MovieChat Forums > Texas Killing Fields (2011) Discussion > Tattoo White Guy/Black Pimp? Killers Too...

Tattoo White Guy/Black Pimp? Killers Too?

posted 13 years ago by debih200
11 replies | jump to latest

I like the movie through at times I could not hear it right, it seemed the sound was "off" or something so maybe I missed something. I know the the killers who shot each other in the end in that ladies kitchen were killers BUT who and what were the association of the blonde tattoo guy and the black pimp?? Were they killing girls too? I mean was there two separate teams of killers?? I do not understand about the blonde guy and black guy, did they kill someone too and were they the ones who tried to rape and kill that woman with the small daughter?? also the blood in the car the black lady tried to burn, was that a result of a killing?

I am confused!! I DO know that the brother and his friend with the glasses were killers but were the blonde and black guy also? and what happened to him at the end? So many questions I know, but they did not make it clear and with the bad sound it was hard to grasp. I think maybe they were two different sets of killers, not related but that little black girl jumped out of the car were they going to rape and kill her too? Does anyone else think that this was the case there were two different "teams" of killers unknown too each other? Wish they made if more clear.

[–] Dennis_Cooper 13 years ago

The blond tattoo guy and the black pimp had nothing to do with the serial killings. I think they killed the girl (the 14 year-old runaway) who was found early in the film, the one who wasn't found in the fields. I assume the blood in the car that was burned was hers. I assume they killed her because she didn't want to work for them as a prostitute any longer.

I think those two only took the daughter of the black woman when they realized the police were on to them (and the car) so they kidnapped the black girl in a desperate attempt to get her mother to burn the car and the evidence inside it.

As for the two that broke into the house of the woman with the small daughter, I believe that was the two serial killers. If you recall, the older detective lost his gun during that chase and at the final shootout at the house, the older killer with the glasses (the one who got stabbed) appeared to have that gun. So I think that break-in was them trying to grab their next victim.

So yes, there were two sets of killers, but the tattoo guy and the pimp only killed the one girl who was working for them as a prostitute. The other victims that were found in the fields were killed by the other two (the brother of the little girl and the older guy with the glasses).

That's my take. The last half hour or so of the film seemed to go in fast forward after a very deliberate first hour so I can see how people were confused.

[–] LTUM 13 years ago

so there weer two different stories going on. that is a huge no no in writing.

it was confusing.

but, not only was it two different movies, but the pimp half of the story was NEVER EXPLAINED in the end, never tied off. and that is very annoying

--------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2dKNeLqNas

[–] Mr-socomsinister 12 years ago

There wasn't two stories going on, it just wasn't explained the best way.

There's a conflict of interest between the two detective partners (Worthington and Morgan).

Worthington wants to stay to investigating within city limits, Morgan feels the crimes outside their jurisdiction are all connected, and Worthington tries to convince him several times to "keep it in Texas City". They even have a fight about it. That's what all the arguing earlier in the movie about who's jurisdiction etc so and so and the female Stahl asking Morgan to help her out but it wasn't his jurisdiction. I think Morgan's character had solved a similar situation earlier from up north and came to Texas City to try and solve this puzzle (his wife and him have a brief conversation about why he came down to work there).

The moral of the story that I think the director was trying to portray, was Worthington (the local boy) was convinced that Lavon and Tattoo guy were the guys they were looking for, Morgan felt all the missing girls were tied together (the map in his office), while Worthington felt it was purely coincidental. The irony is, the real killers they were pursuing were right under their noses the entire time with glasses guy and Little Ann's brother. The tattoo guy and Lavon were basically an incidental smokescreen. They weren't the real killers, which sets up the big reveal in the bayou which is that it was crazy glasses guy and Ann's brother the entire time.

[–] Lucy9596 12 years ago

I think Morgan's character had solved a similar situation earlier from up north and came to Texas City to try and solve this puzzle (his wife and him have a brief conversation about why he came down to work there).

Except he didn't solve the last case. He says: 'what if I can't stop this one either.' Which means in my book he couldn't do it last time and is afraid he will 'fail' again.

Worthington suspects glasses guy too but can't proof anything. Remember he looks for him at work. His reaction shows it too when the phone guy tells him the call to tell him his partner would be dead came from Lucy's house. Where glasses guy seems to live too. He says: 'I knew it'. Most of the time he wants to corner the other two guys though.

There's one scene missing, when tattoo guy shoots black guy in the car after they could escape Worthington's character.

If the idea is to stay alive, I'm driving.

[–] kaysild 11 years ago

Thank you I'm tired of explaining it to people! It was used to she how much the ny guy wanted to nab a serial killer bc he let a victim die and a killer go bc he couldn't solve the case so he was tormented by it...he didnt wanna waste time with two bit pimps even tho they were his case and the big serial killer case was not....it's pretty clear and besides this is written like a murder investigation, and lots of times they have multiple cases that they aren't sure if tie in together or not, this was shown like a real homicide unfolding, at start nobody knows what's going on, who victim is, etc and they have to piece it together they gave us way more info than we'd of gotten had it been a real case so idk why everyone is so confused, your focusing on the wrong story line if your concerned abt the cops lives etc, that part is only shown to give viewers an idea of what kind of guys they are and that's the extent of it

[–] seekermatt 12 years ago

also, those two guys were not known to the detectives? huh?

every cop in the area would have known those two bad guys.

[–] nakazul 12 years ago

The Tattoo guy don't get caught? Did I miss that or did they get him? Confusing film indeed.

[–] titans_58 12 years ago

No they never got the tattoo guy. Last with him was when he shot the black pimp and he got out of the car and thats it. This movie was all over the place and it was the worst put together film. Very disappointed. I am sorry I wasted my time.

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

It was disappointing that the film could not explain everything that was happening as well as some of the posters here.

Its that man again!!

[–] coolcleangreen 12 years ago

i think it could be confusing or it could be purposeful. the two detectives clashing over where to focus their efforts coincided with the two sets of killers and two different cases. The reality is that cases of detectives often overlap and their attention is split like ours was in the movie. SW's character wasn't exactly wrong to be obsessed with the teen prostitute's case, and JDM's character wasn't wrong to be obsessed with the killing fields cases. I think figuring out where to focus was part of the point.

so either the puzzling writing and direction was spot on, or it was just an incoherent mess of a mishandled A and B story track.

---
"the whole world's on fire, isn't it?"

[–] Benicky 11 years ago

Every story like this has misdirection. That is always how it goes except on TV where they focus on one thing which is never how an investigation plays out.