MovieChat Forums > Ne le dis à personne (2006) Discussion > The most obvious plot hole of all

The most obvious plot hole of all

posted 15 years ago by qpw3141
21 replies | jump to latest

Firstly, I want to say I thought this was a really excellent film. Yes, there are plot holes but for me they were trivial, at least whilst watching the film. Unlike such nonsenses as Flight Plan and Arlington Road where the holes continually detract from the film.

However, there is one very major plot hole (unless I have seriously misunderstood something).

If we are to believe that the paedophile's father was so desperate for revenge on someone who merely provided an alibi for his son's murderer that even eight years later he would have wholly innocent people tortured and murdered just on the off chance that the witness (Margot) was still alive, why the hell is the alleged murderer still alive and openly living locally?

[–] hakopt 15 years ago

perfect...

but, this movie was not "excellent".

[–] prodigaljon 15 years ago

The father knew - or suspected - that Margot killed Phillipe.

[–] lasr 15 years ago

Could be a plot hole but it seemed to me that from the opening scene to the finale the movies story was the lengths parents go to to provide for, love and ultimately protect their children, even if the are guilty of atrocious behaviors or against their own will. The opening scene with Alex holding the baby and the conversation in the background paints this picture as well as Margot's father in the climax.

[–] skay_baltimore 12 years ago

The father knew - or suspected - that Margot killed Phillipe.

THIS!!

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

[–] mog_n4 15 years ago

Cos the dad knew that Margot was the killer. Alex's dad explain that in the ending. Peddo-dad knew that it wasnt the suspect that margot provided alibi for. Remember he thought he killed Margot who he was sure was the killer. So i dont think thats a plot hole at all.

[–] waldenpond88 14 years ago

How about this plot hole: why didn't they let Margot's husband identify her once he woke up from the coma? He would have realized it's not his wife who got killed.

[–] napierslogs 14 years ago

But Margot's father was already there so they'll let the father ID her rather than wait for her husband to awake.

Follow my blog Napierslogs' Movie Expositions at http://napierslogs.blogspot.com

[–] pandd 13 years ago

Philippe father knows the killer is Margot.
And Margot's father tells that story about himself shooting Philippe only when he's sure that police is recording his conversation with Alex, so to self accuse and save her daughter. He's gonna commit suicide.
Also, he was captain of police at the time of the "murder", so he could close the identification procedure without waiting for Alex who could have ruined his plan. It appears Alex did never see pictures of his murdered wife.

By the way, very nice movie!

[–] croce-donna 13 years ago

You never know how long someone is going to be in a coma.

I suspect she had already been autopsied and prepared for cremation by the time he woke.

[–] vonseux 13 years ago

i doubt BECK would cremate his beloved wife without looking at least briefely

[–] agracier-574-436194 10 years ago

It's not the custom in many European countries like France or Belgium to view a corpse prior to burial. Open caskets are also not done.

So if the body was already identified, by her father and a police officer to boot, there would be no need for Beck to view his wife's (presumed) corpse.

[–] Yorke71 12 years ago

How about this plot hole: why didn't they let Margot's husband identify her once he woke up from the coma? He would have realized it's not his wife who got killed.

Because there would be no movie

Seriously though, her father already identified her, so there was no point in also having the husband. They also suspected him of being her killer, so they weren't exactly on friendly terms with him.

[–] MakingUmad 12 years ago

and to elaborate further, his dad knew she was the killer because she had called him with incriminating evidence on his son and given the alibi for the alleged killer.

[–] StakkaDakka 12 years ago

the procedure of identifying a body is something that is only enforced once.. once positive ID is made that box is ticked..

[–] pixtureske 12 years ago

If I got it right, Margot fled to Madrid, so she wasn't living locally. As her father explained, she thought Alex was dead. When she finds out that he lied (through the news of the discovery of the bodies), and with that, that Alex is alive, she comes out of hiding to reunite with him, if possible.

[–] Yorke71 12 years ago

My biggest plot hole is why dental records weren't used to identify her? Considering how badly her body and face were damaged, it would seem a logical step to take just to be sure.

[–] the sphynx 9 years ago

Why would they bother with dental records, if they had positive ID from someone who's not only her father, but also a respected high-level policeman?

[–] daddie0 11 years ago

OK, so I really liked this movie, but this explaination has it's own problems. Namely: if she caught news of her "thought-to-be-dead" husbands reaccusation for her "murder", don't you think she would have seen the same coverage at the time of her murder? In other words, how could she not know (or not be able to find out through media) that her husband wasn't dead?

This lead me to believe that perhaps her dad told her he was dead when she returned for him (meaning she knew when she was "kidnapped" that he would be lied to). But if this is the case, then the reunion at the end really falls apart. (To be honest, the reunion at the end was the most difficult part for me because it was so complex, yet the characters acted as if their love wiped out all the craziness.)

[–] blacknyellowsquid 10 years ago

Yeah that stood out to me...how did she not know he was alive?

[–] the sphynx 9 years ago

Gilbert Neuville didn't order Margot's murder because of the alibi, but because he knew she had killed his son, and had damaging evidence about both Philippe's pedophilia and the son's attack on herself, including the photographs.

If Neuville believed the low-level crook had killed his son, he would have gotten that guy dead sometime in those eight years, and not bothered getting the redheaded photographer tortured and killed for info on Margot's whereabouts.

What I want to know is: 1) why would Margot not have included a note in the safe-deposit box saying where the bruises were from, and 2) who kept paying for the box rental for eight years, and 3) who so clumsily and obviously planted the gun in Alex's apartment?

[–] nightwishouge 9 years ago

1) I don't remember the point of the photographs or why Margot wanted them taken or saved. Did they (Margot and her father) plan on trying to prosecute Neuville or enter a self-defense claim for the son's death?
2) Don't remember. Either Margot or her father. Again, not sure why.
3) Neuville's men planted the gun in Alex's apartment. He wanted to frame Alex in the hopes that news of his being arrested and tried for murder would draw Margot out, so she could be killed.