MovieChat Forums > A Perfect Murder (1998) Discussion > Divorce instead of Murder?

Divorce instead of Murder?

posted 3 years ago by howgamer (3654)
4 replies | jump to latest

Wouldn't it have been easier to just divorce her than hire someone to kill her? I mean he had all the evidence that she was the unfaithful one in the relationship and there was no prenup so his share would have been substantial. He gets 30-50 million in the divorce? Granted it's not as fulfilling I guess. I have to say it was hard to root for her, I mean she didn't deserve to die, but they make her out like she's some innocent soul. She was the cheating and backstabbing one in the relationship. Overall, an entertaining one to watch. Can't believe it took me this long to see it.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 3 years ago

Greed. Or probably needed all of the money.

[–] kwestmo (4134) 3 years ago

If people behaved in movies they way people behaved in real life then most movies would be over in 15 minutes or very boring. As you point out this would be a divorce court movie, more suited to an episode of the day time show.

Most classic westerns would end at the about the 15 minutes mark as the good guy and bad guy meet and we all know including them somebody must die. Why not shoot it out then?

Appaloosa is the text book example of this. Bad guy Jeremey Irons tells good guy Ed Harris one of them has to get out of town. Exactly at the 15 minute mark.

[–] howgamer (3654) 3 years ago

This is true. If he did just divorce her then it wouldn't be the perfect murder.

[–] Heisenberg (6365) 3 years ago

50 million is not nearly enough to be content if Gwyneth Paltrow is still alive.

Who wouldn't agree with him?