I'm watching it now online and finding it annoying. For heaven's sake - he's on his honeymoon and hasn't got a camera with any pictures of his wife on it? He's a rich man and she's a rich person, but there are no pictures of them from the newspapers; nothing in the society pages about their wedding? When he goes upstairs for the picture, he looks on the bedside table for a photo - presumably framed. Who brings that on a honeymoon? And why would he say that a woman in a clingy dress should be searched for a framed photo?
He says that his wife has no parents and no siblings living - also no grandparents, no aunts and uncles, no cousins? Why not run a background check on the wife and find out if she has any living relatives she could be with? How about checking the DMV for her description on her driving license? What about the blood tests before the wedding - what's her blood type, and does it match the imposter's?
Corbin does NOT say that he has no family or friends. So why doesn't he call up his secretary, business associates, friends or family who met his fiancee/wife and ask them to describe her to the police officer? Was no one present at their wedding two weeks before? He is taking time off work for a honeymoon, but no one he's associated with ever met his fiancee/wife at any time? Come on.
His wife is supposed to be a race-car driver who enters in races to win prizes - and yet there's absolutely nothing in the racing press mentioning her or describing her? No photos of her holding a trophy?
Why didn't he describe his wife to the police when he first said she was missing? It's incredible that the police officer didn't ask to see the picture - it's one of the first things they do when there's a missing person. Why didn't the detective do the obvious thing of dusting some of his wife's things for fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprints of the imposter? The car has the same license plate number - but that is easily done. What about the number on the engine block? - less easy to change. How about dusting the car for fingerprints, to see if Corbin's prints are even in the imposter's car?
Why didn't the husband ask the woman some trick questions about their past? He only asks some things that anyone could look up and find out about his wife. Why not ask about a pet name, or a conversation they had over dinner at some point? Did he ever talk about his childhood or hers? Did they ever talk about how many children they want to have or the names they would give them? Things that are totally private? How about when his wife's last period was? Unless the imposter is her very close sister or friend, she wouldn't know those things. Why didn't he tell the police officer some things that only his wife could know - including some things that an imposter couldn't possibly know - and then ask the policeman to ask the questions? It is easy enough for imposters to go to a hotel and register in the name of Corbin at some hotel. But it would be impossible for an imposter to know something they talked about in extreme privacy.
But for heaven's sake - get fingerprints the woman and run a check on her prints, and dust for the fingerprints of his wife on some things that we know only she touched - like her cosmetics or one of her suitcases.
Why didn't the husband call his secretary and ask her to say whether he ever made an appointment with a Dr Ackerman? The policeman makes a phone call - that's all. Anyone can answer a phone call and say they are Dr Ackerman. Anyone can go to Dr Ackerman and say his name is 'Corbin' and invent a medical record, duping the real Dr Ackerman. A phone call is all the policeman does? And since when does a psychiatrist give confidential information about a patient over the phone, or reveal that a patient is 'crazy'? Why doesn't the policeman find it strange that a psychiatrist would reveal a patient's condition at all?
Why didn't the policeman ask the priest for his identification (all priests carry identification which can be double-checked with the diocesan bishop)? All he did was ask for a name and a description - and the 'priest' is average height with dark hair. Lots of people answer that description. Why not visit the actual parish and ask to see this priest, since he's met him already? Why not call the sacristy of the parish while the priest was in the house, and ask to talk to the priest, to see what they say about where he is?
Why doesn't the detective even suspect anything at all - like kidnapping of Mrs Corbin - when he finds out how rich they both are?
And then, of course, Corbin is dumb enough to tell the imposter that he's found proof that she's an imposter, instead of bluffing and telling her he heard her on the phone, for example, and then telling only the detective about the key to the car.
And nobody wonders why a parish priest has nothing else to do but hang around the Corbin's house - he never gives an explanation for always, always being there whenever the detective shows up.
If Corbin stabbed Sidney, why is there no blood on Corbin - and no blood on the woman who stabbed him. Kinda neat and tidy for a close-up stabbing.
Then an Irish priest goes to the hospital to visit Sidney - who is apparently Jewish. Yeah, that won't raise any eyebrows. Besides, Sidney is supposed to be in surgery, while the priest is going to visit him and finish him off.
Of course, always, always interrogate BOTH people in the same room at the same time, instead of separately. That way if one of them is lying, the other one can adjust his/her answers to appear to be telling the truth. Standard police procedure never to separate two people who are giving contrary stories about events.
This is so hopeless... It makes me want to slap some people in this film. Everyone has to be an idiot in these films or they would be over in five minutes.
I'm only watching this because Jack Klugman is in it.
Of course, we'll probably find out that Levine has been setting everything up to trap the bad guys all along. How else to account for how ridiculous it is?
reply
share
jharmon64
10 years ago
For starters, let's agree this is just a movie and much of this is not plausible.
You do make a couple good points, but much of the rest is a little absurd on your part.
This is 1976 remember.
Not everyone had a camera phone
Not ever rich person is in the society pages/newspaper
Background checks not the same as today
And so on
reply
share
CarolTheDabbler (519)
a year ago
To hey_stella_stella (or anyone else in the same boat) --
I was thinking pretty much the same things you were -- but then the ending tied up everything so that it made perfect sense (or at least close enough). They're playing fair with the audience, too -- some things that look like just random background stuff turn out to have been an intentional part of the plot.
In short, finish watching the movie and then see what you think.
reply
share