Some answers about the plot holes in this movie (SPOILERS):
1. Unlike a lot of things in this film, this actually makes sense. Drug money in the hand is worth a lot more than pipe-dream insurance money that wouldn't even come through once the suspicious nature of the fire was revealed (which was in about five minutes). In other words, there would be no actual insurance money to anyone--she was not planning to fake her own death to collect insurance money, she was planning to fake her own death to frame Denzel Washington so he wouldn't be able to come after her to get the drug money back once she bolted without him, if he in fact ever figured out that she was still alive and had conspired against him and lied about the cancer. So changing the beneficiary was central to getting away with the drug money.
2. This makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
3. Again, to set up Denzel Washington to make sure he couldn't come after her/them.
4. Yes, as explained above. Denzel had many means at his disposal to come after them. He could do it on his own, without telling people he had been fooled, even--just track them down and take it. Or he could even come clean about what had happened to his superiors, despite the fact that he would be in some trouble for giving her the money. If he was angry enough, he wouldn't care. The couple would certainly get in more trouble for their elaborate fraud/fake suicide/arson/stealing of drug money than he would get in for giving it to her. At worst, he'd get what, kicked off the force and become a PI? Anyone who thinks he'd get jail just for messing with the evidence locker doesn't know much about the police system in this country.
5. Supposedly to convince Denzel the husband was evil, explaining why she'd want to run away with Denzel in the middle of the night. It raises an even bigger question, though: Was the husband ever beating her up, or was it, as one must assume, ALL a show for Denzel? If it was all a show, your question #6 is even more difficult to answer. Her character is so badly done, as is the husband's--were they totally brilliant schemers, or total psychos? She certainly seems like a psycho in the end.
6. See above. He either really was a jerk she was all too eager to kill, or she just wanted one less partner. Or something. Bad, bad, bad character development.
7. Sadly, this question has no answer that can make you feel better about this film. Despite Denzel and the movie's attempt to be more "adult" in tone and characterization than your average Hollywood schlock, it's pretty lame.
reply
share
bing-57
17 years ago
> Drug money in the hand is worth a lot more than pipe-dream insurance money that wouldn't even come through
Fortunately, they picked a pretty dumb insurance company. They went ahead and paid off the million dollars to a beneficiary who actually shot and killed the policy owner (according to official testimony from the beneficiary's wife, Alex). In reality, of course, it was the beneficiary's wife that killed the policy holder. And, this is the second time in a week that the policy holder has been declared dead. Plus, the Chief has just been declared the new beneficiary a couple of weeks before "he" shot her. I would think that this strange situation would trigger about a hundred investigations at the insurance company.
> 3. Again, to set up Denzel Washington to make sure he couldn't come after her/them.
There was no reason at all to do that. The chief gave her the bag of money for her to go off to seek treatment. She would have had plenty of time to disappear with the money before he became suspicious. If she wanted more time, she only needed to send a post card or email once in a while saying that she was doing better.
There was no rational reason to set up an elaborate murder scene with fake insurance papers. They probably could have sold the house for a few hundred thousand dollars, took the chief's money, and been very well off.
> Or he could even come clean about what had happened to his superiors, despite the fact that he would be in some trouble for giving her the money.
"Some" trouble? That would have been the end of his career. He stole evidence in a crime and then just gave it to a woman that he was having an affair with. If she just took the money and started a new identity somewhere outside the US, there is no way that the Chief could have tracked her down on his own.
Plus, by the time he did track her down, she'd have spent or hidden the money.
My question is,
8. Why would Alex tell him to turn the money down? The insurance company investigated the situation, found nothing they objected to, and then paid him off.
Here's what I'd do. I'd cash the check and put it in CDs or something. Then, I'd tell Alex. Look, I won't touch the money while we are married. As soon as you run off again, then I'm taking the money and having a big party.
--
"Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand." - S. Wonder
reply
share