MovieChat Forums > The Rum Diary (2011) Discussion > HUGE PLOT HOLES

HUGE PLOT HOLES

posted 12 years ago by lreed7950
31 replies | jump to latest

...and terrible screenwriting:

1. Kemp shows up on the dock to leave and Sanderson says "You blew it, Kemp." and sails away without him. How did he blow it? Kemp didn't do anything! Sanderson should be rightfully pissed that his girlfriend likely just got raped (more on that in a second) but Kemp didn't rape her. He even helped Sanderson get out of there alive. This is crucial as the rest of the movie rests on the idea that Kemp somehow fell out of Sanderson's good graces. Incidentally, the entire third act (everything after that) is EXTREMELY RUSHED leading to several major holes.

2. Kemp leaves Chenault in bed when he hears a record playing in the next room. What?! This was almost criminal. Kemp has been trying to get with Chenault the entire movie, in fact she's the only thing he's been after - she has been built up as this tremendous prize and rightfully so as she's extremely hot here. He finally get's her in bed, and decides to stop when he hears his crazy roommate playing an obscure record in the other room? WTF?!?!

3. WE NEVER SEE CHENAULT AGAIN . This is the real problem with that scene and the movie as a whole. He doesn't go back and finish after, and he doesn't even have a second chance to close the deal later on because two scenes later...

4. Kemp get's a note from Chenault saying that she left for NY, and he IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY FORGETS ABOUT HER. Out of context that would be an odd plot hole, but you have to appreciate it in context, as it may be one of the worst cases of lazy screenwriting in modern cinema . In the scene before, Kemp has this big defining moment where he decides to publish Sanderson's atrocity and fight the establishment. The utterly abrupt and all encompassing shift of Kemp's objectives - that's the lazy part. Up until that point, getting Chenault was Kemp's only true objective. He was indifferent to Sorenson's plan. He finds out the paper shut down, then, in the very next scene, Chenault literally DISAPPEARS from the story and we're meant to accept that he's now wholly-consumed with stopping Sanderson. It's like she was written out of a bad sitcom. To add insult to injury, even the dialogue in that scene has problems:

5.

Kemp: "She's gone to New York. She left me $100."
Sala: "You should use it to go with her."

Kemp clearly says gone, not going, and she clearly is gone. How could he go with her? What's more, every guy knows that if you suddenly walk out on a girl you're just about to make it with and come back to find a note saying "I've gone to New York", chances are she doesn't want you to follow. The very worst part about all of this, though, is that Chenault isn't even mentioned again - not until the very, very, (very) end when...

6. The resolution of the main on-screen relationship takes place in a short title card just before the credits. Someone (probably Johnny Depp, as he EPed this movie too) ran out of money, time, patience, or a combination of the above. Even the most amateur of screenwriters wouldn't been dumb enough to end the film this way on purpose, so it's safe to assume that this incredibly tacky "oh, by the way" ending came about because they couldn't afford to shoot it (They would have had to go to New York or a look-a-like location) and were too close to the source material to change it so they could stay in PR. Rest assured, though, that a major studio would have probably anticipated the 27 million dollar loss this movie became and made a different sacrifice.

7. An acid trip effectively inspires Kemp to save the people of the island. At that point in the film, the people of the island have only done two things for Kemp: 1.Tried to kill him and 2. Gang-raped the woman he loves. Yet somehow, a conversation with a lobster leaves him with the impression that they are society's victims. While this is no doubt true in real life, his characters experiences refute this perspective so severely that for him to arrive at that conclusion is ridiculous. If that's where this was headed, you'd have expected the writer would have included at least one sympathetic native character.

8. The confidentiality agreement never comes up. Much is made of this confidentiality agreement and it's significance as the one thing preventing Kemp from telling people what he knows. However, as he prepares to do exactly that, no mention is made of the agreement. It's not actively circumvented, or even disregarded. It never comes up again.

A last bit of irony: All of this taken into account, one might jokingly suppose that, considering the material, the screenwriter (who also directed) "must have been drunk". As it turns out, he actually was. Bruce Levinson, a recovering alcoholic, got writers block while developing the screenplay and turned to the bottle for answers, ending six years of sobriety. He admitted as much in an article in The Independent during publicity for the film.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anthropo 12 years ago

ITA!! The screenwriting and editing are terrible!

[–] Jimbo_BSD 12 years ago

Ever notice that when somebody starts a thread on IMDB to talk about plot holes they are almost never actually plot holes?

I don't think the OP even knows what a plot hole is.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

"...and terrible screenwriting:"

Ever notice how when people reply to a post on IMDB, they almost never actually read the post they're replying to?

[–] TheAdlerian 12 years ago

Ireed,

This movie is based on a real person's life.

So, behavior doesn't always make sense. For instance, a guy might like a girl in his mind, but suddenly when it's sex time, he can't get excited. That doesn't happen in films, but in real life, yes. People do and say all kinds of things that make no sense.

This guy is a drunk and drug addict so who knows what logic he operates off of.

Plot Hole:

A plot hole isn't something that is bizarre it's a problem with the logic of the plot that helps a bad story get resolved illogically.

I've seen movies where a team goes to rob a bank, and one of them designs high tech gear to do so. Meanwhile, if they sold the gear to be produced they could all retire with infinite cash.

That's a plot hole because why rob a bank when you're a genius inventor?

[–] mic7440 12 years ago

Now see I always thought a plot hole was something that was left out or unfinished. Say for instance your bank robbery movie. Lets say the inventor of the high tech gear only wants to rob the bank to get the money to cure his mom of some ailment. So the movie progresses, he falls in love with a bank teller during the robbery, shoot out occurs, everyone on his team gets shot, the bank teller falls in love with high tech dude and helps him escape, and then they're seen on an island somewhere enjoying the money they stole with no mention of what happened to his mother and her ailment.

I also though a plot hole could be an inconsistency or something unexplained. So lets say the bank robber develops a tool that can pick a lock in less than 5 seconds...so when they go to break into the vault we hear that the cops will be there in 15 minutes at the quickest. So the robber applies the machine to the vault and all kinds of other dialog and interaction occurs and the cops show up before the vault is opened with no explanation as to why the cops got there soo fast, or why the machine took 15 minutes instead of 5 seconds.

I thought those situations were plot holes. The situation you mentioned could be a plot hole as well, but it isn't really because it does not involve the plot of the movie...and it takes away from the point. People rob banks because they need large sums of money in a short time period. Developing equipment, testing it, getting a patent, and getting it mass produced will take a large amount of time...see my point?

[–] sdsungod 12 years ago

"This movie is based on a real person's life."

No it is not. The Rum Diary is a work of fiction, written by Hunter S. Thompson about a fictional character named Paul Kemp. Paul Kemp is not a real person, although he was a journalist like Hunter S. Thompson, even when the character in Hunter S. Thompson's books is Hunter S. Thompson himself, the stories are mostly pure fiction. Chenault was definitely never a real person.

"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"

[–] Jimbo_BSD 12 years ago

Yeah, nice try dipsh_t. You're the idiot that started screaming about plot holes and then didn't provide any.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

Oh and the gloves come off!

In this corner, the man who provided a detailed, coherent synopsis of his views...

and in the other corner, the jackass who has nothing to contribute save for proof of his own ignorance.

Honestly, I don't think anyone was surprised by this reaction. Really. You already proved yourself a fool so when you were outed and shamed as one you reacted as nearly all fools do. The irony is with that one single comment you laid to rest any doubt that you were one.

But really, I envy you Jimbo (real name I'm guessing): you've found your true home here. Without the internet, no one would ever pay a lick of attention to any of the irredeemable garbage you summon with a best effort.

And Round 3 Continues Below...

[–] TheAdlerian 12 years ago

Ireed,

Nothing you listed is a plot hole.

Since you have the internet yourself you should use it to look up what one is.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

See below.

[–] Jimbo_BSD 12 years ago

That is an amusing reaction. What's even funnier is you think you have demonstrated some sort of intellectual superiority.

But the fact remains you started a thread called "HUGE PLOT HOLES" and then didn't provide any plot holes.

I'll leave you to be proud of your ignorance.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

{Sigh}

Quoted From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic"

Now...

I CHALLENGE YOU:

3,4 and 6 are screenwriting issues, but please, explain how, in no uncertain terms, 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 can possibly evade that definition. How about just #5?

Seeing as how you've failed to even attempt to do so thus far, we can all rest assured that you're (making a very poor attempt at) trolling.

[–] Jimbo_BSD 12 years ago

You're hilarious. I decided to read your original post again and I was right. Nothing you listed was a plot hole. Not a damn thing.

What I find incredibly funny is how arrogant you are about it. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Everybody in this thread realizes you're an idiot.

You're even more on and island on this than any of the characters in the movie. Have fun being proud of your stupidity.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

Behold: The Troll Unmasked!

Rarely is one made so naked as this - its almost sad really.

Truly the worst kind of troll. Not sardonic, sarcastic, or even funny. Just ignorant and bitter at the world.

Back beneath the bridge it goes.

Or...

Round 4?...

[–] Jyveturkey 12 years ago

You're right,Jimbo-zero holes mentioned.

[–] home0006 12 years ago

The problem this movie ran into was all a result of the changes that were made from the original novel to the movie. Getting rid of Yeamon and combining with Eckart's character was the biggest obstacle it faced because they were just trapped in where they could take the story. As a result the Chenault Yeamon storyline was intertwined with the business dealing that Kemp was hired to do from Sanderson. So as they explored the Chenault/Kemp romance, it was ultimately going to doom the Sanderson side plot. The hotel development project was never really that big of a story plot in the book but they made it more so in the movie to keep the movie going in a focused direction. There was no confidentiality agreement in the book. He never took Sala with him to view the island. Sala wasn't there in St. Thomas. Sanderson never provided Kemp a car, or apartment, he did that on his own. Kemp had his own apartment, and was not interrupted by Moberg when they were in the shower.

The whole cockfighting scenes weren't in the book either.

[–] i_am_switch 12 years ago

Aside from the aforementioned changes to the book in order to make the screen play, here are explanations to your concerns:

1. Kemp shows up on the dock to leave and Sanderson says "You blew it, Kemp."
A. He tells Kemp that he blew it because he blew the trust that Sanderson had in him. He brought Sala along to the island when he shouldn't have. He told Chenault about the party they were going to, and when Sanderson said "No" to the party, he didn't back Sanderson up. I don't that he Should have had to, but from Sanderson's perspective this was just too many betrayls.

2. Kemp leaves Chenault in bed
A. It wasn't an obscure record. It was Hitler at the top volume setting. Have you ever tried to get a girl going with Hitler screaming at the top of his lungs in front of a Nuremburgh crowd? When he turned off the record he found out he was losing his job. These kinds of things can distract a man more than a little bit of strange that will still be there in an hour or so...

3. WE NEVER SEE CHENAULT AGAIN
A. Why would she want to stay there? Positive memories about how she was dumped and left on an island, how no one came and found her, how she was discarded by her fiance? Or how her new boytoy had to leave because he just lost his job? Why would she stick around?

4. Kemp get's a note from Chenault saying that she left for NY, and he IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY FORGETS ABOUT HER.
A. He doesn't forget about her. He goes to NYC and finds her and they get married. That's what he does after he leaves San Juan. He just has a little bit of business to take care of before he departs - a bit of revenge since he was trying to get his writing chops in and the editor wouldn't let him print any "juicy" stories.

5.

Kemp: "She's gone to New York. She left me $100."
Sala: "You should use it to go with her."

A. Her letter could say something along the lines of "by the time you read this, I'll already be gone" or something to that affect. Sala saying that Kempt should use it to go with her is not literally meaning get the seat next to her. He's meaning, you should go to NY too.

6. The resolution of the main on-screen relationship takes place in a short title card just before the credits.
A. The story is about Kemp's time in San Juan. It's not about his time before he's there or after he's left. It only touches on the time that he is actively there. That's why it doesn't show him before or after.

7. An acid trip effectively inspires Kemp to save the people of the island.
A. It inspires him to write. It's supposed to give us a wink that it starts Kemp on the path to developing Gonzo Journalism. While not actually accurate, that's what it's in reference too. He doesn't want to write "trype" anymore, he wants to write about serious topics. He doesn't blame all of the people on the island for their assault on him (which was certainly antagonized) or what happened to Chenault (that didn't even happen on the same island).

8. The confidentiality agreement never comes up.
A. It does come up. Sanderson explains that this is why he was so upset about Sala showing up. Kemp made Sanderson look bad, and Sanderson couldn't trust Kemp, and it all comes back to the confidentiality agreement.

A last bit of irony:
A. It's not ironic. An alcoholic who falls off the wagon in order to write a movie that is consumed with booze isn't at all irony. It's just an odd coincidence. A rather unfortunate one at that.

But not ironic. As far as the writing goes, he did manage to remove a lot of drinking from the book.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

First, a good book and the problems it resolves(or doesn't have in the first place) doesn't excuse a bad movie. The film is a work in it's own right, and it wasn't composed as a film intended for those that had also read the book. If you have to cite source material to defend it, all of the film's issues still stand.

1. It's obvious from the context and the tenor of the pier scene that it was the club event that motivated the dismissal. This can't possibly be construed as a betrayal. He was hired to write, not to be Sanderson's wingman, and acted like a friend is supposed to act in a situation like that - he got Sanderson out of harm's way.

2. Not just any woman here. This is Amber Heard - specifically Amber Heard as Chenault - and he's been after her for the whole movie. You're telling me that (assuming you're a heterosexual man) even if you decided to stop mid-action and investigate, you'd be too "thrown off" by the news to go back and finish up? BS. Almost all straight men, halfway to getting some with a girl you've been dreaming about for weeks, wouldn't care if a bomb went off next door. She might care, and that's why you go though a shoe at the record player (the device and the person) and get back to business.

3. This is a screenwriting issue, not a plot hole. It's not that she leaves, it's that we don't see her again for the rest of the film. She was a main focus for the first two acts, and then suddenly her plot line abruptly ends halfway through its logical resolution.

4. The issue here is the same as #2. This isn't just some girl he was about to score with. This is the girl of his dreams, a girl he's been actively fantasizing about for weeks on end. He get's achingly close [literally] to closing the deal, and then suddenly, upon losing a job he hardly cared about in the first place, he thinks to himself "Eh, maybe I'll get back to her later. Right now I've got to right the wrongs of humanity!"

5. You're assuming something we didn't see. No need to debate it further.

6. Again, screenwriting. I get that justification, and that's surely the one the filmmakers used, but the film would have been more thoroughly enjoyed by more people (and thus wouldn't have been such a financial disaster) if we got to see the conclusion of the romantic arc. C'mon man, that's just basic film stuff.

7. It's not unclear what they're trying to communicate, it's that they go about it in such a ridiculous way. One sympathetic islander could have resolved all of that, but the two incidents he experienced make his revelation absurd. Btw, it wasn't as if his views on imperialistic wrongs pertained only to those committed on island x and not island y and he didn't antagonize the assault, his friend did. You're telling me that if you're out with a buddy, he starts a fight, and you get your ass kicked too, you'd feel sympathy for your assailants later because of their social circumstances?

8. Good point, that makes it even worse: it comes up when Kemp let's on to one person who doesn't care and probably wouldn't tell anyone else, but not when he tries to publish an article telling everyone, specifically those people that would be opposed to what they're trying to do.

9. You're really trying to refute everything huh? Robinson admits in his own words that his main difficulty with the script was bringing a narrative focus to a work that was narratively unfocused as a result of Hunter S. Thompson's decidedly inebriated style. That he would then resort to drinking himself in order to overcome that obstacle is grandly ironic.

[–] i_am_switch 12 years ago

1. The context and etc of the pier scene may have made it look that way to you, and maybe that was the way it was meant to be viewed, but from a character perspective I don't blame Sanderson for this. He makes a decision out of anger and blames Kemp beecause it was a series of succesive failures. Is it right that he gets hung with the Chenault thing? Not really, but it doesn't matter. The film makes Kemp out to be much more of a hero that he actually was in this scene.

2. If you don't understand what was so important about Journalism to HST/Kemp, then you didn't get the character. It was more important to him that he actually accomplish something and make a difference than it was for him to find some strange. Yeah he wanted the girl, but he had other things on his mind.

3. I don't think that the main focus was Chenault. I think it was a writing error that they didn't have much of a main focus. Again, this isn't how Paul met Chen, it's about the Rum Diaries. These are his experiences on the Island. It doesn't deviate from them.

4. He wanted to conclude his business in SJ before he left. The folding of the paper not only hurt hum financially, it hurt his pride that he would get dumped as well.

5. Seeing as how this is based on a book, there is going to be off camera stuff. As you said, no need to delve deeper.

6. I dont think that this has to be a typical film. I'd have to re-read the RD to actually see how they ended and determine the accuracy of the ending.

7. kemp doesn't paint everyone with the same brush. He doesn't besmirch all islanders because of the action of a few.

8. It doesn't come up because Kemp doesn't really give a sh!t about the confidentiality agreement anymore. He just wants to make a final splash in the paper where they all say their peace, publish a solid paper with realy stories, and then it's done. He was trying to show what could have been done with the paper had it not been handicapped by the owner/editor.

9. A former drunk turning to booze in order to write a screenplay about a drunk character isn't ironic. Hiring a drunk who sobers up to write a story about being drunk would be ironic. As far as the book being "unfocused" goes, that's the screenwriter's opinion and not your own, but I would disagree with it too. HST wrote unfocused whenever he did Gonzo, but Prince and Rum Diaries were both written in the classic novel format.

[–] ellandroad_allstars 12 years ago

As I_Am_Switch says, all Kemp really wanted was to find his voice as a writer. This is what he talks about from the beginning. Even when he gets Chenault alone before the carnival he talks to her about Coleridge and he wishes he could write something as great as The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner. He leaves Chenault in bed for several reasons: he cares more about writing and his pride as a writer at that moment, he probably mistakenly takes for granted that she will be there when he's done. Also, his time in San Juan is up and he is going back to America. She knew this and didn't want to sit around waiting for him to be done so they could go back together. She knew he liked the thrill of the chase and she liked attention, so she left some ambiguity. As for them not having sex, maybe the Hitler record 'sobered' him up so to speak, made him realise in some way he was taking advantage of vulnerable young woman who had just been dumped and possibly gang raped. PR was an island of lust and anger for him and perhaps he didn't want to get with her under those circumstances.

Her story didn't just cut out before the end for no reason. She was Kemp's object of lust and he nearly sealed the deal but because of all I've mentioned above didn't and so temporarily he is left in limbo as to what will happen. If she'd not gone back to NY, what would have happened. She'd have waited on the dock for him and they'd sail off in the sunset together? This is not that kind of story.

[–] lreed7950 12 years ago

In response to 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and probably 4, you need to appreciate one thing:

You're on a website about movies on a thread that discusses the film. Anything covered in the book but not the movie does not apply. The film stands on its own two like any film based on a book does unless they're handing out copies of the novel at every screening (and packaging them with every DVD) and insisting that those who haven't read it somehow do so in those few minutes before the film begins.

Another problem is that you keep referring to the book as if it's canon ("what actually happened"). This is absurd. Yes, the book was a semi-autobiographical account, but it was by no means a verbatim log of historical events. Fans of books on which films are based do this a lot, even when both are works of pure fiction. However, unless one is a non-fictional account, neither work can take factual authority over the other.

Lastly:

Quoted from Merriam-Webster:

Irony : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.

Sequence of events: A book is penned by an author with a whose propensity for lose narrative arcs is symptomatic of his intoxication. That book is optioned for a film. A screenwriter is hired to distill a story with a strong narrative arc from that book.

Expected Result: The screenwriter, when he encounters difficulty in defining the narrative line, does absolutely anything but turn to the very substance that led to its being blurred in the first place..

Actual Result: The screenwriter actually takes up drinking on the pretense that it will somehow aid him in clarifying the narrative. The result is as one would expect: the screenplay's line wanders even farther than the novels.

Irony, the very definition.

[–] nvcplus 12 years ago

Coming from the opinion of someone that has not read the book, I got exactly what i_am_switch described out of each and every scene.

I am not saying it is a good movie, but the reasons you have pointed out don't seem all that odd to me. There were other factors that made it bad, though.

[–] mic7440 12 years ago

Also there is one scene when Chenault shows up to the apartment after the fiasco at the club. Kemp tells Sala to "give me a minute" and then the scene gets cut away to Kemp and Sala traveling somewhere...so what happened during that interaction between Chenault and Kemp?

Not to mention that Kemp never asked Chenault if she was ok. I take it he probably didn't want to know what happened. And her apology to him shows that something terrible happened. Yet there could have been more emotion or a sense of concern between him and her. Matter of fact, why were they not going out of their minds when they got thrown out the club? If it were the woman I was in love with I would have went ape-isht and fought like a possessed man to get her outta there. And if I couldn't get her out I would've set the place on fire right after getting tossed out. They didn't even try to help her. the only one who tried was Sanderson...and once he got thrown out he totally gave up. Outta sight outta mind I guess.

We see Sanderson intimidate a judge merely at the mention of someone's name, yet the local club bouncers punched him, threw him outta the club, and raped his fiance' without soo much of a second thought. You're telling me that a corrupt judge along with a corrupt bought police officer in Puerto Rico is intimidated by you but a bouncer and a bunch of locals in a crappy bar will cross you?

What happened after they crashed the car? We see the cop they burned was giving chase, and we see the cop put the sirens on. So Kemp and Sala turn right and crash into a house and the next scene is like the entire incident never even occured.

And the entire sequence between Lotterman and the banker and the businessmen was just sloppy, rushed, and not explained well.

[–] ellandroad_allstars 12 years ago

I guess it showed Sanderson was all talk, as he could intimidate people with names but faced with tough bouncers who were willing to beat him up he just gave up. He was a weasel who's only form of attack was manipulation not confrontation. Whenever he had to confront someone with real emotion he would lose his cool and reveal what he truly was underneath. Chenault was just a trophy or possession to him and once threatened with people he couldn't overcome he easily gave her up and didn't really care for her safety only his ego.

Seeing the policeman again after the trial I suppose just reminded Kemp that these corrupt policemen know who he is and are always around, so if he does anything out of the ordinary they will get him and Sanderson might not help him again. So possibly this was at the back of his mind when he didn't go back for Chenault. Also he was struggling with the fact that Chenault was simply an object of lust to him and perhaps he didn't love her. The fact that she acted so easy at the club maybe suggested to him that she would never commit to him anyway, plus it possibly wasn't clear to him that she was in danger, just that she was going to sleep with a random guy and his pride prevented him going back in.

Some portions of the film were clunky and not handled brilliantly and it seemed they were trying to include parts of the book while missing other key parts and yet still trying to justify having them there. I would argue Kemp's relationship with Chenault suffers the most from this treatment.

[–] nickek-1 12 years ago

allstars, trying to fight with 20 big guys will not yield the preferred results. There was no option for any smart man other than to walk out, and if any dumb bitch put herself in such an obvious situation she had it coming.

[–] lamont-hard 12 years ago

@ Ireed7950 Boy what a great post, of the things you found that just did not add up. If I may add. After she was Raped or had gang sex with guys, it was odd she would be in the mood to have sex again. I don't care who the guy is. And why would he even feel she wanted it. She never really had anything to do in this film. I found her character a bit empty, other than her looks, she was "just" there.

You saw something different than i did when he left her in bed, I felt he either lost his nerves or there was something going on where she became uncomfortable and changed her mind. Or something along those lines. She was a bit weird to me.

I felt there was no real chemistry with them as this is almost always true with A-list male actors, they rarely are involved in on screen romances, and I do mean true a list actors. There money is in action, espionage type roles, so Johnny Depp was out if his element with the female lead, as you can tell, the script was changed so he would not even do a love scene. They may be in a romance, but you will not see Tom Cruse, Johnny Depp, Russel Crow, Denzel Washington, George Clooney, doing a love scene, or stealing some guys wife, or any of these themes that are popular with other male actors. {There core fan base are men, who could care less about romance and cheating spousal stuff}

The problem with this film is it should have left out the love triangle part, and kept the male lead on a journey by himself, witch, with this disastrous plot would have fit the male lead much, much better.

[–] Katiedot 12 years ago

I don't know if these were exactly plotholes. More just a question of a character on screen not behaving the way you would in the same situation. Poor writing? Perhaps.

1. As far as Sanderson was concerned, Kemp HAD blown it. He pushed Sanderson's limits to the maximum by bringing Sala with him to the island thus endangering the confidentiality of the plans and then snapped those limits by 'causing' the scene at the dance bar. Sanderson is not the sort of person to take personal blame for things going wrong so he blames Kemp for inviting everyone to the dance and then for not stopping what happened to Chenault. I also don't think he was obvlivious to the fact he was losing her to Kemp and couldn't take it.

2. This was one of the funniest scenes in the film. FINALLY the hero gets the girl into bed and just as they get it together they're interrupted by the screech of Adolf Hitler at full blast. I couldn't think of a greater mood killer other than have your mother walking in!

3. I think Chenault going to New York is a bit of patchy story telling but it's not a plot hole. It's a device to give him time to transform into a better person (a transformation that feels a bit rushed to me).

4. Staying in PR and trying to put right the mess at the newspaper is part of his transformation as a person. Had he just jumped on the next plane to New York, he would still have been the shallow drunkard he was at the beginning, plus then what would have happened to the first half of the film which was setting up the inevitable collapse of the paper?

5. Minor issue. Grammatical brainfarts don't equal plotholes.

6. The story is about Kemp, his growth as a person and there are two storylines: the collapse and attempted rescue of the newspaper and his falling in love. We didn't need to see any more than we did of the romance.

7. Throughout the film it showed he had a lot of compassion and sympathy for the islanders. He travelled around a bit, took photos of the way they lived. Not sure where you're getting the idea that he hated them and then thanks to an acid trip did a complete 180 in his opinions.

8. Yep. I'd say plot omission rather than plot hole. I guess it could be covered by saying that by that point he knew too much and had they sued him for breach of contract it would have made the plan even more public than anything he could have achieved on his own. Also Sanderson, without the backing of the big boys, could be a spent force and not able to enforce the agreement so easily.

George Clooney fansite, news & gossip updated daily: www.clooneysopenhouse.com

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]