tl:dr I only just watched the movie late. Didn’t like the ending, but really appreciated your structured response to the ‘plot holes’ so thought I would offer some thoughts. Still a *beep* ending. Also your post was months ago - no doubt few care now. But I've written it so who cares?
2nd tl:dr I hated the ending. Then I read these threads, saw people complaining about things that were issues and disagreed with some of them. Then I started thinking about them.... and then wrote this bloggish post. I'm obviously defending the movie, but as I say later, I still think the ending is *beep*
1b. Nick doesn't golf; has never golfed; and doesn't know
anything about the sport. Why are there golf clubs in the
shed?
I think it would have played that he wanted to take up a new hobby once his wife was gone. Men do find new hobbies in mid life crises. It’s plausible that he was going to take it up.
1e. And why would Amy gift wrap those puppets for her husband?
What a sinister gift!
Margo picked the sinister element to the gift, it’s plausible other people didn’t and thought it was a ‘wood’ wedding anniversary present. Their house was filled with a few odds and ends that suggested it could have been an innocuous addition. He could have found it that morning, hated it, killed her, and hidden it in the shed (wrapped or unwrapped potentially)
2. Insurance policy: how do you collect when you can't produce a
body? Good luck with that one.
At that point, they may have found the body later, figured he set it up (poorly) to claim insurance. It would have looked suspicious, and in fairness, all the movie treated it was as an extra piece of suspicious behaviour. For example, they didn’t arrest him immediately after, nor think that that in isolation implicated him.
5b. If the cops knew about Desi, why didn't they contact him?
After all, Amy had a restraining order placed on him.
We don’t know they didn’t. Later events suggested he remained infatuated with her. He may or may not have suspected she was up to something, but either way, if he still loved her, then he had no reason not to play down events and let them suspect her husband. He would also have had the confidence that IF they did suspect him that he was covered by an alibi.
6. Nick's office: the panties found will not have any trace of
mistress Andie on them. Who planted them?
At the time they wouldn’t have had time to investigate it. No doubt that may have arisen in Nick’s trial as a defence. It’s plausible that, in time police had, they had yet to investigate it. Speculating two things are possible - she found a way to get Andie’s DNA on them - perhaps somewhere she knew they’d had sex, or his clothes post sex with Andie in the washing, or she overlooked it in her arrogance. A hole in Amy’s story, but not necessarily a plot hole.
101. The shed with the Man-Toys makes absolutely *no sense* at this
point. Huge red flag.
I felt she addressed it (unconvincingly) in the interview when she and Nick maintained the story he was unhappy and being a prick. I gathered (perhaps incorrectly) that from the credit card bills that those purchases happened in a short period of time - i.e not a year long stockpile of goodies. They could have both claimed (assuming he was complicit) that he was planning to outfit a man cave, but had yet to move them to the property.
102. The "kidnapping" event
Not to diminish the sub-questions you raised but I think one *possible* explanation to all of them is her arrogance. Part of her story is that she is manipulative and highly educated. Obviously, the events with Desi were not planned initially. I think she was thinking on the fly that she could get away with it because she had such supreme belief in her ability to manipulate facts. She was arrogant.
Agreed, the ‘kidnapping event’ is not foolproof, but I think that was an element of her character.
One extra point - I think they pointedly reused the details of her other false rape accusation (sorry, forget the character’s name). To me, the inference was that she succeeded with the same false rape accusation before, so in her arrogance she repeated the same method - false bruises on her wrists, self harm to her vagina, attempts to spur her partner into rough sex etc. That to me was consistent with the idea she was arrogant and thought she could get away with it as she made plans on the fly.
But, yes, the FBI’s later investigations would find this to be false… later on that one.
103e. Amy used red wine to appear as blood when she acted raped
by the window. Analysis would have shown that.
I’m not sure this would be critical - the point she was going for was visible evidence of distress. I assume that her goal was to show the camera’s some distress, which she did. When she claimed rape later on the self harm to her genitalia and his semen would be sufficient to claim rape. Any red wine residue would have gone by that point anyway.
103f. As Nick asks, "If she was a prisoner, how did she get the
knife?”
Fair question. I *assume* that the security cameras focused on the approach to the house, but there were none inside the house. That’s why she feigned injury earlier with the red wine up against the window - she knew the cameras wouldn’t pick up her staging of the act, and knew they would catch her from the window. This is consistent with the fact she was left alone the day before and, deciding she wanted to make Desi the perpetrator not Nick, worked our where the cameras were.
So, how did she have a knife? Horrid people have captured young women before and they have escaped. I *assume* her story, if questioned, would be that he had raped her a number of times, but he was absent minded at one point and she hid a knife. She used the knife to cut her ties and then killed him. Obviously this only works if there were no cameras in the bedroom, which, I think it’s plausible there weren’t.
103g. If Desi put Amy in the trunk of his car, where's all the
blood from the initial attack?
From the initial hypothesis that Nick killed her, the scenario the police ran on was that she bled, he moved the body without further blood smears, and she was gone (and he disposed of the body in a yet-to-be-discovered spot). All that has happened is that the perpetrator has changed and that she was unconscious but not dead. Presumably, the FBI would have investigated her car - agreed, possible plot hole there; discuss later on the FBI point.
104. The local detective now has strong suspicions regarding the
story Amy tells, but she can't pursue these as "it's out of
my hands?" I don't buy this. Local police forces often
work with federal agents to solve crimes. She likely knows
several FBI agents and has earned their trust on previous
assignments.
Agreed. And Nick does press the issue in their discussion. I think the weakness here is that, given her suspicion of Amy, that the detective doesn’t fear for his safety. I would. Stretching - as I have above - perhaps given that Nick didn’t make a subsequent official complaint, that the detective harboured suspicions but ultimately dropped it because she was overworked, had a personal life, and there were other issues in town. Plausible perhaps because they noted earlier in the film a spate of home invasions and other issues. Also plausible that (unseen) Nick, in fear for his life, or trying to avoid scrutiny while he set up his wife for a confession, went privately to the detective and asked her to drop it. There are plausible explanations, but I agree - the film did itself few favours by not addressing them.
105. A rape test that included measuring hCG would have shown
that Amy had not been pregnant.
I don’t know the science, but that sounds like a fair issue. Perhaps it could have been put down to the earlier tests for pregnancy being a false positive? It’s not like she had an ultrasound. Or the pregnancy had failed during earlier stages (i.e. she was pregnant 6 weeks before her disappearance but by the time of her kidnapping, and the month later when she returned she lost the foetus?).
106. Desi would have been investigated to see if he was involved
in other crimes, kidnapping or otherwise. They would have
been tracking his movements and learned about his casino
visit. Casinos keep excellent video records.
I think this is the fundamental issue. There are semi plausible that I have proposed above, but ultimately the FBI would have investigated more thoroughly surely?
The only *possible* answer (to me a stretch) was that there was a sufficiently open and shut case that they moved on to other business because they are busy. But, I feel given the national interest and the number of *odd* (plausible from the character’s perspectives, but odd to an investigator) issues above, I would think they wouldn’t consider it open and shut. Desi’s parents (as I understand the book - haven’t read it - included) would surely have fought to find out the circumstances of his death, and that would include questions.
The only answer I can suggest, and again the movie did itself few favours, is that they concluded she was kidnapped. That assumes no evidence from the rednecks*** and that their meeting at the casino was staged. The casino point can (poorly) be explained by a degree of terror from Amy that she was scared for her life and did not seek assistance from police while in public. It seems implausible obviously, but there have been strange things with abductions in real life where seemingly obvious opportunities to escape were spurned due to extreme fear and psychological paralysis. A stretch no doubt.
*** the rednecks - one assumes that they may have seen the whole Amy Returns saga on TV and clicked that that was Nancy. Why didn’t they come forward - presumably for a paid interview? Perhaps they were content with the money already stolen and didn’t want to attract attention. If they did go to a tabloid show and claimed they saw Amy (honestly in their case) would they have been paid well? They had no evidence to back it up and presumably other people would have looked to (dishonestly) cash in on similar claims. Maybe they did or didn’t, but it got nowhere - plausible given the media loved the returning wife motif. They could have gone to the FBI… but presumably previous convictions, issues with the law etc convinced them to just be happy with their theft as it was.
One last issue (not raised) was O’Hara - wouldn’t he want to clear his name of the downgraded sexual assault charge? No doubt, but without evidence what could he do? File a civil claim with no evidence and huge legal fees? It’s plausible he let it lie.
****
So, for any that still care on this. I agree the ending sucked. I think the plot holes you raised are valid, but they have some tenuous/plausible explanations individually. Together though I do think they weaken the plot - they did for me, and obviously from this thread many others.
My take, for any that care (why would you? - just one opinion) is that the author sought a twisted ending. She wanted an ending people would talk about, as we currently are, and she got it. I don’t think it was the best ending though.
Earlier I raised Amy’s arrogance as an explanation for certain ‘plot holes’. I think it is consistent with her character that she was arrogant - she had successfully manipulated others before, she was highly intelligent, a fantastic actor (five years of marriage…), an imaginative person capable of creating convincing alternate realities (i.e an author). It explains why she came up with the plan to change the perpetrator and kill Desi. Arrogance is great in art because it sets up for hubris, which everyone loves.
I think the best ending (although less edgy and more disney) would have been that Nick caught her in a confession. A hidden bug in the shower that he planted anticipating she would want one and that she would ask him to remove his clothes. I think that would have been a good ending.
The ending they gave - that Nick is ultimately trapped because he always wanted kids and doesn’t want to abandon his unborn child - has a big plot hole to me: Amy’s motivation was that she hated what Nick had done - hated it enough to kill herself in spite* - yet she somehow comes to terms with living with him in an even more unpleasant (yet somewhat more honest) situation where he hates her and knows she is a murderer? It seems odd - why would she want this if she has already decided against the simpler idea of just divorcing him? Given that, if I was Nick, I would assume she still wants to kill me and is just biding time to hatch a new plan. I mean… she was willing to kill him for the affair right?
Now yes, I think he did successfully manipulate her to changing her plans - which I did think was a nice twist in the movie - with his interview saying how much he loved her, but that doesn’t change the fact that he must believe she wants him dead.
*on the killing for spite - personal experience in the area of mental health (not mine fortunately) has been that the only motivation for suicide is self loathing. You need to utterly hate yourself more than other people to kill yourself. Spite requires a reward - it’s about other people’s pain. Killing yourself in spite is utterly unrealistic. It also seems inconsistent with her arrogance - i.e her desire to have Nick killed
Sorry - extra one point reflecting on my long and uninteresting spiel above: she's a murderer and wanted Nick dead. She's displayed the ability to manipulate facts to implicate him already. Why the *beep* would he go along with it? A child? If he loved the child he wouldn't want it raised by a murderer?! His only motivation (to me) would be do play dumb and set her up... yet the ending doesn't imply that, which ultimately made me thing what the fck this movie is a joke
reply
share
mroberts-60953
8 years ago
Replying to my own criticism of the ending - maybe as the obvious sociopath that she is she believes she has got all she wants with an utterly submissive husband. But who would want that - maybe she does - but why would he? Especially with his desire for a child
reply
share
justanicknamed
8 years ago
I don't think that he does want that. More importantly, he doesn't want his child to be raised by Amy alone. He knows what she is, so if he's there, pretending to be what she wants, then he has a chance to have his child raised to be a good person.
If he leaves, she might kill the child. Or, she might raise the child to be a sociopath like she is.
reply
share