I've seen this movie 3 times now, and I've yet to discover any plot holes. Please tell me what "plot holes" you found.
sharejim carrey coming out of the asylum first meets his future-wife, they've been 13 years together and she never ever questioned why was he in the asylum and didn't even knew he lost his memory, apparently him being a former suicide never was an issue in that marriage. or maybe they just never in 13 years talked about HIS past. that's one really really big and stupid plot-hole.
there's a bunch of other bullsh*t like, why the hell did that 'Topsy Kretts' (the old dude who published the book) guy killed himself? what the hell was that all about? Number 1 in my list of most incoherent suicide scenes in movie history. The truth didn't affect him fataly or in any other way, he didnt need to kill himself... that scene leads you to believe that there's some horrible truth and that he is part of all of it, that he did some really bad stuff... well, he didn't do ANYTHING. it's all just very silly and pointless.
the '23' thing never really pays off in the end.
i don't know,i've only saw the film once and it was while it bas being released in theaters. but i remember that the more i thought about it, it became more and more stupid.
these are just a couple of flimsy things i remember from the film but im sure there's A LOT more.
awful film, really.
but hey... there's something for everyone.
Dude... MICHAEL JORDAN..
Michael *beep* Jordan..
and of course... michael jordan.
shareoh yes the infamous michael jordan plot hole
shareMichael Jordan plothole?
sharehell yes the Michael jackson plot hole
shareAnd don't overlook the Michael Jordon plot hole, which is probably the biggest.
"The same thing we do every day, Pinky, TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"
i liked this movie but if they just would of had better editing maybe they would of caught the michael jordon plot hole which was like the biggest plot hole in history
dont even get me started on the michael jackson plot hole
WHAT MICHAEL JORDAN PLOTHOLE?!?!?
sharewhat are u talking about what do u not know of it? and i think it was like 5 or 6 michael jordan plotholes
sharethen name them!!!! I would like to know about these "Michael Jordan" plotholes. Don't just say it's a Michael Jordon plothole. TELL ME WHAT THE *beep* PLOTHOLE(S) IS/ARE!!!!!!
sharewow dude relizax
shareI'm getting annoyed. I've made it painfully obvious that I'm unaware of what these "Michael Jordon plotholes" are, yet the only things people say are: "yeah, the Micharl Jordon plotholes" "can't forget the Michael Jordon plotholes"
Nobody is explaining to me what the hell these plotholes are. What are the Michael Jordon plotholes. I WANT TO KNOW!!!!
You're dumb. There, that's the plot hole.
Also, this movie was silly... Twist movies work better when the twists are good. Also, IMDB has a spoiler in the cast list for the movie.... which is lame of them.
Wat about the fact that the professor/dr Phoenix shows up at the asylum wen agatha is finding all that stuff? How did he know to go there? Also wat was the deal with the topsy kretts guy picking up the stuff at the mall? I didn't get that bit at all.
'I only did it with her because I am in love with you!'
"jim carrey coming out of the asylum first meets his future-wife, they've been 13 years together and she never ever questioned why was he in the asylum and didn't even knew he lost his memory, apparently him being a former suicide never was an issue in that marriage. or maybe they just never in 13 years talked about HIS past. that's one really really big and stupid plot-hole....."
That's a major assumption on your part. Who is to say that they never spoke about his past suicide attempt at some point in their 13 years together? Seeing as how he lost his memory, there wouldn't have been much for him to talk about or explain to his Wife. It could make total sense that they attributed his past suicide attempt to being the child of a parent who committed suicide. Either way, nothing in this movie suggests that they had never discussed his past (or at least what he could remember of it).
"There's a bunch of other bullsh*t like, why the hell did that 'Topsy Kretts' (the old dude who published the book) guy killed himself? what the hell was that all about? Number 1 in my list of most incoherent suicide scenes in movie history. The truth didn't affect him fataly or in any other way, he didnt need to kill himself... that scene leads you to believe that there's some horrible truth and that he is part of all of it, that he did some really bad stuff... well, he didn't do ANYTHING. it's all just very silly and pointless."
Actually it was pretty obvious to me that the old man killed himself because he became obsessed with cracking the riddle of "23." You see that he keeps the "insane scribblings and numerical rantings of a lunatic" when Jim Carrey is initially committed to the psychiatric ward. Couldn't he have become obssessed with the book and the numerical formulas contained within it in the same way Jim Carrey (of sound mind and body) did when he first read the book?
"the '23' thing never really pays off in the end. i don't know,i've only saw the film once and it was while it bas being released in theaters. but i remember that the more i thought about it, it became more and more stupid. these are just a couple of flimsy things i remember from the film but im sure there's A LOT more.
awful film, really."
Again, I have to totally disagree. The plot of the movie revolving around the number 23 was the perfect facade to hide the real plot. In this movie the viewer becomes so consumed by the relevance (or irrelevance) of the number 23 that you lose focus of the real issue.... the murder of Laura Tollins. So much so in fact, that they show you her grave in the beginning of the movie, and it never really strikes anyone as anything important until the end of the movie when we see that 23 didn't really have anything to do with anything at all. It was always about the death of Laura Tollins.
It's the same principle used in movies like "The Usual Suspects." Without the facade of the mysterious, brutal, and possibly fictitious "Kaiser Soze's" past, Verbal Kint's character was just some stool pigeon informant who told a story in a police station for 2 hours. But when you get the viewer to buy into all this nonsense about some mystery criminal mastermind for 2 hours, and then you lift the veil in the end to expose the truth, you have one of the best uses of irony in film history.
What I don't understand is how his wife read the book SO FAST.
She picked it up waiting for her husband who was a little late, then when he arrives shes done the book already...it's not THAT short and he wasn't gone THAT long.
Well, I know a lot of people who can read a normal size book in about 30 minutes or so, including me. I read the DaVinci Code in one day and it's quite a big book.
-I don't want to hurt you! I just want to kill you!-
And 1 day is 24 hours. Lets say you slept for 7 hours and ate for 2. That gives you 15 hours of reading. It's about 500 pages long, so that gives you just under 2min/page.
Not even 30 sec/page is amazing.
And reading a normal sized book in 30 minutes is called speed-reading, which is the same as "reading" a book, since what you're missing when you try to speed-read is the actual book. It's like fast-forwarding through a movie and say you've seen it.
The answer to all of this could be that they jump a few days every now and then in this movie. Did the kid also read the book in one night?
I totally agree! That was the FIRST plot hole I thought of while I was watching the movie. At first I thought okay perhaps Jim Carrey started reading a week after his birthday and during this time his wife read it first, but then it showed that he was already in several chapters by 1-2 days after his birthday and his wife already finished reading it. That was awefully strange since I think they were trying to show the viewers Jim was the first one to read it when they got back to the house that very evening?!
And honestly..he was only 'late' to meet his wife. I assume with her not mentioning this in the movie at all, he couldn't have been THAT late. How can she finish 22 chapters in such a short time? Total and most obvious PLOT HOLE in the entire movie!!!
She had done the Evylyn Woodhead Spd Rdn Crse
shareWhen I first watch the movie, I thought she meant that she'd bought him a book she had previously read. Then, when they started to investigate the novel, and the author, it was mentioned that the book was self-published, so at that moment I was left confused at the thing of who was reading the book and when. I'm glad to see that somehow I spotted a plothole, although not for the right reasons.
shareAnd honestly..he was only 'late' to meet his wife. I assume with her not mentioning this in the movie at all, he couldn't have been THAT late. How can she finish 22 chapters in such a short time? Total and most obvious PLOT HOLE in the entire movie!!!Another plot hole... what about there being no chapter 23 
He was *really* late because he was already going to be late (it was 1 minute until quitting time) when he went to get the dog, and after he was bit, he had to go get his arm bandaged.
Plus, she said she only read "most of it" and "thumbed through it".
Why would she buy such a raggedy book? Why call it a gift? Why read it before her husband? Why not get outta Dodge when he goes bonkers?
And of course, the Michael Jordan plot holes.
That's a major assumption on your part. Who is to say that they never spoke about his past suicide attempt at some point in their 13 years together? Seeing as how he lost his memory, there wouldn't have been much for him to talk about or explain to his Wife. It could make total sense that they attributed his past suicide attempt to being the child of a parent who committed suicide. Either way, nothing in this movie suggests that they had never discussed his past (or at least what he could remember of it).[/qoute]
Well, even if he DID lose his memory, he would still remember that he just got out of an asylum, right? One would be crazy (lols) not to wonder wtf one's husband was doing there.
[quote]Actually it was pretty obvious to me that the old man killed himself because he became obsessed with cracking the riddle of "23." You see that he keeps the "insane scribblings and numerical rantings of a lunatic" when Jim Carrey is initially committed to the psychiatric ward. Couldn't he have become obssessed with the book and the numerical formulas contained within it in the same way Jim Carrey (of sound mind and body) did when he first read the book?
Again, I have to totally disagree. The plot of the movie revolving around the number 23 was the perfect facade to hide the real plot. In this movie the viewer becomes so consumed by the relevance (or irrelevance) of the number 23 that you lose focus of the real issue.... the murder of Laura Tollins. So much so in fact, that they show you her grave in the beginning of the movie, and it never really strikes anyone as anything important until the end of the movie when we see that 23 didn't really have anything to do with anything at all. It was always about the death of Laura Tollins.
"Again, I have to totally disagree. The plot of the movie revolving around the number 23 was the perfect facade to hide the real plot. In this movie the viewer becomes so consumed by the relevance (or irrelevance) of the number 23 that you lose focus of the real issue.... the murder of Laura Tollins. So much so in fact, that they show you her grave in the beginning of the movie, and it never really strikes anyone as anything important until the end of the movie when we see that 23 didn't really have anything to do with anything at all. It was always about the death of Laura Tollins."
Actually, the number 23 did play a huge part in the movie and was completely relevant. In the end we see that it was Sparrow's father who was obsessed with the number and he killed himself which started the whole chain reaction of people going crazy over the number 23. If his dad didn't have the 'curse' and passed it on to Sparrow, Laura Tollins would never have died.
I do have a plot hole, maybe just some clarification needed, on a scene towards the end in the kitchen: before Sparrow finds out he wrote the book, he suspects his wife. Then he starts rambling on and says (I think) "Your maiden name is Pink...23..blah blah"...but doesn't he write the book before he meets his wife? Is this just a coincedence?
Oh and one other thing...can someone explain the significance of the dog? I mean, I get that he led him to her grave, but where did he come from? I could understand if he was the reincarnation of his father or Laura Tollins...but so what? He's just a dog.
"There's a bunch of other bullsh*t like, why the hell did that 'Topsy Kretts' (the old dude who published the book) guy killed himself? what the hell was that all about? Number 1 in my list of most incoherent suicide scenes in movie history. The truth didn't affect him fataly or in any other way, he didnt need to kill himself... that scene leads you to believe that there's some horrible truth and that he is part of all of it, that he did some really bad stuff... well, he didn't do ANYTHING. it's all just very silly and pointless."
Actually it was pretty obvious to me that the old man killed himself because he became obsessed with cracking the riddle of "23." You see that he keeps the "insane scribblings and numerical rantings of a lunatic" when Jim Carrey is initially committed to the psychiatric ward. Couldn't he have become obssessed with the book and the numerical formulas contained within it in the same way Jim Carrey (of sound mind and body) did when he first read the book?"
Also, the old man was there when Sparrow was initially committed to the psychiatric ward, so he knows him. After reading the manuscript and becoming obsessed with the number 23 he feels that Sparrow passed on the curse to him and is somewhat responsible. So when he sees him again he recognizes him and freaks out.
But why does the old man yell "You're supposed to be dead!" when he first sees Sparrow at the Post-box-thingie? He knew, that Sparrow received treatment and would be released into normal life when "fixed". So.. why dead? He may be rambling on the "oh-no-23"-bits, but this is different?
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes <spoiler>ping</spoiler>. This is my favorite.
"But why does the old man yell "You're supposed to be dead!" when he first sees Sparrow at the Post-box-thingie? He knew, that Sparrow received treatment and would be released into normal life when "fixed". So.. why dead? He may be rambling on the "oh-no-23"-bits, but this is different? "
He was supposed to be dead because he committed suicide. But he failed to die.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
He was supposed to be dead because he committed suicide. But he failed to die.
In my opinion the biggest plot hole in this movie would be how the police did not realize that Walter and Laura were together. To assume right away it was the professor doesn't seem logical to me.
shareI thought that he and she bumped into each other, but from her point of view, he was just there, not necessarily coming "out" of the asylum.
"The pen is mightier than the sword, and is considerably easier to write with."--Marty Feldman
Well, she was a needy woman, and she knew about his past. seems like the old man got the 23 virus and must have done some things himself, so he felt guilty and didn't want to be exposed.
share1) She didn't know he was in the asylum. He just bumped into her as she was walking. When someone bumps into you and you're holding a cake, is your first reaction to look at all the buildings around you? or that person? Especially if you are attracted to them [which she must have been, to marry him]. He didn't even remember the suicide to ever tell her about it, so she never would have known.
Also, he must have only suppressed *aspects* of his memories, not his total memory. I.E. She could ask him what his major was, and he would remember. He just might not be able to answer questions about his love life, which would be suppressed. If he suppressed 100% of everything, then wouldn't he not even know his own name?
2) The point is that the movie is a bit ambiguous about whether it is a psychological horror just about crazy Jim Carrey, or a supernatural horror about oh-no-the-number-23-has-cursed-me. It's actually both. It's not a plot flaw. You just didn't understand that even though there was the twist that Jim Carrey was *beep* crazy, that's not 100% of the matter at hand. The number 23 really is driving people crazy [in the movie], and there really is something deeper that we never quite understand in the movie. In the alternate ending, they show that his son will go on to possibly be obsessed with the number as well.
Favorite thriller/horror out of the 25 thriller/horror's I've watched so far in 2009.
1) 'Topsy Kretts' (the old dude who published the book) guy killed himself. Why? Doesn’t make sense
2) Jim Carrey when started reading, he found similarity to his childhood ... but how did he remember his childhood? He had forgotten all about it right?
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie, but the only plot hole I saw was the timeline. In the movie they said the man who was orginally charged with the Laura Tollins murder (his name escapes me sorry) was locked away for 15 years. Which would make the current year of the movie 2006, which is good. But at the end of the movie Walter Sparrow/Fingerling saws "13 years ago I made the wrong choice." Clearly talking about the murderer he committed since as he talks there is a scene of Laura Tollins funeral, however, 13 years after 1991 ( the year Laura Tollins was murdered) would make it 2004. It would also make the early comment about the man locked up for 15 years incorrect. Lastly, I think they mentioned Walter Sparrow's/Fingerling's age early in the movie, and it would not match the movie's plotline with the murder, his son's age,looked around 16, that would mean he was born before the murder took place, anyways you figure with rehab, getting to know the wife, and so on the kid would only could have been around 8-10, since the timeframe is 15 years. All in all, the only fault with the movie is the timeline.
shareShe says "a man who's been locked up for nearly 15 years..." key word being 'nearly', which most likely translates to 13 years. And movies are movies.. you cannot judge the age of a person by how they look, especially kids. The kid could have easily been conceived on the night they met and he could be 12-13 in the writers mind, which would make it bad casting just because he does look older than that... We also have no grasp on how long he was in rehab for.. could have only been half a year because the writer covered his ass by saying he could come back to his normal brain function at any time. It seems more like the writer was stretching to make the 23 work in all aspects of the film and just barely skips by on the plausibility meter.
share[deleted]
It's pretty funny. There hasn't been a single plot hole given by any user in this entire thread. The only time it has occured, that user presented no plot holes and subsequently got shut down later in the thread.
And yet people still hate this movie because of these "plot holes". Yes, the number 23 is meaningless. And? That has nothing to do with the characters in the film thinking it does and it all connecting.
Nor does Jim Carrey being in this film somehow make it bad. That he's a "funny man" makes no difference. He plays a good crazy character, it would be like Tom Cruise playing a serial killer. He's got those crazy eyes.
Well I can't believe I'm the only one who picked up on this....
Doesn't it strike anyone that it’s a bit odd that the authorities never even looked beyond the one guy for Laura's murder? Standard procedure police work would have shown Laura's man was Walter at the time. And Walter just so happened to attempt committing suicide, oh not to mention 'chapter 23 the confession' written on the wall (pretty sure it hadn't been wallpapered over when he jumped). Yes, he lost his memory and it would have been hard to convict him, but it would certainly have raised enough doubts not to lock away the other guy.
As for the other guy.... no one who saw a bed of blood with a knife on it is going to pick the knife up! This guy is a college lecturer as well, so he should be intelligent enough!
Stuff like how fast Agatha read the book are not even plot holes, it doesn't affect the story in anyway. That’s the kind of stuff you take for granted just to get the story moving along. So what if the time-line is slightly incoherent - that stuff really doesn't affect the viewers take on the plot.
The number 23 stuff is just about the viewers’ perception. If you take on the idea then, quite simply, you get more enjoyment out of the film. Again its not something I would refer to as a ‘plot hole’.
Jim Carrey’s performance is excellent btw..
"Yes! Let's get THAT guy over there in for questioning"
"Who is he?"
"No idea, im just picking people at random".
Sure, that idea is brilliant. Until you realise the cops had no other leads to go on, nor on top of that did they have any reason to think they did.
Which, strangely enough, especially in the 70's, means they don't need to keep looking until they "get their man".
I'm not sure the problem was really plot-holes, but more the structure of the story and setup of the characters. There was no inkling of the the main character's past being anything out of the ordinary, nor even that he had a big chunk of his life missing from his memory. This is a significant part of the character not setup if it is to play any part in the story later on (unless they want to pull a cheap shot, kinda like this film did). So the twist ending kinda comes out of no where. When comparing it to classic "twist ending" films like The Usual Suspects and such, the Number 23 doesn't hold up, because in those films you can actually attempt to guess the ending because all the details are there (upon a second viewing you'll see this).
Actually at the point where the wife is accused of writing the book, I was thinking "Wow! This makes perfect sense! That's why she wanted him to read the book so badly. That's why everything was so cryptic, cuz she secretly wanted to tell him, but couldn't. And she was trying to drive him crazy, cuz he was his next victim..." or some other twist which made sense. When it went the other way, and we find out it was all his secret past we knew nothing about (and that was never setup), I kept thinking, "hmmm...this wraps things up nicely...but the other ending connects better with the story that was setup."
Yes, I also believed that Agatha being an author could lead the story into something completely new and unusual. However, that would mean she did write a book, but she couldn't be a main character, so it was still about somebody else... and that would indeed change everything!
As for selective loss of memory, I can partially accept that he had repressed all his memory about Laura, but also forgetting number 23 that led to his father's suicide (among many other things) seems to much. Human brain can make some wiping out, but not that selectively and from so different periods of life, and leaving all other memories untouched... Not plausible. Also, even if he didn't forget a big part of his life (we don't know exactly how long did his Laura phase last), wouldn't one expect just a bit curiosity about it? Isn't it weird that, no matter how beautiful his life and how successful his marriage were, he didn't ever try to check at least where was he taken to the hospital from? If so, he wouldn't be surprised (and later describe as a destiny) that he went to the same hotel once he felt that he should escape.
People gain different obsessions. Adopted kids often obsessively look for their biological parents etc; Walter was a person with high inclination for obsession - how come this issue had never ever appeared in his mind?
Why wasn't his wife arrested for tampering with evidence. If I'm not mistaken she did move the body didn't she?
"It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."
How could the wife known that Jim Carrey was the author. It couldn't been from that she just read the book and put the pieces together.
Mcflurry
This is not a plot hole, but isn't shown (just implied) in the movie. Before the old man in the bookstore died he told her to go to the Institute, and Agatha found his documents. So she followed the track and found all the evidence that the old man kept - original story, photos etc.
shareSome of the plot holes listed so far can be well explained. Some have been mentioned, but not explored further. Some minor plot holes can be ignored, because if not complaining because of a little inconclusiveness we can accept them (like how quickly did Agatha read the book - nobody has ever said that she read the whole book in the bookshop, she might have done it later: Walter didn't start reading it the same evening so she had time. And it didn't seem to be too long anyway.).
Major one: if Laura was killed 13 years ago (as Walter repeatedly informs us) and he had spent some time in a hospital, how could they have such a big son? He clearly says that it his son (not a stepson), so he couldn't be any older that 12 (even if conceived the first day Walter and Agatha met, as one of the posters suggested). There was a theory that the boy was young, but a miscast, but the way Robin behaves matches his physical look, and it is definitely beyond 12.
Second one: selective loss of memory is nothing strange. If he repressed all his memory about Laura, it wouldn't be a plot hole at all. But repressing also number 23 is less plausible, because it affected his life in other occasions as well - first in his childhood when his father committed suicide. I don't believe that any human brain could delete so different memories from so different periods of life and left all others undamaged. It is more likely that he would develop a complete amnesia instead.
Third one: Yes, his new life started by meeting Agatha just the moment he was leaving the hospital. And he didn't have any urges to look for his past. Believable. But 13 years had passed by, and no matter how fulfilled his life was and how successful marriage might have been, wasn't he at least a bit curious about that period of time, that (though we don't know how long was he seeing Laura) surely wasn't so short. Didn't he ever want to see at least where was he taken to hospital from (when he runs away from Agatha he goes to the same hotel and later thinks it was a destiny)?
Fourth (connected with third): He was obsessive and that led to the tragedy. Obsession is a psychic disorder, a severe one (painful both for patients and for therapists). He even had a hereditary basis for his disorders. It is hard to believe that during those 13 years he has never developed any obsession; and most of all, that a man so inclined to obsession refused to be at least intrigued about the events he had forgotten.
Finally: though a loss memory can be permanent, after being exposed to so many facts that happened in his (forgotten) life it is hard to believe that Walter found just unimportant similarities with his life, and nothing induced a single picture, name, detail from his buried memory. Brain doesn't erase anything, it just hides it, but after so many stimulation it can be expected that these memories start reappearing.
Wat about the fact that the professor/dr Phoenix shows up at the asylum wen agatha is finding all that stuff? How did he know to go there? Also wat was the deal with the topsy kretts guy picking up the stuff at the mall? I didn't get that bit at all.
'I only did it with her because I am in love with you!'
Yes, I agree that this is also unexplained; however, I felt that this was hadled superficial to stay in the average time limits (it would take too much time to explain everything - too much for modern audience that is incapable of longer sitting and attention). The holes that I was writing about are rather basic, they are implemented in the story, in fact some of them make a story.
shareYes, Carrey's character talks about his childhood several times but in the end it is revealed that he is suffering amnesia up to this day. And it regards only his "number 23/Laura Tollins" days, pitiful! Someone mentioned plotholes not being enough yada yada, this film boils down to terrible inconsistent writing! The amnesia idea is a total deus ex machina, if I ever saw one! That was just done without shame. That alone is enough to vote this film down.
shareThe amnesia idea is not essentialy bad, on the contrary, but it has been treated so superfitially, negligently and, as you say, inconsistently. It was full of potentials and became an illogical mess ruining any plausibility of the story instead.
Pity!
I am generally against any remakes, but if any movie does deserve one, this one could be an exception - however, after a lot of changes in screenplay that should be made consulting a people who have some knowledge about a subject.
I generally agree, przgzr. I think the points you enumerate, though, are like noise. For instance, I got a little hung up on how fast she had read the book. Hmm, maybe she read it while he was asleep or...? I can shrug that off and continue viewing. But then add how he didn't seem curious to know about that missing time stretch and it's another noise added to the first one. I'd add that if Aggie did move the body, she's tampered with evidence and the tidy dénouement doesn't cut it. Noise noise noise.
Keeping adding these individual problems and you probably end up with about 23 of them. That's a lot of noise.
There's some redeeming stuff as well, however. I liked how the Italian woman (Fabrizia?) was also played by Madsen. Like he really loved his wife so a fantasy about another woman would bear a strong resemblance to her---same but different. And the suicide blonde having played the widow as well as his mother...nice. These psychodrama dreams could easily draw on significant women in his life, like the language of the subconscious. Violence and sex together=his subconscious bothering him about the lover he murdered.
Overall IMO the film had good ideas but badly executed too many of them. By adding a little here and there to account for the holes, I think it could have been a great film.