I have seen it for the second time,and I noticed some plot holes.Don't get me wrong,I think this is a great movies,but s
-
LudwA — 17 years ago(March 19, 2009 03:15 AM)
good points all around here.
what struck me as weird, is when the police officers gives a speech at the end he says Tavernier will get 10 years, and he'll do 5, but YOU (Moreau, the accomplice) won't get away so easy. WTF is that!?!? There's no way she deserves a higher sentence than her husband, what kind of mysoginy is that!? -
Charlot47 — 13 years ago(March 02, 2013 08:26 AM)
Though Carala was killed by Julien alone, his lover Florence not only planned the cold-blooded murder of her husband but presumably expected to become his wealthy widow and to enjoy his riches with the murderer. While she may have thought that she would get off lightly, the policeman Cherrier thinks that the court will not be so lenient. After all, couldnt she just have got a divorce?
-
mdonln — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 08:19 PM)
That's what's weird about this movie. There are so many plot holes, so much we have to ignore for the story to be believable, yet it still manages to be a really good movie.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan.
[Tarzan and his mate] -
mawsis — 16 years ago(June 27, 2009 05:31 PM)
How was he supposed to get the rope down in the first place? It was on a grappling hook above the floor of the murder. If he took it down, how was he going to go back down the rope? He would have had to have taken the elevator.
-
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(September 02, 2014 01:09 PM)
The grappling end of the rope was for pulling one's self up a floor. In going down you could pull the rope over the railing with both ends down below it, hold onto both ends as you descend, and on reaching the landing below pull the end with the grappling hook down, with the other end going up and over the railing with the whole thing then coming down on the person pulling it.
-
ant_sushi — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 11:11 PM)
The only hole that occured to be was that when the lift stopped he was going up, but when it was put back on it went down.
Shouldn't it have continued going up?
I just watched it and when the power went on, it did go up but he quickly stopped it and pushed the button to go down. -
ohwellokay — 15 years ago(September 26, 2010 08:25 PM)
It seems a lot of people wonder who was taking the photos. I haven't seen the film in a little while but if the pictures of Louis and Veronique were developed at the same time then wouldn't they be from the same camera?
Is the owner of the camera ever mentioned? We know Veronique had a little bit of a crush on Tavernier, and Mrs. Carala had recognized her as "the flower shop girl". It's possible the pictures were taken candidly by Veronique. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the movie so I don't remember if any dialogue would prove this wrong ornot. -
repete66211 — 16 years ago(May 06, 2009 10:07 PM)
I really like the movie, BUT
1.) I have a hard time believing he's going to forget about the rope. So what if the phone's ringing. All it would take would be a quick flip and the hook would disengage.
2.) Even if he did forget about the rope I don't believe it would be that visible from the street. And so what if it was? It was an open and shut case of suicide so the police wouldn't be looking around for ropes. And if they did find the rope it doesn't necessarily implicate Tavernier.
3.) So even if he does go back to the office he wouldn't just leave his car runningWITH A GUN IN THE GLOVE BOX. How hard is it to turn off a car? (Hint: about as hard as disengaging a grappling hook.) Besides, if the plot required the car to be stolen why can't the kid just hotwire it?
4.) If you're returning to an office and the guard is leaving you probably want to take the stairs just in case he turns off the power. And if the power is turned on again and lowers you to the bottom you should probably escape through a door rather than take a nap.
5.) Julien and the girl drive by the cafe. Improbable event, but even so it could have been someone else's car. And what's her face could see into it well enough to know it's not her b/f driving. And if he were running off with another woman do you think he'd be stupid enough to drive by the cafe he's supposed to meet his lover at? You know, THE ONE WITH WHOM HE JUST PLANNED A MURDER?
6.) Who was taking their pictures? Film that small can't be blown up to 8"x10" with that sort of resolution. Nor would it have the depth of field those photos had. Also, it's a bit lucky the photo developer recognized the German guy in the photo. I mean, how else could the police know of the connection?
7.) Running all over town asking if anyone has seen her lover doesn't make for a very good alibi.
Like I said, it's a really good movie, but there are a few loose strands that could have been tidied up to make it better. -
BilboTheDefiler — 16 years ago(May 18, 2009 09:09 AM)
i agree entirely.
another thing that bugged me is how all the cops completely bought the suicide story, but once they saw the pictures they immediately assumed that julien was the killer. wtf? all it proves is that they had an affair, so maybe the husband found out about it and killed himself? they didn't really have proof for the murder.. -
ashogo — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 12:36 AM)
Well, Julien did tell them the story about being trapped in the elevatormaybe they used that and put 2 and 2 togetherpolice also have methods for determining whether a suicide is really a suicide
you're right though it doesn't seem like there was enough evidence against them.
A point against the visibility thing thoughI think it's pretty plausible that Julien climbed up there without being seen. You'd be surprised, but in cities people don't tend to look up that much. -
ashdre — 16 years ago(January 30, 2010 11:43 PM)
See, this is one of the reasons why I came to this thread and I'm glad you mentioned it. There was virtually no evidence to tag Tavernier to the murder of Mr Carala. The doors to his office were all locked (including the one that's never locked) and the grappling hook that Tavernier used to get up there was taken away by a cute little girl after it was mysteriously on the ground (another plot hole, really). There was proof to an affair between Tavernier and Mrs. Carala, so what? Doesn't mean there was a plan of murder. It bugged me. I can disregard all the other plot holes mentioned, but not that one, because it's such an important one. Good movie, though.
-
Twiky — 15 years ago(March 11, 2011 04:30 AM)
I think the little girl picking up the hook and the lift coming down after power failure, imply that Tavernier already unhooked the rope and was almost leaving the building (coming down the elevator).
The photographer of the couple is a mistery, maybe a close friend, maybe we don't need to take things so literally, the photos represent 'intimacy' photos, but I think in 1958 Louis Malle wasn't ready to show some hardcore making love photos yet!! Anyway the photos could have been with more of a 'from the photographeds' hand' viewpoint.
About the cop not having enough evidence to assume Mr. Carala was murdered, he throws a hook (the accusation) and the fish (Mrs. Carala) byte!! The confession is all the evidence that you're looking for.
Peace. -
freudified_n_funkified — 14 years ago(May 26, 2011 08:21 PM)
I thought it was a nice touch that the grappling hook fell on it's own. I think had he already gone up and unhooked it he wouldn't have just dropped it to the street. As the plot device that catalyzes the rest of the movie, it's a nice little irony that it apparently simply dislodged itself.
-
Twiky — 14 years ago(May 27, 2011 12:12 AM)
I like your theory more, nonetheless why is he coming down then?! Maybe it's just a failsafe of the elevator.
It's also possible that when he did a swinging motion to free the hook it fell to the ground, not that he grab the hook and throw it down, I wasn't implying that eh eh.
Peace.