MovieChat Forums > Ne le dis à personne (2006) Discussion > Holes in Plot

Holes in Plot

posted 15 years ago by business-83
64 replies | jump to latest

The movie had some big holes in the plot although they are not very evident until the end when the viewer is provided the full account from Margot's father before he kills himself. There are also some smaller holes that begin to raise questions as the plot unfolds from the beginning. Although some of the holes exist in combination with others, to list them I described them somewhat individually below.

The Murder of Philippe Neuville

Probably the biggest holes in the plot are related to the murder of Philippe Neuville. According to the plot, Philippe had been molesting children who lived at the home of the children's trust and who sometimes worked at the horse stables. Specifically, two months before Margot's murder at Lake Charmaine, a boy came to Margot distressed and told her he had been molested by Philippe. This prompted Margot in what proved to be poor judgement to invite Philippe to her home in the country where she confronted him, he beat her, and she then shot him with both barrels of a double-barrel shotgun. In the true account provided by Margot's father only to Alex (as opposed to the account recorded on the wire), Margot's father, Jacques Laurentin, arrived after the shooting had taken place. He then disposed of the body such that a kid, Helio Gonzales, at the home of the children's trust would be blamed.

It is also apparent that Philippe's body must have been found the next morning because it was also revealed that the time of death was 11 p.m. Accordingly, the time of death would have been less precise on a body discovered much later in time. Also, Margot's father would have seemingly had a busy night as he would have had to both dump the body and return Philippe's car from Margot's residence to its rightful place without being noticed. Thereafter he would have had to return to Margot's residence for his own car. And, presumably, he did all of this alone.

This scenario raises a number of questions despite the fact that Philippe's father was a wealthy, well-known man of influence and despite that Margot's father was a captain in the police force. It certainly appears questionable that Helio would have been implicated yet convicted with such circumstantial evidence. The police did not have a murder weapon and it was highly unlikely that a kid living at a children's home would have had access to a shotgun. Obviously, there could not have been very much planted evidence as he was later released from suspicion after providing only the alibi of being with Margot.

The Implication of Margot to Philippe's Murder

According to the plot, Alex's sister, Anne, eventually tells her friend and lover, Helene, that she was the one who made the photographs of Margot after Margot had been beaten eight years ago. She further acknowledged that it was Phillipe Neuville who had beaten Margot. So then, going back eight years, because Margot had told Anne that she had been beaten by Philippe and because Philippe was either missing or already found dead by that time, Anne had to suspect that Margot might have somehow been involved in Philippe's murder (because he beat her and now he's dead).

It is also questionable why no one else might have been suspicious of Margot being involved in the murder. Did everyone including the police investigators consider it merely a minor coincidence that Margot was all bruised and without proof for her physically bruised condition at the time of the murder, when she worked with the victim in her job? Accordingly, did the police not even routinely question Margot after Philippe's murder? Then, on top of this coincidence, she later happens to be the alibi for Helio, the number-one suspect. Apparently, the coincidence was more obvious to Gilbert Neuville, who then hired the two thugs to due her in.

Gilbert Neuville's Revenge

According to the plot, Gilbert Neuville decided to take revenge against Margot and despite her warning that she had evidence against his son, he hired two thugs to find the evidence and kill her. According to the plan, Gilbert Neuville and his two hired thugs had to be confident that they would obtain all of the evidence. Presumably, there could have been more evidence than just the photos and the shotgun. It would also have been possible that she had photos and documents in more than one place including a possible statement filed with an attorney. It is also possible that she may not have had the key in her purse, which she stupidly left unguarded in the car. This all appears too coincidental.

The Two Missing Thugs

In agreement with the plot it is predictable that Gilbert Neuville would have become suspicious of the fact that his two hired killers simply disappeared. In the plot the hired killers proceed with a plan to kill Margot and set it up to look like it was done by a wanted serial killer. The killing is staged as planned, but Neuville's two hired killers then just disappear. Although it may have been part of the plan for the killers to not raise suspicions after killing Margot, the killers were known by Margot's father (in his account to Alex he had referred to them by name), and if they were known by others, their disappearance would have unlikely raised unwanted suspicions. They had also not completed the job that they were hired to do, which was to retrieve the evidence against Neuville's son.

With respect to Margot's father's plan, it may have perhaps been better had they been beaten, disfigured, and left at the scene by Margot's father thereby making it look like the two killers had mistakenly walked into the serial-killer's killing scene and became added victims of the actual serial killer, Serton. As remote as this coincidence might have appeared to Neuville, it would not have been as obvious as Neuville's hired killers just simply disappearing. However, such a revised plot would have preempted the essential element in the plot for the bodies of the two hired killers to become unearthed eight years later.

The Corpse of the Heroin Addict

In the plot Margot's father uses the body of a woman heroin addict that had been knifed to substitute for Margot's body in faking her death. Although it may be believable that there may be a constant supply of unidentified bodies in the morgues around a city the size of Paris, it is difficult to believe that it would be possible either to sneak a fresh warm body out of a morgue or to obtain one before it was admitted to the morgue without advanced planning. Even if a body were coincidentally obtained, there remains only a small probability that it would be close to the correct height, weight, hair color, etc.

Also, despite Margot's father mutilating the face, an autopsy would undoubtedly distinguish wounds obtained while living or in dying and those administered post mortem. Also, in the account provided by Margot's father, he stated that he had also considered exhuming a body if needed. Such a statement provides even less credibility to his plan to alter the plan by Neuville and his hired killers. It simply doesn't make sense that Margot's father would proceed with a plan that posed risk of death and injury to both Margot and Alex and that would have depended on him producing a substitute body he had not yet obtained.

The only real merit in Margot's father's plan was that if Margot thought that Alex was dead, she would more likely leave the country. However, if the substitute body was not convincing to the police and coroner, it would have become known to Alex (along with everyone else) that Margot was not dead. There was also risk that wherever Margot went, she might follow up on obtaining news information about Alex and discover that he really hadn't been killed either. In brief, it doesn't make sense that Margot's father would proceed without a better plan. The events at Lake Charmaine were simply unpredictable. It could have been Alex who had gone to check on the dog and then the scenario could have changed completely.

The Safe Deposit Box

According to the plot, Margot rented a safe deposit box using the name Juliette Langlois to safely store the three photos taken by Anne and the shotgun she used to kill Philippe Neuville. I would suspect that someone would have had to make periodic payments on the box. Although it is possible that she could have prepaid for a minimum of eight years or that payments could have been made anonymously by Margot's father on her behalf, this subject is not adequately addressed in the movie.

Although Captain Levkowitch discussed the safe deposit box with Margot's father in the interview that takes place in her father's home, neither of them appear to address this obvious question. Later, Levkowitch raises the question while having a discussion with his partner, but never provides an explanation for why the police didn't have an answer. I would suspect that if the police had the authority to obtain the contents of the box, that they would have had the authority to trace payment records.

The Key to the Safe Deposit Box

According to the account provided by Margot's father, Margot apparently had the key to the safe deposit box in her purse when she and Alex went to Lake Charmaine. In his account to Alex before killing himself, Margot's father mentions that he had failed to check the pockets of the two men, who had already taken the key from Margot's purse, and had therefore inadvertently buried the key with their bodies. He called this his only mistake. The account as told suggests that Margot's father knew of the safe deposit box and of the key in her purse at the time of the planned murder at the lake. The only other possible option is that Margot later informed her father that the key had been in her purse and was then missing.

Accordingly, this scenario raises several questions. For one, why would Margot be so careless as to carry the key around in her purse? Furthermore, assuming that Margot's father also knew, why would he, while being aware of the pending plan by Neuville to have Margot killed, also be so careless as to permit her to do this? Obviously, there would have been risk for Neuville in having Margot killed without first obtaining the key (assuming having known that the key was sufficient to retrieve the evidence against his son Philippe).

Accordingly by this logic, allowing the key to be obtained by the killers would have greatly increase the risk under any scenario or outcome that Margot would be killed. And, directly related to this, it was certainly possible that the one killer (who was betraying Neuville and working with Margot's father) could have done a second turn around and ultimately betrayed Margot's father. Although Magot's father may have learned of the plot through phone taps, it is unlikely that the killer would continue to use the phone to report back to Gilbert Neuville in a double betrayal. In this case it would have been the key (and the related evidence) that would have been the only source of protection for both Margot and her father. It would therefore be unlikely that Margot's father would be careless about Margot retaining it in her purse.

The Shotgun

According to the plot, the shotgun had belonged to Alex's father and had been acquired by Alex apparently when his father died (though it was later revealed that he had actually been murdered). The shotgun was present at the country home where Margot lived when Alex was serving his residency in Bordeaux and was used by Margot to kill Philippe Neuville the night he beat her. Sometime in the two months after killing Philippe, Margot then placed the shotgun in the deposit box with the three photos taken by Anne. When the police retrieved the shotgun from the safe deposit box, they performed ballistic tests on it and determined that it had been the weapon used to kill Philippe Neuville.

This scenario also raises several questions. First, why would Margot store the shotgun? One possible reason would be to prevent it from being found by the police or by Gilbert Neuville. Possibly, because it had belonged to Alex's father, she didn't want to actually destroy or discard it without his knowledge or permission. According to the plot, the police were apparently aware (possibly through registration records) that Alex owned his father's shotgun.

Second, the practice of matching bullets removed from victims to the weapons that fired them is generally based the transfer of grooves or markings created by the rifling in the barrel of the weapon on to the projectile. However, shotguns do not contain rifling and would thereby not be applicable to this common ballistic test. Use of some remaining method for matching the discharge of a shotgun to the weapon is certainly questionable and is not addressed.

Interestingly, when Captain Levkowitch questions Alex in the elevator when they are leaving Helene's apartment, Levkowitch asks several questions of Alex regarding the shotgun, but refers to the shotgun as a hunting rifle. Possibly, there was confusion in the French-to-English translation, but the weapon depicted in the scenes portraying Philippe's murder was clearly a double-barrel shotgun.

Planting of the Handgun Used to Kill Charlotte

According to the plot, the police searched Alex's apartment because he was identified as the last known person to see Charlotte, the woman photographer, alive. When the police arrived at his apartment, they had to sedate the dog, Nina, because she attacked the first policeman through the door. If Charlotte was killed around 10:30 the previous evening, that meant that either the thugs must have planted the handgun before Alex and Nina returned from the Internet cafe the same night or they somehow got past Nina the following morning. Because Alex later used his presence at the Internet cafe as an alibi for the murder, that meant that the murder took place while he was there. Assuming that Alex then went directly home (otherwise he would have had a second alibi), the thugs would have had to travel from the scene of the murder to Alex's apartment and plant the handgun all before Alex returned. Although this may have been possible, it was not something that could have been planned or presumed with certainty. In the respect that it was not presumably obvious to the viewer, it should have been briefly depicted in the plot, rather than become a mystery and a possible hole in the plot.

Alex Unexplainably Being Found on the Dock

According to the plot, the issue of Alex being found unconscious on the dock at Lake Charmaine was treated by the police as an unexplained mystery that cast doubt on Alex's credibility and the police having the complete story of Margot's murder. Because there were no witnesses to the events at Lake Charmaine other than Alex, it was simply Alex's account that he was struck unconscious and fell back into the water when attempting to climb the ladder on the dock. Thereafter he spent three days in the hospital recovering from a concussion.

In actuality, Alex's concussion alone would have been a perfectly normal explanation for Alex's recollection of events not being totally consistent with his being found on the dock. Also, if Alex had actually killed his wife and was inventing a cover-up story, why would he have told a story that created a mystery, when he simply could have stated that he was struck on the head after he climbed out of the water? The use of such an illogical argument as a device to create suspicion by the police begins to diminish the believability of the plot from the time when it was presented.

The Email Messages from Margot

According to the plot, Alex eventually figures out while at the Internet boutique that the username "Concert" and password "Olympia" were not literal, but were merely clues for username "U2" and password "1995." However, in both cases when he enters the respective password, the actual characters are displayed on the screen rather than the standard masking of the password by asterisks that is consistent with normal Yahoo web-mail sign in. According, Alex and the movie viewers should have seen the passwords displayed as "******" or "****" instead of "olympia" or "1995" respectively. And, although displaying the entered password was probably intentionally done to aid the movie viewer in understanding that Alex had just then resolved the coded communication for the required username and password, the clue was done at the expensive of creating another real-life anomaly.

And, by the way, in case you didn't otherwise notice, the man that arrived at the Internet boutique about the same time as Alex and then sat to his right was the same thug he would later come face to face with immediately prior to being pulled into the van the following day. And, although no explanation was provided for how the thugs had determined the details of the meeting place the following day at 5 p.m., it could probably be assumed that the man sitting next to him either peaked over his shoulder or looked at Alex's computer screen when Alex was looking away to check on his dog, Nina. This point could have been made a little more obvious since there was no reason in the plot not to.

Taking Alex Hostage

In the plot, the lead thug, who worked for Gilbert Neuville, ordered the other four thugs to take Alex hostage when Alex was leaving the park. This appears to have been far too foolish a move for both the thug leader and for Neuville to make. It simply does not make appropriate sense. First, it appeared fairly obvious that Alex did not have a successful meeting with Margot. It also did not appear that Alex was aware that the meeting area was being staked out. Quite obviously, the best move for Neuville's thugs under these circumstances would have been to tail Alex and try again next time. In contrast, once they took Alex captive, especially without disguises, the four of them would then be identifiable by Alex. If they released him, he would then be even more careful. And, by taking him captive, they limited themselves to forcing him to either tell them what he probably didn't know or to help intercept messages from Margot and then having to kill him later. Alex undoubtedly would have recognized this fate and would have undoubtedly fought to his death to not identify his wife and expose her to being killed.

[–] miktal-1 15 years ago

Phew! Finally got thru it and I agree. This film to me was completely motiveless. No one could rationally justify their actions in their given situations.
All of the key info that bound the story together was weak or unbelievable. It is also a major cop-out to have one character sit down at the end of the movie, and give you the blow by blow for 15 minutes, revealing details that you couldnt possibly have guessed.

For me the biggest hole was the Autopsy of the fake Margot.

Why was there no trace of the lake on Margots body?
Why did they ignore that fact that "Margot" was an habitual drug user?
Why was Margots father (A police cheif), allowed to take the autopsy report?
Why did no one realise that the photos were missing?
Why was no one suspicious when the serial killer claimed responsiblity for all of his victims, except Margots???

To be honest, the list of faults with this film just goes on. Totally over rated for me.

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] PatrickCurren 15 years ago

>>It is also a major cop-out to have one character sit down at the end of the movie, and give you the blow by blow for 15 minutes, revealing details that you couldnt possibly have guessed. <<

I agree completely. I was expecting a lot of plot twists, but they came not so much in the unfolding of the movie as in the "blow by blow". The twists were described, not woven into the plot. I'm going to give this film another viewing, but the first time through was a major letdown for me.

[–] waldenpond88 13 years ago

Biggest plot hole for me: why didn't they wait until her husband woke up from the coma and had him identify her?

[–] keithmoonhangover 10 years ago

Biggest plot hole for me: why didn't they wait until her husband woke up from the coma and had him identify her?

That is not a plot hole.

1. They had no idea how long the coma would last.
2. Bodies need to identified ASAP.
3. Her own father is more than capable of identifying his own daughter.

"If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fook."

[–] petitchatnoir 15 years ago

Haven't had a chance to read all this yet - it looks interesting. You might consider taking it down and reposting with the word SPOILERS in the title.

[–] Draper185 15 years ago

I just saw this movie and have one more flaw to add to the list. Margot's father tells her Alex is dead and then wisks her off to Madrid to hide out. We're to believe that not once in 8 years she ever did an Internet search on her husband ? 5 minutes in an Internet cafe would have let her know her husband was still alive. Wouldn't you want to go online to read about how your husband died, or to read the obit ? Lame lame lame.

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

No actually it wasn't lame. Because if she believed her husband had been violently murdered, the man she had been in love with since childhood why would she want to dredge up that pain for herself. It's called trauma. Are you telling me that if your spouse had been violently murdered you would google news articles on their death? I guess maybe if you were a masochist.

[–] miktal-1 15 years ago

the man she had been in love with since childhood why would she want to dredge up that pain for herself. It's called trauma.

Wrong, its not trauma, its called closure. You would naturally want to know what happened to your loved one in their final hours. Despite the fact that Alex is (apparently) dead, she cant just switch off her feelings and go about life as if he never existed.

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

Are you really saying that if your loved one was violently murdered you would sit in front of a computer googling news articles about them and their obituary?
I don't see how you would get closure from that, I don't think either character in the movie did.

[–] miktal-1 15 years ago

I`m saying that you cannot spend your whole life with someone, then wake up and find that they`re dead, and not want to know EXACTLY what happened. As unpleasant as it may be, you need to know so you can properly grieve and move on.

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

Well I don't think everyone grieves that way. I don't know I would want to know the horrific details of a loved one's death, if I was unfortunate enough to lose someone like that I wouldn't read anything about their death. Look at Alex in the movie he had never read the autopsy report or even asked about the exact way in which she died.

[–] miktal-1 15 years ago

As I`ve already said, there are a lot of inaccurancies in this movie, so the fact that Alex also did nothing isnt a reason to deny basic human nature.

Under the circumstances in this film, I dont see how she wouldnt at least read a newspaper or Internet report on the incident. Alex was murdered, yet she doesnt even care that the murderer is found or that the police are even looking for him. Nor does she care where he he`s laid to rest or any details of his funeral. This isnt normal behaviour for someone in love

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

A few things, as I said I don't think a person would necessarilly look at a news article or especially an autopsy report of someone they loved who was violently murdered, it would dredge up all that pain. I don't think that's denying basic human nature. Someone I once knew had a family member who was killed by a drunk driver they didn't look at the autopsy report or read any of the news articles on the incident or read the obituary because they were in such a state of grief and pain that they didn't want to know the horribly painful way in which their loved one was murdered. It isn't an analogous situation but it isn't outside the scope of human behavior that a person wouldn't want to look at news articles about how a loved one died.

[–] miktal-1 15 years ago

That example is not the same as these events and therefore irrelevant. We`ll have to agree to disagree.

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

Okay fine once I meet someone who lost his wife due to a faked murder and then she suddenly reappeared I'll tell you how he reacted.

[–] amit566 14 years ago

lol (in a sincere way)
You put miktal in his place!
No but i agree that the whole grieving process is handled in different ways, so you cant say how one person would handle a situation, thats what makes us unique.
I guess you can say alex trusted margot's father that it was her who was dead (and didnt want details of how a serial killer had his way with his wife) and vice versa with margot about alex.

[–] miktal-1 14 years ago

You put miktal in his place!

How so?
It was clear from his last post that he and I were not going to agree so there was little point in going back and forth.

"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

[–] mous_169 13 years ago

Yea, I agree. After watching this movie (only once....and it was complicated), that's the only detail that seemed to be weird to me. Many people, if not all, would go and do some type of search to get some closure on the matter. The fact that she didn't conduct any type of rudimentary research to just make sure that it was true was a plot hole to me.

However, most of what the OP has brought up is rather self-explanatory and not a plot hole, IMO. The only one that I read and thought had some credibility was the fact that the 2 thugs never returned to the boss....Other than that, the others have explanations (I must admit, I read like the first 5 of them and realised that you were flat out wrong so I didn't read that booklet you wrote....mr. OP).

[–] jon-1486 8 years ago

But she would have probably made contact with her friends or Alex's sister to see how she was coping with the "death" of her brother.... you wouldn't break off contact with everyone back home for 8 years whilst in a country where you know no one. Perhaps she was worried that Gilbert would get wind she wasn't really dead?

[–] bas1311-1 15 years ago

Very well-done summary of some of the issues with the movie. To me, it seemed a thriller in search of a story that made sense. That being said, I actually really enjoyed the movie despite the problems. I do wish that the writers had taken a little more time to make the movie make sense, but I'm not sure there would have been a movie if they had done so.

[–] don_juan-1 15 years ago

The movie definitely had issues, but probably would have been 3+ hours to fully cover the bases. It's probably better for those with such concerns to pick up the novel.

On the subject of Margot not seeking out details regarding Alex, why not point out how Alex avoided the anniversary site for the 8 years? If you can accept that he would not want to revisit the scene of the murder for 8 years, then you should be able to accept that Margot would not seek out details of her husband online. She was sentimental enough to return there to mark the tree 8 more times as he visited her family 8 times; if only he had gone to the tree and seen the new markings, he may have figured it all out sooner! ;)

[–] MyArseYourFace 15 years ago

I cannot believe someone would spend so much time to write about one film - you really need to get out more and stop analysing every scrap of information.

Do you want this jacket? I don't need it. I'm cloaked in failure!

[–] velli10501 9 years ago

MyArse what is your arse doing on this message board? It's for people to share their movie-mania by posting any number of questions, concerns, comments, both long and short, profuse and succinct, satirical and serious. Why "shame" a poster who is being thorough in presenting an analysis of plot-holes? Agree, disagree, but why tell a poster not to post on a frum that's for posting?

That the OP is able to elaborate and provide substantial support for his/her analytic inquiry is proof of an academic background.

You are obviously jealous and should be. After all, you use an adolescent and trite phrase to state your position: "need to get out more..." while that position contends a poster should not use a forum created for the very purpose he is using it for.

Stop evaluating other people's responses. You are not good at it and you are wasting your and every one else's time.

[–] oarnura 15 years ago

Most of these are not plot holes. All of these can be explained in many different ways given the information in the movie.

The Murder of Philippe Neuville

The don't need a lot of evidence to hold a suspect. Since Margot gave Gonzales an alibi he was let go as a suspect. A suspect is some one suspected of doing something not guilty of it. An alibi that someone was sleeping with a married woman is pretty compelling. Why would a married woman just give some one such an alibi unless she cared for him? It is easy to accept if you don't know she gave him the alibi because she couldn't see him go to jail for a crime she committed. The police don't know that.

The Implication of Margot to Philippe's Murder

Nobody but a hand full of people knew Philippe was a child molester. Why would anyone suspect Margot of killing him just for a beating. She told everyone that she had and accident. Except for the pictures there was no evidence of a beating. Facial scars can easily be explained by an accident. Why would they question her?

Gilbert Neuville's Revenge

Given that they were just tying her up it is easy to see that they wanted to torture her for all the evidence. So the extent to which they would go to get information out of her is not knowable. But your conjecture is even more flawed.

The Two Missing Thugs
May be the thugs were given orders to disappear after the contract? A man like Gilbert likes to cover his tracks since he has planned assassinations it is conceivable that he knows what he is doing.

The Corpse of the Heroin Addict
It is obvious the father has enough pull as captain to change the course of the investigation. Also without knowing the MO of the serial killer it is possible that he scared his victims postmortem. Or it was a copy cat.

The safe deposit box.
The Margot's father had been making payments for 8 years. Eric (the cop) even mentions someone has been making payments for 8 years to Alex. Payments made in cash are untraceable.

The Key to the Safe Deposit Box
You are over analyzing this. Margot had killed someone. She probably thought having the evidence close to her gave her a sense of safety. She wasn't a killer so planning something so carefully was not expected of her character. It is not logical to assume that her father knew she kept the key in her bag.

The shotgun.
You watch too much CSI. They don't have to show fancy forensics to insult the audience. CSI does that enough already.

Planting of the Handgun Used to Kill Charlotte
So Alex doesn't go to work? How difficult is it for trained killers to subdue a dog? It doesn't need to be explained. It is also not obvious how far the two residences are. So timelines can easily be explained either way. So no plot hole.

Alex Unexplainably Being Found on the Dock
He was in a coma for 3 days with non-self inflicted wounds..so it wasn't just a minor concussion. Not really a plot hole. The wounds can easily be determined to be inflicted by another person. They did suspect him and hold him. Alex even mentions this to cop in the beginning " If you hadn't wasted time suspecting me you might have found her".

The Email Messages from Margot
Not a plot hole. You just want an explanation, there can be dozens on how they got the information. The Thug could have called their computer expert and had him get the info from the machine Alex used itself.

[–] PatrickCurren 15 years ago

>>Margot had killed someone. She probably thought having the evidence close to her gave her a sense of safety. She wasn't a killer so planning something so carefully was not expected of her character.<<

If she killed someone, doesn't that make her a killer?

[–] PatrickCurren 15 years ago

>>Also without knowing the MO of the serial killer it is possible that he scared his victims postmortem.<<

I don't know -- corpses don't scare so easily.

[–] kep315 15 years ago

I have my own questions about the plot:

Why exactly did Margot have the pics taken of her in a beat-up condition? First we learn that she was beat up by Phillipe.Then, we later learn that her beating was immediately followed by Margot killing him. I think the official explanation was that she thought she could use the photos as something to hold over Phillipe's father (or did they say, Phillipe, himself?? Because in light of Phillipe death that would make no sense whatsoever. Sorry, I can't remember what exactly was said. Anybody?) I'm not sure, in any case, how photos of her in this condition could prove anything to anyone, when she herself already provided an explanation (albeit a rather flimsy one that could be disproved with a little research), about how she obtained her bruises.

What was with Alex booking a trip to Argentina? Did I miss something, or was the first time we heard about it when the police were at the airport? Was it just a plot device so that the police could almost catch Margot? She, apparently, booked her ticket only six minutes after his -- allowing the police to connect the two. But, as far as I can recall, Alex never mentions that he's fleeing to Buenos Aires.

The age difference: Alex is clearly older than Margot, and yet they grew up together as children.

So what was the outcome (or, actual importance) of the baseball bat with the blood on it?

As far as the thing with the password goes, if the other guy in the computer place was there keeping tabs on Alex (and learning where he was supposed to meet Margo), wouldn't the bad guys realize at that point that Alex had an unbreakable alibi in the murder of Charlotte?

Who was watching Margot (as per her original message)? If they were watching Margo, wouldn't they know where she was and come get her? If the "Tell no one" (i.e., don't tell the police) was because of the police corruption, at the end of the film, why isn't more made of this? When the police are listening to the wiretap, and Margo's father tells Alex how most of the police -- himself included -- are bent, are the cops listening to this now looking at each other and wondering who's in the pocket of Gilbert Nouville? And if not, WHY NOT??? And what makes Alex think that he's not handing over that envelope to one of the crooked cops?

[–] jviala 15 years ago

Margot took the photos so if there ever was an issue over Phillipe's death, she could claim self defense, or at least show what a bad guy Phillipe was for beating her up.

Margot booked the trip to Argentina. We're supposed to believe that when Margot first attempted to contact Alex, it was with the purpose of getting back together (at the Park) and leaving the country together, but she didn't know about the photographer's murder. All she knew about at that time was the finding of the other two bodies at the lake, for which Alex wasn't 'officially' wanted.

Margot knew that Gilbert Neuville had people watching Alex and her dad. That's why she told Alex to "tell no one" and did the cryptic messages in case someone was watching. She clearly didn't realize that Neuville had people hacking into Alex's computer.

The bad guys probably didn't realize that the Internet Cafe clerk would so clearly remember Alex and his dog, or that Alex would think about that either. Also, they may not have expected that the charges would stick, they just wanted him taken into custody to flush out Margot, who they assumed would hear about Alex's arrest.

My only beef/plot hole is that we're supposed to believe that Margot didn't know that Alex was alive until she read a story about the two bodies at the lake being found and Alex was being "questioned" about them, at least according to the FAQ (I don't specifically recall this being addressed in the movie, but maybe I missed it). But her email to Alex came before (or at least at the same time) he was contacted by the police about the bodies. Even if we are to assume that the press got the information about the bodies and questioning Alex before the police called Alex, wouldn't Alex have read the same story and already know what was coming? It appeared that he didn't have any knowledge about the two bodies when the police contacted him.

[–] jujide 15 years ago

C'mon guys. This is a fairly complex movie with loose ends open to various interpretation. I would tend to error on the side of finding plausible explanations for inconsistencies in the plot simply because you will otherwise drive yourself crazy picking this apart.

This is a movie that insists that you go along for the ride for entertainment value and accept that there are plausible explanations that allow all of the loose ends to work their way out. Otherwise, this could easily have been a 3 hour movie if you expected everything to be laid out for you.

[–] amit566 14 years ago

I agree...
It was a good movie. It was shot very well, with some great visuals. I liked the mix of english music with the french backdrop. There were great action scenes, good actors and characters. Just the right amount of time, otherwise it wouldve been 3 1/2 hrs.
The story was unwound mostly from alex's point of view give or take a few scenes(which is important to why everything was unearthed in the last 15 minutes).
maybe they couldve had a introduction to some of the characters before the half way mark (the neuvilles and alex's dad and his death) - wouldve made the end a bit easier to swallow.
has anyone read the book? how is the story set out there? the same way or totally different (i know its done by an american authour)?

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

I agree. But people are different. Some people watch a movie pretty much solely from an analytic standpoint. For them, every plot-point has to make perfect sense and fit seamlessly with other plot points. Other people watch a movie from an emotional or aesthetic perspective. For them, it has to feel right, be well-acted and well-filmed and have the right flow. Some people (me, for instance) are a mix of both. So it's really kind of apples and oranges when it comes to movie appreciation.

[–] Arum 14 years ago

Newspaper article on the two bodies is shown, before Alex is told about it by the police. It's somewhere at the beginning of the movie.

[–] stevemcfadden 14 years ago

yes, there are some MINOR plot holes in the film, but I think everything was told so expertly and made perfect sense by the end that I was willing to overlook movie things like 'why didn't she know he was alive?' which can be explained by 'maybe she knew and was protecting them both by not seeking him, which was the point of her disappearing to begin with' and 'why did they show the password instead of stars' which is the dumbest part of an otherwise interesting and well written post.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cmsacco-1 14 years ago

I agree with you, rock hard. Lazy is the best word. Straight up lazy. Instead of letting the events unfold to explain earlier events, we get 15 minutes of exposition in which the director tries to shoehorn every plot twist from every thriller from the past 40 years into one film ... none of which, of course, are remotely plausible.

[–] mous_169 13 years ago

Thankfully someone else posted a rebuttel to the OP....I really didn't want to waste my time doing so, but you did it so well and concisely....bravo! He's just picking at straws and tried to make himself look smart. He looked really bad to me when I was reading that freaking novel he wrote!

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Most of these are not plot holes. All of these can be explained in many different ways given the information in the movie.

Totally agree. Someone should take the OP aside at some stage and explain what a plot hole actually is.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in writing a rebuttal of his book length post.

Suffice to say because he might find something odd in a film, or something he doesn't agree with, it doesn't automatically mean that this is a plot hole.

[–] tone_device 14 years ago

Some of the greatest films ever made have plot holes in them...

[–] egoaltered 14 years ago

Wow, quite detailed explanation of the holes in the movie. Good detective work. I have to say that for me, although I had a general sense of holes in the movie-- the one that immediately came to mind was how would the thugs know Margot had the safety box key on her or that there was even a safety box at all-- the biggest implausibility is the premise itself: the idea that two thugs and her father follow Margot and her husband to the wooded area. The setting is a quiet, intimate wooded area where this married couple skinny dip at night and then lie naked together on the dock. The wife gets angry after an argument and swims to the shore. The feeling evoked is that of safety and intimacy in the sanctuary of nature. We're supposed to find it believable that two thugs and her father are waiting on the shore the whole time? It's too big of a jump emotionally-- it just doesn't ring true with the movie up until that point.
Also, the fact that Margot kept the incident to herself and didn't tell her husband, also too much of a stretch. They're arguing about Alex's relationship with his sister, and it angers her enough to jump off and swim to the shore? I guess this anger could have something to do with her feeling protective towards his sister since she helped her, but that is also quite a stretch. Doesn't she have bigger problems on her mind, like keeping this secret from her husband? Shouldn't she feel guilty? Or afraid? She exhibits none of that.
I mean, for example, wouldn't she be just a little bit apprehensive about being vulnerable and naked in the middle of the woods if she were afraid for her life?
And also, Margot comes back after 8 years in Spain-- what has she been doing there this whole time? That's not addressed at all, at least not to my memory.
And one more thing: did her mother know that she was alive or not? That wasn't explained either. Wouldn't it have been too cruel for Margot's father to allow his wife to think her daughter is dead?
So my problem with the movie is that the overall big picture doesn't ring true in addition to the specific plot holes. You can suspend belief in a thriller but when you present characters and situations in a psychologically realistic way, you can't then suddenly leap to situations you'd find in a spy movie-- with the Amazonian, robotic woman who tortures for example. It just doesn't work, and even the French can't get away with it!