Pacific Heights

Pacific Heights (1990)

4 mistakes - chronological order

(5 votes)

Plot hole: Hayes continues his harassment by calling the police and provokes Drake into assaulting him. When the police come and sees Hayes injured, they take Drake away immediately without asking any questions or investigating. No law authorities would ever take away someone with mere assumptions or without investigating, regardless of a history of Drake trying to force Hayes out by shutting off the utilities. Completely unrealistic.

Plot hole: Hayes never actually signed a lease for the apartment. He only promised to wire Drake $7500, then moved himself into the apartment without permission. So, technically, with no signed lease, he legally had no right to be there. Drake was well within his rights to shut off power to the apartment to force him to leave. He legally wasn't his tenant and had stolen the apartment, what we call a squatter in the USA.

Question: Can someone explain the scene where Patty tries to get a $5,000 loan, but she would need to deposit $5,800 to qualify? As she herself points out, she wouldn't even need a loan if she had $5,800. The employee might not be friendly, but the offer still doesn't make sense if the company wants to be in business.

Answer: A reputable bank requires borrowers to have an adequate income, a good credit rating, and some type of collateral (property, investments, other assets, etc,) above the amount of the loan in the event the customer defaults. It's been years since I've seen the movie, so I don't remember the timeline of events or what the loan was for, but if Patty and Drake had already bought the house, that could be used as collateral, though they might not want to risk it for such a low amount. If they hadn't bought the house, and had no other assets, it's highly unlikely they'd qualify for a loan.

raywest

And plenty of people might not "need" a loan because they've got the money saved, but they'd rather take out a loan and make predictable monthly payments they know are well within their means, rather than eat into their savings, leaving them with no safety net if some financial emergency hits.

This is still unrealistic and made up only for the film. No loan company would ever ask a client to put down a payment of that extravagant amount in order to get back the same amount of what they're asking for a loan for. Why on earth would a person take out a loan in the first place if they didn't actually need the money?

More questions & answers from Pacific Heights

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.