Massive Plot Holes


The biggest plot hole is that it's LITERALLY an unbelievable coincidence that the Hearsts would have photos of the two girls who died. Unless they had the photos of every girl around that age in Puerto Rico, that simply does not fly as 'just a conincidence'. According to the Pew Research Center, there were over three million people living in Puerto Rico in the year 2000, when this film is presumably set (given its date of release). See the following link for proof: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/historic-population-losses-continue-across-puerto-rico/ Again, unless they had photos of all these three million people, it just does not fly that the one murder suspect the police have in custody conveniently has photos of both the murder victims in his home, but somehow, in the end, was not connected to their murders at all. Keep in mind, he was the murder suspect BEFORE the police found the incriminating photos.

Secondly, not only do the Hearsts have the photos of the girls who died, but Henry freaking finds the dead body of the second murder victim. WTF?! Maybe, as an event by itself, it's just unlikely, but not impossible. However, combined with the photos of the murder victims found in his home, that makes this event impossible to believe for the slightly discerning viewer given the ending. How can the Hearsts have no connection to the murders at this point, as the ending would have us believe?

Thirdly, he's a big-shot lawyer, obviously successful and considered to be a top professional tax attorney in all of Puerto Rico. Somehow, his memory of this shocking murder find and the events that led up to it becomes suspiciously fuzzy and his manner of recounting the events becomes totally clumsy. Again, if one stops to think about this for a minute, it's not believable. Unless Henry wanted to be accused and suspected of first-degree murder, there is no discernible reason for him to have been that incompetent as a witness.

reply

^^^ YES. THIS. EXACTLY.

I get it that the husband and the wife both thought each other were guilty. I get it that Hackman was trying to fall on his sword to protect his wife. But none of that matters given the inexcusable, insane plot holes and thoroughly ludicrous coincidences mentioned above.

Here's another one: so, the husband actually believed that his jealous wife raped a little girl while wearing a condom lubricated with spermicidal jelly? What the? Why did the writers go to the trouble of adding in these bizarre extra details that serve no purpose other than to undermine and derail the plausibility of the film?

The overarching concept of the film is a very good one; and had it been executed competently, it could have been a classic. As it is, it is a sad waste. To see a much, much more compelling and intelligent interpretation of a similar story, check out 1957's "Witness For The Prosecution".

P.S. Embarrassing that Hackman mispronounces his wife Chantal's name as "Chantel" about half the time. That warranted some ADR.

reply

Hackman never believed his wife was the rapist/killer,
he gave in and confessed because he was devastated that she believed he was the killer, therefore cooperated with the police

reply

Meh, not sure about that. But if it works for you then cool.

reply

didn't he only have pictures taken of the girl he found dead - not both, because she lived in his neighborhood, also why he found her body near his home while jogging

reply

👍

And as a lawyer surely he'd have been aware of how guilty he was making himself seem (I'm talking about way before he decided to 'confess').

reply