MovieChat Forums > Pacific Heights (1990) Discussion > Damage to House

Damage to House

posted 19 years ago by grt50
10 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand why Keaton's character did all the weird damage to the house. What did that have to do with the plot?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] venomsyke 19 years ago

I think most the damage just came from the fact that they nicked everything, like they say in the next scene -- even the toilet lol. Not sure about the rest of it. Drake had already attacked him previous to that.

[–] psdhart 15 years ago

yes he probably sold it on, i think someone menntions this possibility in the police station

[–] Ilovehandbagsandshoes 15 years ago

*spoilers*
architectural salvage is not out of the question but I thought I noticed that he had tried to de-stabilize the house by actually knocking down a weight-bearing wall. Subsidence is very expensive to correct, e.g. another way of financially crippling them..

[–] psdhart 15 years ago

I didn't notice that
Was this where the counter was in the kitchen?
Wish I could check but have deleted recording!

[–] junkjunk247 14 years ago

Do you think he really wanted to cripple them financially? To me, it doesn't seem like his character is interested in that. Keaton only acts the way he does so he can live rent free. I really liked this movie but I think a plot hole was the damage done. I think the movie was trying to make it seem like he destroyed it all in the process of removing anything of value. But come on. A toilet on the street is not gonna get you much money. Nor are the standard home depot lighting fixtures. Keaton wasn't some bum off the street trying to get a buck so he can buy a beer. He liked big money...big scams. I just don't see him pawning a toilet for $10.

[–] tony3920 12 years ago

I didnt get this either.

It basically seemed pointless to his characters interests. I could see him not taking care of the place and it being dirty, but the kind of damage shown would need to have him simply taking a sludge hammer to the house or something

[–] nick-392 12 years ago

I think the damage to the house was key to his plan, which was not to live as a squatter, but to "win" the property from them in a civil suit. If he had just locked himself in and neglected to pay rent, they would have evicted him in a matter of months. His plan was to make noise, damage the property, get the other tenants to move out, and slowly drive them crazy to the point where they would act out in some illegal fashion (as they did). He also knew they were financially vulnerable.

[–] peyespy007 12 years ago

I think you're right. When I saw this as a kid I thought keaton was just a greedy *beep* and wanted to get everything he could even the appliances, but the other damage was just to destroy and make noise.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]