this movie makes no sense.
You didn't understand what you watched.
Its not just that he wasn't paying rent, but he never even paid his security deposit or had a mandatory credit check.
The movie showed how he came up with an excuse that convinced the landlord that a credit check in his case would have been impossible. You can argue the landlord was stupid for accepting that, but the movie also showed that there were huge pressures on the landlord to rent the unit as soon as possible.
The security deposit IS THE LEASE!!!.
The movie was quite clear on this point. He took possession of the unit before it was arranged that he should take possession, and this gave him rights as a tenant under CA law, regardless of his failure to pay.
And why didn't the home owners call the police when they found he had there cat, or when was watching the wife throuhg the car at night, or many other times they could have called the police,
What are they going to tell the police? "Officer, I came down the stairs and he was sitting in his car!! SITTING IN HIS CAR HAVING A SMOKE!!!" Ridiculous.
helping give them a right to evict. Also they have a right to let themselves in the apartment
The movie quite clearly showed he changed the locks. They could not let themselves in. Breaking and entering is a crime.
to make repairs or check smoke detectors, etc, and then maybe they would have found out that he was trashing the place, so stupid. Also dumb was the part where the husband was not aloud within 500 yards of the house and she still stayed at the house knowing the tenant was off his hinges, who lets there wife do that.
The only indimidating thing he had done at that point was sit in his car. It's not unimaginable that she would stay there.
Also, if they knew he could possibly get out on bail, then why were they not standing their gaurd instead of acting like they were perfectly safe and happy. well dircted, well acted, absurt plot.
I don't know what you would have them do. Wait at the door with guns? People in real life don't always do the safest or wisest things. Besides, the movie showed that the woman was very cautious and suspicious of any noise (in broad daylight in a house on a well-traveled street), so they were clearly on their guard, to a reasonable degree. I have heard that this movie fudges the legal aspects a bit, but to me it was far more believable than 95% of Hollywood movies. It's not above criticism (I found the acting wooden in many instances), but it's a good and memorable thriller.
--
Draft Young Repu[g]licans
reply
share
Edd-79
15 years ago
I couldn't agree more with you. I had seen parts of this movie in the past but never really had the chance to thoroughly watch it, even though I'd heard many times about Keaton's superb performance in it. However, last night I saw it on The Film Zone and I think it's an awesome movie. I specially liked Keaton and Modine's performances. The ending is great and the storyline is totally believable. It made my night. I gave it an 8.
- Oh for Pete's sake, he's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview! (Fargo, 1996)
reply
share
snowfairy123183-1
15 years ago
If they were suspicious at all in the first place, they should have refused to sign the lease with Keaton in the first place, that day he showed up.
reply
share
droche-3
14 years ago
You are very much corrct on all points. Let me rant a bit....
Since he took possession without challenge (The couple did NOT call the police upon finding him in the unit and preferring tresspassing charges) a "common-law" tenancy was formed, and has the same power as a written lease. The state assumes certain default obligations for both tenant and landlord. Keaton made sure that they accidently ratified the "lease" by tricking him into a confontation wih the police whereas he could talk about heating, electricity. I think the lawyer says, "Well, he's in there and you have to evict him to get him out."
Accusing a tenant of criminal behavior is an old landlord trick to keep the security deposit, evict the tenant, and rerent the apartment. Usually when lease values go up midterm. The court would NOT believe the couple and assume that they are making it up.
The explanation about No Credit History was absurd. It showed how careless and intimidated the landlord was. Also insecure and greedy (thus the need for a cash flash on Keatorn's part.) I mean six month's rent in advance?? That HAS to be the perfect tenant--cash up front an a quiet traveller! Even folks like Keaton was pretending to be have a credit rating with the three services. They don't give the names of creditors or income sources in that case (a trust), but anyone with a social security number has a credit score.
Plot hole: He changed the locks. In CA and every other state, the landlord is a "silent agent" of the community's safety, and must be given immediate access in case of fire, smoke, etc emergencies. Changing the lock is a violation of the implied lease, and they could have hired a locksmith to open the door and install new locks. Without going to court. They only needed to show ownership of the building. The default verbage of the implied lease set by the state always includes this clause--called the "No Lockout" clause--which protects both tenant and landlord.
"When you throw dirt, you lose ground" --old proverb
reply
share
junkjunk247
13 years ago
I don't think changing the locks was a plot hole. Let's not forget that these are shiny new landlords. This was pointed out many times in the movie. I don't think it is absurd to imagine a couple buying a house and renting out the downstairs without knowing every single landlord law. They had a general idea about renting and that was it. Evidenced by the no credit check, not calling the cops for breaking and entering when he was first in the apartment etc. Keaton specifically chose them because they were not well versed in the law AND were under financial hardship to rent that apartment out. Eventually they would have figured out that they could change the locks back...but even then it probably wouldn't have mattered. You can't just enter the apartment willy nilly. Unless there is an immediate threat (fire, leaking water etc) you need to give 24 hours notice to the tenant and provide a reason for entering.
reply
share