Well, if you read Ebert's review, you have to conclude that HE is the idiot.
He didn't watch the movie properly.
Fact is, that we only don't SEE Audrey locking the door.
When she comes back into the apartment after smashing the light bulbs at the entrance, she goes right down the stairs and to the darkroom without locking the door.
This leads Ebert (and other reviewers here, some of whom boast of seeing the movie several times) to ASSUME that the door was left unlocked FOREVER.
However, when Richard Crenna comes back later, he finds the door to be locked and has to open it with plastic. So Audrey must have at some point in between have found the time to lock it.
I find it strange that these people notice certain things that they think are mistakes and overlook others.
Maybe they are a little to keen to prove their INTELLIGENCE?
Well, what do you expect? Ebert couldn't even remember that Crenna wasn't an "Old College Chum" of Sam's, but an "Army Chum". Remember: "Charlie Company"?
reply
share
FinnurE
15 years ago
The question whether the door was left unlocked or not didn't bother me. Other things bothered me more such as: Why did Roat dress up while acting in front of a blind woman? Why did Susy hide the doll INSIDE the apartment after she found it instead of giving it to the girl to hide?
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666
reply
share
rorshock
13 years ago
He wore a disguise because he knew other people lived in the building, and he didn't want to be recognized if he happened to run into them. In fact, he ran into Gloria as he was rushing in disguised as the old man.
reply
share