Let me count the plotholes....(spoiler s)

what was fincher's philosophy about killing? 'you only get to kill those who you prosecute' ? very wild west.




His name...was Julio Iglesias!

GaelinW, I'm with you. It was written as if the audience had no memory and the world in which the characters lived bore no resemblance to real life -- sort of like someone just kept thinking "oooh, and wouldn't it be cool if this happened next?"

Not only did she rise to success at two professions with lightning speed, she could afford an office and apartment in Manhattan!

There were also lots of things that were just odd.

I don't know what kind of therapy that is, but it sure looked like the school of "Auntie Hailey meddles in your life" to me -- an awful lot of glib, smiling "let me fix this in one sentence by telling you exactly what to do next" stuff.

Sending her secretary out into the night, to get to the police alone, not even telling her why, was bizarre, too.

And what was the scene by the bus (lighting the woman's cigarette, etc.) all about? Just to show us that the serial killer was dangerous and had deadly fantasies about women? I think we knew that.

What wasn't full of holes and odd was incredibly predictable. Gee, what a shock when the secretary ended up on a blind date with the serial killer.

And, of course, there was the obligatory scene confronting the evil guy (the defense attorney) alone, and slooooowwwwwly explaining (for us) how she had him all figured out, rather than going to the police to explain it to them, and keeping herself safe.

1.I did not like the way she acted flippant and sarcastic and uncooperative when being questioned by the police. As a former prosecutor, she would have known the right way to behave in order to prove her innocence.
2. I agree with the posters here that arresting her on the basis of the pen was totally ridiculous.I almost turned off the movie because of that.
3. Her skittish behavior when getting out her gun was also unbelievable. I would think it was quite normal for a criminal prosecutor to carry a gun for protection and know how to use it.
4. I thought all the acting was poor--I especially didn't like the grimacing she did with her mouth to simulate acting.
5. The part about the secretary (when she didn't explain anything to her) was maddening.
6. Saying she didn't need protection--she was just going across the street--was extremely annoying--that's exactly where the stalker would be waiting!
7. Obviously, I kept watching the movie anyway-it must have had something to it, but I don't know what.

The other thing that bugged me about the pen was that Hailey said she lost it during the trial. So don't you think she should have, at the very least, shown surprise to hear it turned up in the victim's hand? Like it's been gone for 2 whole years and she's not at all phased by the fact that it just appeared with a third party?

It would've been better for her to have had it all along and to say it was stolen out of her office.

RE #2:

Of all people, Nancy Grace should know that the release of a serial killer on an vacated conviction would be huge news, and the prosecutor who tried the case would DEFINITELY be notified...especially since the guy tried to kill her! Hell, it would be a major headline on Nancy's own show! Bad writing, Nancy!

RE #3:

Totally agreed! If this happened in the novel, then clearly Ms. Grace doesn't know much about the law, despite the fact that she'd like everyone to think she's an expert.

No way in hell the guy wouldn't still be in prison two years after the attempted strangulation of Hailey. Regardless of what happened with the vacated verdict from the murder trial, his conviction for attempted murder would have been a slam dunk. And as it was a COMPLETELY SEPARATE CRIME, he'd still be cooling his heels in a cell two years later.