Stupidity: When Drake cuts off power to Hayes' apartment, the cops can't physically make a landlord abide by the laws, and seeing a judge would take months. In the meantime, by keeping the power off in the apartment, Hayes would have had no choice but to abandon his scheme and move on to another victim. With no power in the apartment, it's unusable and unlivable.
Pacific Heights (1990)
1 stupidity
Directed by: John Schlesinger
Starring: Michael Keaton, Melanie Griffith, Matthew Modine, Mako
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.
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.
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.
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?