Were people actually watching this movie or what?!!

My big question is, "Were all the people who are complaining about plot holes completely engrossed in other activities at the time?" Maybe they were washing their car, practicing karate, cooking up a five-course meal, or perhaps writing some new laws for congress to enact. I watched this movie for the first time a couple days ago and was completely enthralled. I also was left completely satisfied. In other words, I was shocked to come on here and find people attempting to destroy a great movie due to a couple of non-existent plot holes. My only conclusion, the whiners must not have been paying attention to the movie.

One of the major so called holes is Suzy (Hepburn) resisting giving her captors the doll. First of all she doesn't get the doll until halfway into the movie, and once she has it, she has been so scared and confused by her tormentors that she has no clue what the fuss is about. Obviously she knows it must be more than just a doll if all these people are after it, but she has only a jumbled mess of ideas of what the consequences of giving it up may be. The doll has been linked to a murdered woman, her relatively new husband, and a bunch of untrustworthy new characters. How many people would seriously give it up considering those factors? Anyone could be incriminated or put in jeopardy over the possession or concession of the doll. Factor in the recent blindness and things are only more confusing for Suzy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the doll may in fact appear to be incriminating/detrimental to her husband. Also, the doll is her only shot at maintaining the upper hand. Once Suzy figures the whole situation out, it becomes apparent that the doll is the only leverage she has in the situation. The doll is her bargaining chip. Without the doll Suzy is as good as dead. I could continue to go on and on about the various reasons why Suzy doesn't give up the doll, but it is pointless since I think it is painfully transparent that she has everything to lose and nothing to gain (except for the very unlikely possibility that the villains will take off and leave her completely unscathed) by giving up the doll.

Next is the so-called "idiot plot hole," which remains to be just another ridiculous aspect of the film that people want to quibble about. If you actually sit down and watch the movie you will notice that Suzy does in fact lock the door, although maybe not as soon as most people would have liked her to, however, it is pointless because bad guy Mike (Richard Crenna) takes a piece of plastic and unlocks it. Sure maybe she could have used a chain lock, deadbolt, blah blah whatever. It doesn't matter. Why? Because I highly doubt that a psychopath and his desperate underlings are going to let a door get in their way. It would not be that difficult for three grown men to break down a door. Plus there are several windows/possible entry ways into the apartment. Seriously people, is that really what you would do? "Oh a of couple gun wielding criminals and a bloodthirsty sociopath are after me, well I guess I will lock my door, that should protect me..." Yeah right!! So I really don't see this as a plot hole at all! Plus, in my opinion, i think Suzy figured she would have a better chance of surviving if she formulated a well though out plan to surprise and cleverly take the criminals out....opposed to *gasp* locking the door. Also, people complain why did she leave one light on? Once again, part of her plan. Throw the chemicals in the guy's eyes then turn off the remaining light. Complete disorientation. Perfect.

The final plot hole people love to bicker about is why did she send Gloria to get her husband, why not the police, why didn't she go yada yada. First off, obviously Gloria was the only person who could go anywhere since the fat guy was guarding outside the door. Next, the phone line was cut off without Suzy's knowledge. Therefore calling the police seemed like no big deal. Also, if she is calling the police why send Gloria to the police? Third Gloria is a CHILD!! And on top of that, a child who didn't really even fully understand what was going on. Chances are the police aren't going to take her too seriously. Especially since her parents are gone and she is off running around New York in the dark. Doesn't sound like a credible and trustworthy source that the police will be apt to listening to.

All in all, Suzy's plans were completely reasonable and surprising rational for a recently blinded women who has been manipulated and tormented into complete confusion. In fact, I think most of us would acted far worse if placed in her situation. If there is a plot hole at all, it is that Suzy's action are far too well thought out for a traumatized blind woman, not that the woman was an idiot who didn't respond logically. Its easy for us to criticize her actions as "idiot" because A) As the viewer we have seen everything, and know everything that Suzy doesn't B) Its much simpler to say "Well I would have done this in that situation" since we are not in that situation and we have no idea what its like or how we actually would respond and C) The vast majority of us are not blind and can not even fathom how difficult of transition it must be for someone to suddenly lose the vision that she has been dependent on all her life.

I will unashamedly say that I gave this movie 9.5 stars (rounded to 10 of course) and that what a couple of confused critics thoughts did not influence my opinion. I went into this movie knowing nothing about its history, reception, or "plot holes." In the end, I finished the movie with absolutely no doubt in mind that it is a great American film, and feeling not even the slightest bit confused about the plot and the non-existent holes. Also, as a side note, I watched this movie with my 15-year-old sister and her friend, both of whom completely loved the movie and did not pester me with any plot questions like they typically do after I attempt to expose them to classic cinema. So if the "plot hole" haters can manage to find the time to sit as still as a couple of squirrelly 15 year olds for a little under two hours, I think they will find that this film was virtually free of the gaping holes that riddle many of the films that are cranked out today.


"Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money and for a woman. I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?"