MovieChat Forums > Absolute Power (1997) Discussion > Holy f@%+ing plotholes, Batman!

Holy f@%+ing plotholes, Batman!

posted 16 years ago by jgroub
18 replies | jump to latest

Wow, this was stupid. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it in the theater 10 years ago, but having just seen it, it's got plotholes you could fly the Space Shuttle through.

1. The question that Ed Harris and the black female detective discuss is well-taken. Why would he enter through the ground floor, defeating all the security systems, and then leave through the window? More to the point, why the hell would Clint Eastwood bring a harness and rope to go through the window? There is no reason for it!

2. Putting that aside, the two secret service guys being around while the Pres is getting his jollies, of course, that's fine. But the Chief of Staff? Are you kidding me? She'd be at home asleep in bed! Or does she like to hang out and watch the Pres doing his Eliot Spitzer impersonation? There would possibly be a "Body Man" (think of Dule Hill's character in West Wing) or the "Guy with the Football" (carrying the nuclear launch codes) who would be closely following the Pres, but not the Chief of Staff.

3. I don't care how much you vacuum, the President's blood stains from his arm ain't gonna come out of that rug.

4. What, did those two guys run up 12 flights of stairs to get back to the bedroom, while Clint had plenty of time to put on that harness, string the rope, and go out the window? That building wasn't that tall!

4. 67-year-old Clint Eastwood, with at least 50 pounds of stolen jewelry, coins, burglary equipment, and most importantly, humongous wads of cash strapped to his back, outrunning 43-year-old Dennis Haysbert? An old white guy outrunning a brother who, according to IMDb.com, "was a defensive end on his high school football team?" WTF?

5. Secret service guys who just happen to have night vision goggles lying around in the truck?

Now let's cut through the BS and get to the most important one:

6. When Clint's having the main discussion with Laura Linney, he says, "Ed Harris will never believe a jewel thief over the Pres." Too bad Laura Linney didn't say, "Yeah, you're right. If only you had proof, something that would hold up in a court of law, like a semen-stained dress." And too bad Clint didn't respond, "Oh, you mean like a letter opener with the dead woman's fingerprints on it and stained with the President's blood? But who, oh who would I ever give that to? Do I even know someone who's in law enforcement who I could trust? Someone, say, who I saw graduate from law school? Someone who I saw win her first case? No, I don't know anyone like that."

I mean, give me a f@cking break!

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] Mississippi20 16 years ago

Silly, weak points. Besides, they aren't even plotholes.

1. Luther had to leave through the window to escape being caught by the secret service agents who were running to the room. Pretty obvious. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that an experienced thief like Luther would carry a harness and a rope for emergency situations.

2. The Chief of Staff does not arrive until the two secret service agents call her about incident.

3. They were cleaning up the scene, I didn't see them trying to vacuum up blood stains.

4. Luther didn't exactly outrun him. He was just fast enough to get to his car before he could be caught.

5. I don't see why that's so strange. It's their job to protect the president, so it seems natural to me that they would have equipment like that.

6. I think Luther makes it pretty obvious that he doesn't think anyone will believe him.

[–] onebadgungan 15 years ago

Wow, such an apologist. You know, Clint has made some fantastic films. This is not one of them. The OP is exactly right. The plot holes were huge.

Here's another one. Why didn't the SS agents turn around when they saw Luther drive up to where they just pushed his daughter over the edge? They looked right at him, and he looked right at them. They knew who he was - they'd tried to kill him a couple of scenes prior. Just stupid.

[–] stillstanding 15 years ago

You've all got good points, here are my thoughts -

1. I agree that Luther is a professional thief & it's not unreasonable that he would have a harness and rope for emergency situations.

2. The OP is right - Gloria was there from the start & was not called to the scene, she ran in the room seconds after the shooting yelling "What the hell was that?!" - plot hole there as the Chief of Staff had no reason to be there.

3. Again, OP's right, it was clearly indicated that they suceeded in removing every trace of blood by the complete lack of DNA and fingerprints mentioned by the female detective the following day - there's no way they could remove it all.

4. Not really a plot hole, they had to run in from outside, up at least a couple of flights plus corridoors and Luther, being a professional, would be extremely quick about making a getaway, its all about how much time he had as opposed to how quick they were, he had enough time to make an escape. Not really anything unusual there.

5. Not a plothole, they're secret service - they probably had a lot more than night vision goggles in their car, all sorts of gadgets I imagine.

6. Maybe he didn't want to get her involved, it was a serious, deadly situation, he probably wanted to wait until he could find a policeman he could trust i.e. Ed Harris.

[–] Mississippi20 15 years ago

I'm not an apologist.......I think this is one of Eastwood's best suspense thrillers.

I think these are pretty silly, pessimistic, nit-picking points.

[–] onebadgungan 15 years ago

And yet, they aren't, because a film needs to keep the viewer engaged in the story, not constantly removed from it by poor editing choices or bad writing.

Also, they are plot holes, whether you want to think so or not. You can enjoy the film, no one is saying you can't, but if you are going to be honest about it, you have to admit these holes exist. I like plenty of films with huge plot holes - I still like them regardless.

[–] mechmaniac 15 years ago

Here's another one. Why didn't the SS agents turn around when they saw Luther drive up to where they just pushed his daughter over the edge? They looked right at him, and he looked right at them. They knew who he was - they'd tried to kill him a couple of scenes prior. Just stupid.

If Tim Collin (secret agent driving) stayed there any longer it would risk witnesses identifying him attempting to kill a second person thus implicating himself and the president, it was wiser to leave before people show up trying to figure out why a car was just pushed off a cliff.

"There may be honor among thieves, but there's none in politicians. "

[–] bravehome 15 years ago

Anyone else think it rather strange that the whole "President stabbed himself" ending is the biggest pot-hole (sic) of all? Who doesn't know (since the Nixon tapes era) the whole White House is mined with snoop devices? And that a stabbing like that is bound to leave blood on the assailant (Walter)? And that such an incident would evoke the most microscopic investigation of any and all evidence ever?

Sigh...just blew another tire (d night of watching)

[–] Bussssss69 15 years ago

When Clint turned off the alarm system the lights came on. Did it reset it self? when the woman came home with the prez didnt she notice (even though she was drunk) that the alarm was off and the lights on?

[–] davekingman 14 years ago

The OP is absolutely right- and he just barely scratches the surface. This movie is so full of plot holes it's rediculous. If it's not obvious to you by the time you get to the president's "suicide" then you must not be paying much attention- or maybe you're stoned, inebriated, or just plain stupid.

[–] RhodyDave 14 years ago

You're points are mostly on the money - especially #6. One other thing I haven't seen mentioned;

When the Chief of Staff realizes that the bloody knife isn't in the handbag, she FREAKS out, like it's the most panic-stricken moment of her life. Why, though? The two SS guys were cleaning out the room, and forgot or dropped the knife. Why would she suddenly start freaking like that, instead of realizing that someone was careless and send him back to retrieve the knife?

It's like she somehow forgot that they were packing up all the evidence, and suddenly, magically, the knife was missing - even though it HAD to still be where they left it - and she starts screaming in panic. Ridiculous.

As for the people who are defending the "brilliance" of this movie, whatever. Some people have lower standards of what they find entertaining. Witness the popularity of many movies, TV shows, and music that more discerning types frown upon. Trying to convince someone that their tastes are poor is an impossibility. It's better to leave them to their own and move on.

[–] SeisCinemaSeis 14 years ago

This movie has more (plot)holes than the Moon's surface. What I wonder the most is how on earth that decrepit old man, who could barely walk, managed to stab to death such a big fellow like Gene Hackman. Or are we supposed to believe that the president stabbed himself to death? Really? C'mon Mr. Eastwood!. That's asking far too much suspension of the disbelief! For some reason that scene wasn't shot.

[–] c-huddleston 14 years ago

What I absolutely love to see is people who don't pay attention to a movie or think about it at all have the nerve to criticise it.

Those who do pay attention, fair enough.

If you don't like the movie, fair enough. If you don't "get" it, fair enough. But don't give us a list of reasons why you should be put on ignore.

If you can't work out why a scene isn't shot, don't blame the director. If you can't figure out why someone would panic about a missing knife when she knew it was in her bag (where Eastwood got it from), don't blame the movie.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

You don't mess with Mr. Sullivan.

[–] jcappy 13 years ago

Point 4 of the lead post is a riot!! You see this three story mansion and then see the agents run up 13 flights of stairs... can Eastwood at least give us some semblance of reality. Of course the stereotype characters (almost all except himself, of course) are almost as blatant as the 13 flights of stairs and subsequent chase through the woods.

A movie enjoyed by pipe-dreamers, no doubt, but hardly by anyone else.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

"A movie enjoyed by pipe-dreamers".

Or those not pedantically obsessed with "plot holes" and strict adherence to realism in every detail. And all those plot holes up until the end are rather inconsequential anyway.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] BringBackIMDbMessageBoards (6) 5 years ago

I fully agree that the movie is quite a mess, it's a shame the execution is so poor since the concept is somewhat interesting, but it's full with weird cuts and probably about 20 minutes missing.

Point one, however strange it may seem actually makes sense and it's hinted by Luther in his first conversation with the cop. It's part of his alibi. Luther's a injured war veteran who fakes a limp when he's out and about, he couldn't possibly do some crazy acrobatic stunts involving the ropes.

Regarding point four, yeah the classical everlasting staircases. But more to the point, why would they run like that, why would the chief of staff start to scream in horror when the knife is missing? We, the audience, are shown that there is some movement with the curtains that the secret service guys might see but it seems really far fetched their first instinct would be that someone was watching them and they have to run like hell to catch this unknown person.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

For 6, all he had to do was mail the letter opener and a typed letter to the Washington Post, from his beach cabin in Barbados. They would take care of the rest. Maybe send a note to the lead detective, since he knew he was a good cop.