MovieChat Forums > We Are What We Are (2013) Discussion > Plotholes

Plotholes

posted 8 years ago by gpiggy_e_girl
5 replies | jump to latest

I watched this movie after reading great reviews, but I wasn't very impressed. Sure, the acting was good and the story itself was compelling, there were just so many damn plotholes!

I'm going to list off all of the plotholes I noticed and if you have an explanation for it, please enlighten me!

-Didn't the doctor notice the blood or black bile or whatever it was coming out of Emma Parker's mouth that would have told him she didn't die of drowning?

- How did the girls and the boy enter the basement (where Stratton was locked up) when it's shown that the trap door is locked? There must either be a secret entrance, or you can somehow lock the door from the inside..

- Why is the basement not soundproof? And so close to the neighbour! That's just careless.

- How many people are part of this "religion"? Or is it just one family? If so, were the parents related and were incestuous, or did the dad introduce this way of life to the mom (or vice versa)? I feel like there has to be some underground community of religious cannibals instead of one family...there's no way they would be able to keep reproducing over the centuries especially with the potential of dying of kuru.

- Why did the dad kill that Kimble girl if not to eat her? Anger/grief? He was pretty careless with the body.

- Does the young boy know he's eating humans? It's a catch-22 here. If the kids know at a young age there is a chance of blabbing because kids can't keep their mouths shut. On the other hand, if the parents don't tell them until they're older, wouldn't the kid be so horrified and disgusted that he'd be totally traumatized for life instead of just accepting it? The girls seemed normal enough until they actually had to kill a woman, so I'm thinking that they grew up thinking it was normal to eat people...but the boy doesn't seem to know. The logistics here just don't work out.

[–] bloopville 8 years ago

Astute analysis. I liked the movie but it had several logical failings which prevented it from being a very good movie.

My analysis assumes that there is no supernatural element to their cannibalism and that it is just learned behavior. I also assume that the universe described in this movie is a real universe and people act like people, and actions have normal consequences. With that in mind, here are some additional thoughts.

1. The movie was too dependent on nobody communicating. With several deaths in a short period of time, it would have been reasonable for there to have been phone calls and texts describing the finds of bones, locations, etc. There would have been questions and concerns about the missing deputy, and, by the end of the movie, the missing persons notice for the girl who disappeared would have been to all the various police.

2. Michael Parks (the doctor) committed one of the most unforgivable plot sins. He didn't finish off, or immobilize the father, who miraculously, as in all lazily written scripts, is able to sneak up from behind and whack him.

3. The father has great sneaking ability, as he is also able to silently sneak up on his daughter and the deputy when they are having sex.

4. The final scene in which the daughters are compelled to be cannibals breaks the rules of logical behavior. Their cannibalism is learned and Rose, especially, seems repelled by it. Yet, they seem to be demonically driven to eat their father. This would imply a supernatural element which changes the whole rational for many of their other actions. '

5. The first reaction of Kelly McGillis would have been to dial 911. She didn't. The telephone on the wall is a "red herring".

6. Withing 24 hours of the driving away scene, the kids would have been hauled in. There is now too much death, and too many uncleanable remains (the dungeon in the basement, the dead neighbor, the bones they will now find lying around, etc.) With this in mind, the last scene is meaningless. They aren't driving away to start a new life, even leaving cannibalism or continuing it. In a rational universe, it is merely a 24 hour reprieve until they are found.

[–] Dargaud 8 years ago

Good analysis, but I beg to differ on point 3: when having sex (outdoors or not), particularly for the 1st time, it's not like you notice the little details around you. You are supposed to concentrate on the task... at hand.

[–] chilone (17252) 3 years ago

One of the details of the task at hand would have been for Iris to take off her pants. THAT was a goof!

[–] storm-the-dog 8 years ago

- When Rose made a run for it with her brother she barely made it to the car parked outside, despite having a one-minute and eleven-seconds head start.

- And having made it to the car, the first reaction should have been to lock the doors, then look for the keys. But as she'd planned the escape anyway, why hadn't she checked that out beforehand?

- And just how easy is it to chew raw skin, let alone eat it?

BTW, there was no supernatural element to them biting their despicable dad. They were just giving him a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.

...it's just another dumb film, get over it.

[–] tpupkin 7 years ago

None of those are plot holes. They are choices you didn't like or actions you disagreed with. Or parts you didn't understand.