MovieChat Forums > Profondo rosso (1976) Discussion > That was obviously a mirror.

That was obviously a mirror.

posted 8 years ago by tommytitan
8 replies | jump to latest

And it would have been even more obvious to him. Doesn't he realise paintings don't have parallaxing? Why couldn't he see the woman standing in front of the painting in his peripheral vision? Didn't he realise that the woman's face didn't match the rest of the painting? Didn't he recognise the woman when he saw her later on in the movie? This is the biggest plot hole ever and ruined the movie for me because I noticed it right at the start so I knew who the killer was for the whole movie.

[–] AnneOnymous 8 years ago

Maybe, but then it's over in 20 minutes and there's no amazing twist and why bother etc.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

You're pretty observant, considering that the mirror/painting was only on-screen for about one second. And Hemmings only glimpsed it in passing, registering that something was wrong, but nothing more since he had more pressing business on his mind. The one thing he 'should' have realized immediately, however, is that Carlo couldn't be the doer for the obvious reason that strikes him much later.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] !!!deleted!!! (63057267) 8 years ago

No way, Tommy. You didn't see the killer in the mirror. The shot was too quick and there was almost no light on the killer's face, unlike in the denouement. No, you're simply lying in an effort to appear smart. It backfired.

[–] bummerinthesummer 8 years ago

I'd have to disagree. I'd watched Bird With The Crystal Plumage the week before and immediately saw the similarities in the set up of witnessing the murder, so I was looking for something.

I did see the woman's face in the mirror but it was slightly too quick to see who it was, so it kept me guessing between the only two adult female characters until the end.

It was very quick but noticeable if you're looking for it.

[–] Dr_RoButtnik 8 years ago

Yes, I think they made the love interest enough of a red herring with some odd bits of behavior just in case someone DID notice it.

"Weirdness was all he cared about. Weirdness and sex and plenty to drink."

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago

No way, Tommy. You didn't see the killer in the mirror. The shot was too quick and there was almost no light on the killer's face, unlike in the denouement. No, you're simply lying in an effort to appear smart. It backfired.

I saw the face in the mirror and I knew nothing about this film, had never seen it before (and have not seen it since). I was watching it and when he went by I was like "wait, what the..." We did not pause it or rewind it or anything like that, but I was certain I saw a real person there. The two people I was watching the movie with didn't notice or see anything.

That being said, who it was I saw or even whether it was a man or woman, I would not have been able to say based on that fleeting glimpse. It did not at all ruin the movie for me and no way on earth would I call it a plot hole--that's just a silly statement for anyone to make.

"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"

[–] carpathianwolff 8 years ago

Remember in 1975, you couldn't "freezeframe" a DVD like you can today. "Freezeframing" the scene you are referring to, then claiming to know who the killer was the whole time... don't pat yourself on the back too much..

You have to consider that 1975 was a different time... when films were good.

[–] Dr_RoButtnik 8 years ago

The OP never claimed to have freeze-framed.

"Weirdness was all he cared about. Weirdness and sex and plenty to drink."