philosoraptor42

Okay, so here's a grumpy rant about a term I've been hearing over and over on movie message boards and I am fed up with it. "Plot holes" is a term where the meaning appears to be deeply unclear (at least in the way most people use it). In some cases a short review of a film could actually be as simple as: "It sucked because it was full of plot holes." I am here to argue that such a review is practically meaningless.

Before I even worry about whether "plot holes" is a good term or not, perhaps I should show some evidence than anyone actually uses it. I found myself rather annoyed to see it being used a reviewer. I've recently discovered a reviewer on The London Film Review website called David Ollerton. In an article about "Looper" he said the following:

"Looper is full of plot holes right from the start, and I'm not even talking about the time-travel logic (which makes little to no sense throughout), I'm talking about some of the basic ideas."

I immediately groaned. I keep on hearing this term in IMDB message boards and it is frustrating as hell. However, to be fair to Ollerton (who actually seems to write some pretty good reviews) this wasn't his review of "Looper", but rather an article breaking down what he believed to be some less-recognised issues with the film which people might have missed.

There already is a major problem with using the term "plot holes" in a review. If it is possible for most people to watch the film without even recognising a plot hole, how is it an important criticism of a film? Am I really going to have a poor movie-going experience due to a factor I cannot recognise while I am watching the film? Anyway, more on that later...

Is The Term "Plot Holes" Really Used THAT Much?

Looking at reviews by ordinary internet users on Rotten Tomatoes the following is just a small sample:

From Paris With Love:
"It's just one of those action films that tries to tell a story set in the real world, but isn't really. Too many plot holes, inconsistencies and unbelievable character decisions make this a work of pulp, that shows little respect for the worth of a human life."

Oblivion:
"The story makes you think and keep you on your toes the whole time and even though there's small plot holes here and there that I wish were explained better, they didn't completely destroy the experience like they can with other movies in this genre."

Postal:
"Boll's attempt at humor is executed poorly in a story with plot holes, which shouldn't matter, but they do anyway."

REC 2:
"I didn't like it at all. It wasn't even that scary and it had too many plot holes to take seriously. It was nothing like the original REC and I thought it was really stupid."

Salt:
"Though it's far from the most intelligent of movies, Salt has some exciting chase sequences, and it manages to patch over most of its plot holes."

The Transporter:
"The Transporter like all the other Besson action flicks is adequately written and filled with plot holes, what makes it special, is Statham's unbelievably energetic performance."

Unleashed:
"There were a few plot holes and some of the writing by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen were not that great."

Wrong Turn 4:
"There are obvious plot holes which do annoy at times, and sometimes some awful acting really upsets a scene. Other than that, it's fairly kick-ass action horror, that doesn't put me off a 5th visit."

How Much Do Critics Use The Term "Plot Holes"?

In one forum post on Rotten Tomatoes an ordinary RT user said this about "The Godfather":

"There were many gaping plot holes in this movie (which critics usually attack other movies for, but not this one)"

Actually I don't think this is true. I think most critics don't actually use the term "plot holes" very often at all, never mind randomly missing out that term in relation to "The Godfather".

I did a quick search on Google of the Rotten Tomatoes website. The first few examples I found were actually from the critical consensus comment left by the Rotten Tomatoes website itself:

Next (Critical Consensus)
"Numerous plot holes and poorly motivated characters prevent Next from being the thought-provoking sci-fi flick it could've been."

Shooter (Critical Consensus)
"With an implausible story and numerous plot holes, Shooter fails to distinguish itself from other mindless action-thrillers."

However, I only found a few examples of official critics (as opposed to ordinary users) using the term "plot holes" in their reviews:

The Collector:
"The Collector must be the laziest horror film of the year - the camerawork stinks, the action's boring and the plot holes are so glaring they wouldn't get past a lobotomised goose."
Robbie Collin
News of the World

The Island:
"As usual, Bay stages the action at a breakneck pace that's never frenetic enough to obscure his film's plot holes and logical lapses."
Nathan Rabin
AV Club

Naturally these are from small quotations used to sum up a reviewer's position. It's possible that the term is used a lot more often in general. However, it is at least rare enough that it is only found in a few instances like this in concluding statements about a film.

However, I have a couple of other reviewer quotations which I have missed out because they not only use the term "plot holes", but they make use of it in a phrase that has become a particularly irritating cliché for me...

"Plot Holes Big Enough To Drive A Truck Through!"

Oh please Lord make it stop!

There are plenty of examples of ordinary users on Rotten Tomatoes using this phrase in their reviews:

Grimm:
"A bizarre film, bearing only a slight resemblance to the Hansel and Gretel tale, with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through, but entertaining, nonetheless."

Firewall:
"Predictable from the start and filled with plenty of plot holes big enough to drive Mack trucks through."

Sadako 3D:
Obviously nobody gave the script a second thought after the first draft was turned in cause the final product is absolutely ridiculous and littered with plot holes you could drive a semi through...

The Human Centipede II:
Of course the plot is totally dumb with some plot holes you could drive a Land Rover through.

Star Trek (XI):
"This movie has plot holes big enough for the Enterprise to fly through!"

So who are the official Rotten Tomatoes reviewers who've not only used this stupid phrase, but have allowed it to make it into their quoted summary?

Gothika:
"Gothika is a stylish, creepy, and well-acted psychological thriller/ghost story. It also has plot holes big enough to drive a truck through..."
David M. Kimmel
Worcester Telegram & Gazette

The Raven:
"It's silly, has plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and is little more than a gothic version of Law & Order, yet it has a macabre charm that will keep you interested for the film's duration."
Kristal Cooper
We Got This Covered

And one case the phrase was even used in Rotten Tomatoes' movie info section!:

Range Riders (Movie Info)
"What stands out about this film is the hopelessly abysmal acting of everyone concerned, plot holes you could drive a truck through, the fact that many scenes are totally out of focus (apparently the cameraman had better things to do than look through his viewfinder), and an audio track that rises and falls like a roller coaster."

Plot Holes Don't Matter!

There is one user comment which uses the dreaded phrase which I think helps to make clearer why I dislike the term "plot holes" in the first place.

Timecop 2:
"Talk about your plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. But hey ... I'm a sucker for time-travel flicks. Even if they suck I love them."

I'm going to go one further and not just accept that you can love movies with plot holes, but that plot holes don't matter.

There's a section on IMDB called "gaffs". This highlights elements from a film where there are mistakes. The first time I heard about a film's gaffs being explored in detail was "The Matrix", but it wasn't really seen as a negative thing. "The Matrix" is a film where reality is questioned. As such, it actually ADDED something to the film to discover that when Keanu Reeves is jumping out of his seat and terrified, dealing with the fact that his mouth has disappeared, the reflection in Hugo Weavings indoor sunglasses shows Reeves still sitting down and unemotional.

It's fun to find out about little tiny inconsistencies in films, but even a list of 100 of them isn't going to make us love our movies any less. Sometimes we even notice little inconsistencies during a movie and still love it. However, mostly we don't notice at all due to a phenomena that is dealt with on the TV Tropes page on "Fridge Logic". We can happily accept all sorts of bizarre events in films and so long as we are caught up in the action, it is only when we pause the film and get up to get something from the fridge (or some other reason for having a short break from the film) that we snap out of the film's spell and think "Wait a moment!"

I'm going to state right now that the plot isn't the main reason why we watch most films. In some genres the plot plainly doesn't matter.

The Addams Family can be doing anything they want and I'll still be entertained. The plot is handy to keep me interested, but there are parts of the Addams Family movie which are irrelevant to the plot, yet I don't think the film would be better without them. (Wednesday Addams plays the game "Is There A God?" with Pugsley by electrocuting him, yet he's still alive for the rest of the movie. Oooh what a plot hole! *facepalm*) One "plot hole" pointed out in internet lists regards "Back To The Future". Marty McFly uses 1985 money in the 50s. How does he do that? Does it matter? "Back To The Future" is a comedy and the premise is an opportunity to make the gags. It's a very thoughtful comedy, but problems with time travel are not a big issue so long as we are having fun and are entertained enough not to ask questions.

For some films a major focus can be the atmosphere. Does anyone love "The Exorcist" for the plot? I don't think so. Characters, atmosphere, performances and visual impact are all elements as important or perhaps even more important than plot. And what do we even MEAN by plot? We mean the structure of the story. If the structure of the story is so flawed so often (if all these IMDB commenters are to believed) how would so many filmgoers be able to leave without a problem? And why does it seem so difficult for these same commenters to explain their problems a lot of the time? Plot structure is a difficult thing to critique. As such "plot holes" is not acceptable as a throwaway comment. The term "plot holes" simply isn't specific enough and if it's to be any use at all, each example needs to be fully elucidated for the reader (by which point you might as well have never used the stupid term in the first place).

You know what? Using the term "plot holes" does not sound smart AT ALL!

A Case Study: Prometheus

It's been bugging me for a while now that most people hated "Prometheus", while I actually preferred it to the original "Alien". So why was that?

Well "Prometheus" captured my imagination because in the end it's all about the savage origins of religion. The premise of an alien race who are keen on self-sacrifice and the cycle of death and rebirth, while having absolutely no time for human fear of mortality or their attempts to preserve themselves though creating automata to imitate them.

I also loved the idea of an advanced alien civilisation that has more in common with our old harsh tribal mentality than they do with our more compassionate modern mentality. There was something very Lovecraftian about the entire premise. We want to discover our creators, but when we meet the old gods will we like what we find and why would they care about us? (Not quite extreme as the perspective of "there are gods, they've been asleep, and if they wake up seeing them will send us mad and then they will eat us. But the same sort of gist anyway.)

The main appeal of the film for me was the atmosphere. The Lovecraftian feel wasn't just in the premise but in the whole build-up of the film. Of course another element of horror asides from the aliens is the robot they bring with them. He is able to recognise the nightmare still to come and, instead of warning them, actually make them more vulnerable. There was a certain level of predictability in "Prometheus" which played to the film's advantage. Being able to see what is coming yet being unable to do anything about it. Just like that (literally) eye-popping scene in Lucio Fulci's "Zombie Flesh Eaters".

One element I have since realised that I was prepared to give the film a pass on which many people could not forigve was the depth of the characters. There's practically no depth to the characters in "Prometheus" whatsoever. I'm not really convinced that there was a lot of depth to the characters in the original "Alien" either, but that's not the point. "Prometheus" gives us some fairly obvious tropes and in some cases isn't even terribly consistent with them. The most obvious inconsistency in character being the geologist who claims both that he is only there for the money and that he loves rocks.

I've watched a lot of horror movie series recently and many of them have utterly stupid and bland characters. In a movie with a good enough atmosphere you don't even need a strong protagonist. Sometimes it is the events which happen TO the main character which matter more than anything else. Still, it has to be said that the main focus of Prometheus is firmly on the robot David and Michael Fassbender provides an AMAZING performance in that role.

So what about plot holes? Well I'm inclined to say that the plot of "Prometheus" is pretty simple really. It's not so different from the plot of "Predator". People go somewhere and get picked off one by one by a big bad, except for the ones who survive (which isn't many of them). I'm inclined to say that "Prometheus" followed that plot structure fine without a hitch.

The problem is better highlighted by looking at my opinion of the recent Star Trek film "Star Trek: Into Darkness". There are lots of people who absolutely loved that film. The critical reception was extremely positive and box office takings were pretty consistent. Yet I found myself just groaning throughout. Why? Because I wasn't caught up in the story. And without being caught up in the story, I was able to focus on the parts that were bothering me instead. There were just certain elements about the film, not tied to performances or visuals or atmosphere, that just did not speak to me.

I feel that the reason why people disliked "Prometheus" is because they had a similar issue with that film that I did with "Star Trek: Into Darkness". In neither case is that issue a minor complaint. I do not mean to dismiss anyone's issues with "Prometheus" any more than I wish to dismiss my own concerns with "Star Trek: Into Darkness". I'm not going to start re-writing my "Into Darkness" review here, but I will note that if someone is unable to accept my views on that Star Trek film it is likely to be because they could immerse themselves in the film in the way I simply could not. And no amount of time spent rating about "plot holes" was going to change that.

(And my main reason for not being exactly a massive fan of the first "Alien" film is that, plot holes or no, I find it hard to get excited about people running back and forth down corridors. Give me a choice between watching "Alien" or watching "Alien Resurrection", I'll choose the daft one with half-alien Ripley every time because at least I won't be bored. Sorry!)

"Plot holes" only matter when you are unengaged enough to spot them. If a reviewer says "there were plot holes" and a reader replies "yes, I saw them too" there's no guaranteeing that they are talking about the same plot structure issues. If a reviewer says "there were plot holes" and a reader disagrees, that is also unhelpful since there may well have been genuine plot structure problems which the reader simply missed. "Plot holes" only matter if, once you are told about them, you find it harder to engage with the film again afterwards. In any case, the actual term "plot holes" is very unhelpful indeed since it is not specific enough, it often comes across as emotive, and in many cases a film can be full of plot holes without being any less beloved by audiences who know about every last one of them.

Just knock it off with the term "plot holes" okay?