MovieChat Forums > A Murder of Crows (1999) Discussion > Gaps, Holes and Leaps of Logic (May be ...

Gaps, Holes and Leaps of Logic (May be spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by jessepenitent
12 replies | jump to latest

There was such a good idea for a plot here. But the holes and the gaps and the gigantic leaps that the script takes require more suspension of disbelief than a Star Wars film.

The disguised Marlowe/Goethe/Murderer waits outside the house, hoping for Russell to come by. The whole thing depends on Russell stealing the story, no?

How could the professor be certain he'd steal the story? For that matter, how on earth could the professor be certain that what he'd written would be a runaway best seller?

And didn't anybody but me want to hear the story Russell told the telephone company to get the phone records? Didn't anyone want to hear the defense his attorney gave to get him free? Didn't anyone else want to hear what came after Elizabeth Pope said "Here's what we're going to do..."???

ANd was anyone else mad that Jean Marie Baptiste is such a good actress and her talent was basically thrown away here?

Was anyone else tired of having to be told what was happening via the narration?

And that final climax, before the sham of no trial....argh!!!!

In spite of it all, I was interested enough to keep watching, but I was ticked that the difficult obstacles were easily swept aside so the plot could just barrel forward. This could have gone somewhere if the writers had faced the obstacles they created instead of ignoring them. No, I can't come up with any way around some of the obstacles, either, but then, I am not the person who set up the plot.

They don't teach anything at University. I had to recognize ducksh*t for brains by myself.

[–] croak-1 15 years ago

Another thing I consider to be a hole is when Thurman confronts Russell in the parking lot (and sets the dust jacket of the book on fire) and out walks the publisher DeVrie (?) and Thurman asks her something like "How are you doing?" and her non-response (but guilty look) when Russell asks her if she knows Thurman. So DID she know him/have a previous relationship with him?

[–] MTulliver 12 years ago

That part just seemed so contrived. I guess they were trying to throw a red herring in there...making us believe that Thurman and Devrie were in cahoots to set this guy up.
She had a previous relationship with him (see: them drunkenly making out in his mansion), but it never explains how or why...or why it's even important to the plot!

[–] NathanStark00 14 years ago

yeah, i like the movie but i too get annoyed when i feel like writers get lazy and just push us past key parts in the story without any real explanation. i mean come on, they could have given us some of what was said/presented at the trial, but instead we go straight from pope visiting him, directly to a "not guilty" verdict with nothing in between, lol, that's just unacceptable. i still enjoy the film though for some strange reason.

[–] crejk 14 years ago

Also there was absolutely no logic in Dubose believing the theory about professor being the murderer, and without any evidence to accompany Russell to professor's house.

[–] WallyB 14 years ago

I'm assuming all theevidence was in the professor's house, along with the first lawyer being tied to him.

[–] jmim-1 13 years ago

Thank God I don't know any people like you. Nothing better to do than sit around analyzing movies for complete accuracy. No doubt destined for a life of sitting around in bars, whining and bitching about everything and everybody. What a bunch of losers.

[–] jessepenitent 13 years ago

Thank God I don't know anyone who takes everythihng so easily and doesn't stop to say "Hey, wait a minute!" BTW, if you're trotting round the board looking for people to call losers, you must have a pretty tiresome life as well...but you are very funny.....

They don't teach anything at University. I had to recognize ducksh*t for brains by myself.

[–] esser_r 12 years ago

I think you are missing the elegance of the plot.
Marlowe/Goethe/Murderer was going to kill Russell
but stopped when he heard him try to resign from his case.

Since an honest lawyer didn't fit into Marlowe/Goethe/Murderer's paradigm, he decided to test Russell with the story.

The irony of the 'rushed' ending was that once Russell made millions on the book, it didn't matter how much evidence was stacked against him,
once he could afford an expensive attorney'

So Marlowe/Goethe/Murderer's paradigm stays intact.Underrated Movie IMHO.

[–] Ikari9 12 years ago

"The disguised Marlowe/Goethe/Murderer waits outside the house, hoping for Russell to come by. The whole thing depends on Russell stealing the story, no?"

Agreed with this one. I wondered about that as well. He assumed the story would be enticing enough that he'd read it in one night and rush over the following evening, but they did not explain this at all.

"How could the professor be certain he'd steal the story? For that matter, how on earth could the professor be certain that what he'd written would be a runaway best seller?"

He didn't. The book was just a test. If he didn't steal it then nothing would have come of it. And the best seller is irrelevant. He sent a copy to the detective regardless of how popular it was.

"Also there was absolutely no logic in Dubose believing the theory about professor being the murderer, and without any evidence to accompany Russell to professor's house."

Sure there was. The detective worked that case. I think it's safe to say(as the film shows us) that the detective investigated the recent cases and clients of the deceased lawyer and recognized the last name while on the break-in scene. It's showed that he didn't believe lawson but decided there may be some truth to it given whose house he broke into, hence why he was asking the professor about his wife and kids before the FBI interrupted. The only complaint I have is Lawson could have just gone straight to the detective when he copied the article about the wife and kid in the first place.

[–] targa9 11 years ago

Ikari9: You said the success of the book was irrelevant, but it had to be published. Most writers consider it "success" to be published. It's not
easy. The odds of Corvus being such a gifted bestselling author is unlikely, and even more unlikely that the book would be published at all. If the book was not published, then how would Corvus know Lawson stole it?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moizmad 9 years ago

If Cuba is a lawyer, he would know they couldn't stick him with murdering those 5 lawyers without putting him at the scene of the crimes. Obviously he wasn't there so they've got no case, and they never mention the time line, maybe Cuba had iron-clad alibis in some cases.