started off good. then went to tondo

If you're not in his situation then you dont realize how hard it is to raise a family (wife, 2 kids and one on the way) with no money in the Philippines. Plus even though he had a job, he still hadn't gotten paid, they were withholding his pay until the investigation was over, he had given the rest of his money to the landlord who still kicked him and his family out the rest of that week so now they have no place to live.

Picking a lock only works if you know how to do it. Not as easy as it looks and many lock boxes hv security measures that would trigger the ink. How would a farmer learn how to do that?

Liked the film overall, but I agree with most of your points. For me, this is the problem: while it did effectively communicate the hardship Oscar & his family were experiencing, it still seemed way out of character for Oscar to go robbery/suicide. It just wasn't him, and the film didn't convince me that it was really his *only* option. Also disliked the attempt to portray him laying down his life as something noble and beautiful. As you say, he's made his wife a widow and children fatherless (not bastards ;) ) for the sake of money. I really don't think that's what they wanted.

Another thing that bugged me about Oscar - he seemed overly willing to hand over literally every penny in his pocket to unknown landlords. The first time was naive to say the least, but twice was just not convincing. After getting so badly stung once, I can't believe he wouldn't hold something back.

One more gripe - there's an over reliance on the assumption that 'rural types' will be out of their depth and easy targets in the big city. Firstly it's a lazy cliche that isn't true, secondly it's contradicted within the film: Oscar's back story shows he's already had experience of financial hardship, unscrupulous people and criminals. Some of it's told in a non linear way so it may not hit you as you're watching, but when you put it all together it doesn't ring true that he would be quite so green & gullible, imo.

Might not seem like it after those complaints, but I still really liked the film, just wish it was that little bit better.

In answer to OP's questions:

Seemed to me he was crying in the bar because he was thinking about what his wife was having to do for work; he'd been saving food all day to take home to the family, and from the rest of the film it's clear he chooses not to drink - he didn't want to be there at all but felt obligated to his new job. Being so openly emotional might seem odd to a UK or US viewer, but it's maybe not so unusual in other parts of the world.

I thought about lockpicking too. I can't do it myself, but I've read a fair bit about it and know there are certain types of lock that can 'detect' a pick attempt as opposed to the correct key - so in such a case (if I've got it right) a pick attempt could trigger the ink mechanism unless you nail it first time? I'm guessing a bit, would be great to get a locksmith's opinion here :) Also the key is shown in great detail, again would be great to hear a locksmith's take on the key/lock itself, what the security measures are likely to be (they don't give much detail in the film) and how well the filmmakers did their research :)

Even so: in Ong's situation, you could spend 6 months, a year or however long it takes to learn to pick locks, have a go at the box and accept the risk that you may trigger the ink and gain nothing. No other people involved, hell no one would ever need to know you took the box in the first place.

Alternatively (what Ong actually chose): cook up a second robbery involving some known criminals and a practical stranger you've forced into a desperate position, accepting the risks of betrayal, death and a long prison sentence (any of which would of course = no money). Yeah... given that Ong seemed to have no money worries anyway, and that he used to be a cop so would have a realistic idea of the likelihood of getting away with it, you've got to wonder why he would take such a risk.

This is after some reflection; at the time of watching, it seemed like a pretty cool setup for a heist thriller :)

You are spot on with your comments, I agree with all of them. I get it that this film is worth the praises it is getting but there are so many plot holes. I wanted to enjoy this movie but the plot holes ruined it for me. I strongly suggest you guys see "ON THE JOB". This film has zero plot holes for me and script is more realistic. Back to this film, another thing is the script, no one in Manila speaks using complete and correct Tagalog words anymore. I get that Oscar is from the province so that makes sense, but there were scenes where Ong and Buddha were speaking in full on and politically correct Tagalog that their sentences were simply unlikely to be heard from their kind of characters.

Some of these points are valid, but a couple of things I'd point out:

1 - Ong was simply wrong about the details of the processing room. He'd never been allowed in there since he was hired, so he didn't have the details right. That's not surprising.

2 - You can't 'just pick the lock'. Attempts at tampering cause the detonation that ruins the contents.

3 - They were willing to risk their lives without knowing how much is in there because they were desperate.

4 - And this is the big one - the whole point of the movie is that even the best of men can be reduced to this kind of thing if his circumstances are desperate. Sure, we'd all prefer to see him stick to his ethics and come out on top, but the people who made this film clearly don't believe that's a possibility outside of a fairy tale. Personally, I think if he'd turned in the box and explained Ong's plan, he'd have kept his job and possibly had a reward, and would have been ok in the end, but he had come to believe this wasn't possible because he had been disillusioned - encountering nothing but corruption at every turn.

It's meant to be a tragedy that blames poverty for crime. Maybe you don't buy that idea, but that's the idea behind the film.

Man, I disagree with all of you guys for the most part.

I thought the movie did more than enough to explain that desperate situation.

If your pregnant wife was working in a brothel with your 9 yo daughter being in danger of sucked into prostitution and you only have a few days before your going to be evicted, you'd be desperate enough to do some crazy shit too.

Why would you think that if he just told his boss what Ong was into, the boss would've believed them?

Ong was a beloved veteran who had had his last partner murdered. After he was murdered, there's no way you would've been able to disparage a guy like that. All the coworkers would've sided with Ong as well.

They would've seen Oscar as this poor guy they barely know who lied about where he's from and who's wife works in a place of ill repute

While I completely agree with most of the plot holes you've pointed out (especially the part about the encounter with the 2nd landlord, which I've mentioned on another thread), there are a couple of things that I think could be rationally explained

"The Key Room that nobody is ever in. So again I assume Ong knows that it's an unmanned station because he's walked by there a few times and overheard from other people that have walked by there that there's never anyone in there. As an Ex-COP and a security guard how did he not notice a camera."

I think it's more a case that Ong doesn't particularly care if there's a camera in there because if anything goes wrong, it will be Oscar's problem - he can deny all knowledge, and the consensus will be that after committing the first robbery and getting the job there in order to get the key for the box that was robbed (which Ong has already explained will be their hypothesis), Oscar then arranged the second robbery too in order to get into the area where the keys are kept, his partner Ong being in the briefing room being the perfect time to make his move.
Other things could have gone wrong, such as there being a guard or someone standing outside the briefing room with Driver A while Driver B is being interviewed. Or the door to the key room actually being locked at the time. Or, as eventually happened, the screwdriver being the wrong size.
But none of this would come back on Ong - worst case scenario, it doesn't come off, he's no worse off and at least he tried.

further plot holes - the black honda that Ong was so concerned about turns out to be driven by the youths he'd hired to do the fake robbery. I get Ong pretending to be worried about it following them when Oscar's sat next to him, but he was acting the same while Oscar was still in the building and couldn't see him.
Also, when the same black honda puils up and 3 thuggish looking guys get out and rush into the alleyway where Ong's just gone alone, did he somehow think Oscar WOULDN'T get out of the van to check it out?!

Ong's story about having Oscar followed and that comment about letting his wife "whore herself out" - Oscar's wife only started working there after Oscar was already hired - in fact they both started their jobs on the same day?

Final and most crucial one to the story - when Ong's explaining how the place works, he says that when a box has been robbed, the key is confiscated. Therefore, why would the key to the box that was taken 6 months ago still be with all the others? (unless Ong was referring to the customer's copy of the key? Even so, you'd think they'd keep the keys to the stolen boxes in a separate, more secured place just in case of any rogue employees).

With it being a seemingly low budget movie, I get the impression they were making a lot of it up as they went along. It's a pity these little flaws weren't picked up during editing, though, because it's such a brilliantly shot and superbly acted movie - the fact that i've watched it several times and others seem to on here as well - and it is on the whole still a great tragic story, even with the plot holes. Imagine how amazing it would have been without them.