly explained, but all in all, I thought it was a decent film. Well acted and suspense was there till the very end (more or less).

[–] UnseenAcademical 10 years ago

@ajnb07 - All these questions already answered in the thread.

[–] jason_leo 10 years ago

the police were clearly corrupt as they tried to kill Shepard.
To have such a big snuff ring with video store the police are probably in on it due to the large money it would make and at some point Freddy would have said he is in the witness protection program.
As the fbi don't cut off fingers and bury the wrong person the police used the body to let Freddie disappear from the mob and fbi so he could continue making snuff.
Freddies dad was a problem till they caught him.
If he was allowed to live he would have had to be taken to court and richard could have brought up the fact the perp was not Freddie therefore by killing him they remove the issue and clear everything up.

Shepard probably felt his son getting blown away unarmed for a burglary was too much and want to seek revenge by freaking out the dad he never actually harmed the dad or the kid despite plenty of opportunity's to do so in the house however when he sees that his son is a rapist paedophile killer making snuff he makes the right decision and wants to kill him

[–] MrFilmJunkie 10 years ago

that movie screams for a "100 things i learned from..." topic... ;)

[–] brocella 10 years ago

I get a kick out of the Don Johnson character telling Ben "You feel me??" Was that really a phrase in the 70's or 80's?

[–] clickbait 10 years ago

that movie screams for a "100 things i learned from..." topic... ;)

Couldnt have said it any better 

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

[–] Xkape 10 years ago

Threatening the father who is responsible for his son's death. Breaking into their home, threatening the safety of the child. Kinda sounds like Cape Fear. The whole angry stalker kind of thing. You gotta be some kind of sicko to do that , right? But later on in the story he becomes this moral figure that seeks justice. That doesn't add up.

I have no problem in thinking that the father was such an angry messed up guy who felt he let his son down, that he figure he'd play with the guy who killed him because it's his way to release some anger, and since we later see he does have his morals when it comes to murder, we know it wasn't his intention to harm the child all along. So the later events better describe his character and intent with the earlier events of his character.

The whole plot line with the sheriff is kinda shaky too. This random person breaks into a home and is shot dead. The cops decide to make this perp out to be this Dixie Mafia guy named Freddy( who really is Russel's son) who happens to be in the Witness Protection Program. They (the cops) want it appear that Freddy's Dead. What for? So that the Dixie Mob will stop looking for him? What do the cops care? He is now a Federal responsibilty.

There should be no problem in thinking that the Feds heard about this guy who got shot in a break and enter, and used their connections in that small town to then set the plan to make Freddy be the dead guy.

Why? Why would they kill Russel? Russel is an ex con with a son whom he barely knows who is a federal witness. What are they trying to hide by doing this?

This is the only thing that really bothered me in the entire film. That they needed a better motive to kill the father since he was on his way to prison again and he thought his son dead. His son had already began to Testify according to the papers or at least the trail began 6 weeks back.

And then, Freddy turns out to be a psychotic whore slasher/basher, snuff film director... Who is in the Witness Protection Program... Whaaat? So now, learning the truth about Freddy, the three on them decide to kill everyone involved in the Snuff biz. Really?

I actually liked this part because it went off in another direction than I previously thought. I mean is it really that much of a stretch to see scum continue to want to make money and murder/use people.

[–] Lister558 10 years ago

I agree with you very much. The only point that I really bugged me was the cops trying to kill the old ex con. They had like no reason at all to do that. Just send him back to jail. Trying to kill him makes them very dirty and bad and the three main guys should have gone after them too then.

It was silly that the family guy suddenly turned vigilante. But they did show he was very bored at home and wanted to prove he was a real man.

[–] Xkape 10 years ago

It was silly that the family guy suddenly turned vigilante. But they did show he was very bored at home and wanted to prove he was a real man.

Yeah, for a guy shaking because of an intruder in the intro, he sure grew some balls quickly lol. Maybe he just needed a couple strong companions around him, I dunno.

[–] starasablja 10 years ago

This. And that they didn't get suspicious after there was no body found next day.

[–] GeneralUrsus 10 years ago

Despite the many plot holes I still really enjoyed this film. The acting was great, always been a big Michael C. Hall fan, Sam Sheppard was on the mark and Don Johnson had a really nice character turn as an off beat Texas PI. I think this trio of actors saved this flic for me, that and small town Texas charm added a great mood. It could have been a great film if the writers would fleshed these critical holes, like who was in the coffin? Why did the cops want Sam Sheppard's character dead?
Worth a rental if you like this genre despite some script writing flaws.

[–] BobbyBenny 10 years ago

I agree with you. There were only two problems I had with the film. One is in terms of the plot: Why did the cops try to kill Sam Shepard's character? There was no reason for it that I could see. Two: Michael C Hall's character wasn't well characterized enough for me to understand his motivations in the final act of the film. It felt like he helped out of some sort of compassion for Sam Shepard's character, but I'm not really sure.

The first act was a little to much like Cape Fear as well.