Over 100 plot holes and mistakes in this film! Terrible!
-
ADStoney — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 11:13 PM)
Yes, all of those "plotholes" have been answered. The answers were all in the movie if you had paid attention.
The one question about why would Pazzi turn his back on a known serial killer could also be answered in that he was interested in the slide Lecter was showing him. Lecter even asked if he could make out what it said, Pazzi was curious and in trying to read it temporarily dropped his guard. -
rtodd110 — 12 years ago(July 14, 2013 02:19 AM)
i didn't care for the movie, but just by your first "plot hole" i can tell you did not watch the film closely
hannibal gave him a drug I think lsd, it was said in the film
so before you start rattling off plot holes it would help if you just paid attention
prevents a lot of people from calling you an idiot -
CasseroleWorshipper — 12 years ago(October 06, 2013 01:40 PM)
- There was no sensible or explanation given for Mason to cut off his face. You can't just give a person a knife and tell him to cut off his face. It doesn't work that way. Thus there is no explanation for it. Also, why was he paralyzed in a wheelchair? That wasn't explained either.
Mason was stoned out of his mind and it has been made clear in the Hannibal films that Lecter has the capability of convincing people to do what they normally wouldn't. He also made Miggs kill himself by swallowing his own tongue. - That detective in Italy made a long list of errors that no one in law enforcement would make, nor anyone with any common sense.
Firstly, he didn't have much common sense. Why would you expect a drowsy-looking inspector operating in Florence to be a super-bright detective? - Third, after finding out that Hannibal was a serial killer, why would he be alone in a room with him, and with his back turned? He showed no defensiveness at all. No one with a survival instinct would do that.
- Fourth, at the end, why does he turn his back toward Hannibal as he comes up behind him during the slide show? Totally stupid. No one would turn his back on a serial killer.
He didn't have much of a choice and he probably felt safe because he knew Mason's people were outside, ready to roll, and also assumed that Hannibal didn't know he was onto him anyway. - And his ambush plan was stupid and unnecessary. Why couldn't he just arrest him any time anywhere? Why did he need to call someone in front of Hannibal to give himself away? That was a suicidal move. He was not a professional at all, like he called himself. He was a man with no common sense. Even a child would know better than to be that dumb around a serial killer.
He couldn't have arrested him because he wanted Mason to get Hannibal and claim the reward, which would not have happened had he just cuffed him. - And after Lecter took out that stupid detective with zero common sense, how did he get away? Any cop or gangster could easily have taken Lecter out. He had no chance. Yet he hung the detective in public view and simply walked away unscathed? WTF?
Completely plausible.
How did Mason's men find Lecter? And how did Clarice find the barn that they were going to feed Lecter to the boars at? That was never explained. And how did the FBI know where Lecter and Clarice were at the end during the dinner scene? Is everyone omniscent in this film? Geez.
Krendler led Mason's men to Lecter, didn't he?
And Clarice knew where Mason lived. She also followed his goons.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
- There was no sensible or explanation given for Mason to cut off his face. You can't just give a person a knife and tell him to cut off his face. It doesn't work that way. Thus there is no explanation for it. Also, why was he paralyzed in a wheelchair? That wasn't explained either.
-
mechacorta — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 04:55 PM)
"Why would you expect a drowsy-looking inspector operating in Florence to be a super-bright detective?"
Columbo, lol.
I'm issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards away from Science at all times! -
bluemagicmist — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 06:34 PM)
I agree, that Pazzi had so many opportunities to get Hannibal's fingerprints, he was handling so many things. ugh
Two things that bothered me, when Pazzi hired that pick pocket to get Hannibal's fingerprint on the bangle, Hannibal bought a newspaper which would have his fingerprints all over it, and he discards it, why not just pick it up of the ground instead of the elaborate plan of bumping into him?
I was annoyed with Starling hurrying to save Hannibal? What the ??!! She had no qualms in shooting in the head the HIV lady holding the baby, but oh no, Hannibal the cannibal, she HAS to save. Stupid movie!! -
rphilip1 — 12 years ago(November 22, 2013 09:07 AM)
Well Pazzi was clearly an idiot. That's not a plot hole. And Clarice had no choice but to shoot the woman with the baby, she was shooting people. There was no need to shoot Hannibal. Especially since she already had a reputation of shooting people and at the time she had her gun and badge taken away so it would have been complicated if she shot him.
-
antonio8885 — 12 years ago(November 11, 2013 09:05 PM)
Its an uneven bipolar film at best (but I still love it!): esp. loved the first half in Italy but once Hannibal returned to the States the movie just unraveled in such a haphazard fashion (the ending was great though and ultimately saved the day!). Julianne proved her mettle in that final scene, and I agree with the original poster's views on why Commandatore Pazzi didn't bring backup or a freaking gun when lying in wait with Hannibal at the museum! He knew Lecter's background, but was so blinded by greed that he forgot to bring some form of protection to the would-be capture! Giancarlo was excellent as Pazzi though! Loved the opera scene (the score is haunting!) probably the best in the entire film. 12 years later I only watch the parts I like & F-FWD thru the rest!
-
jeevese — 11 years ago(July 13, 2014 09:04 PM)
While I agree that WWu777's argument for so many plot holes is filled with misinformed assumptions, I do feel his argument with Pazzi is significant.
While it is a movie, it seems a bit of a stretch that Pazzi would take the risk that he did to catch Lecter in such a way, considering it wasn't necessary for him to catch him personally to get the millions he wanted.
Especially when he his told that his personal services were no longer needed after he turned in the fingerprint and receives the first reward. As I remember correctly he his told by the men giving him the smaller reward, that all he had to do was show them where Lecter was (at the very least pinpoint his location) and he would receive the million dollar reward.
I think the bigger question, which has been mentioned on this board, was "How did Lecter get away with what he did to Mason?" If the events happened when Lecter was still a legitimate psychiatrist and we are to include this series with Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon, how did he not get arrested? If we are to put the story arch in order it is Red Dragon, Silence of The Lambs, and then Hannibal. Obviously he mutilated Mason prior to being sent to the asylum, which occurs during Red Dragon.
I guess one could argue that Lecter could have denied the incident and no one would possibly believe Mason, considering the lifestyle he had.
Oh well, maybe I'm just over-analyzing it. I guess I find this series interesting. LOL
Thoughts? -
jeevese — 11 years ago(July 17, 2014 01:38 PM)
"I was just being opportunistic to use Hannibal's letter to Starling in a joking way to bust the OP's chops. I hope he doesn't take it too personal, no malicious intent there."
Hahaha. That's cool. I didn't catch that. As far as the novels go, I started to gain an interest in them so I am starting to read them myself.
In regards to Pazzi, I guess It always bothered me that he didn't have to go in personally. He could have shown them where Hannibal was, but he was insistent to catch him personally. He could have still received the millions had he just shown the goons where he was.
Oh well I guess I am over-analyzing the film. LOL.
It is kind of like watching a horror film and screaming,"Don't go in there!" Obviously the character has to go in or else we wouldn't have a film. LOL -
ziyal-87-414235 — 11 years ago(August 22, 2014 03:54 AM)
SFMZone: nice reply - although I like the letter from Hannibal to Clarice better in the book (it is less rude than in the film version and offers even a little help).
To the OP: About Pazzi: I'm not as familiar with the movie than with the book, but there Pazzi is very desperate. He is the shame of his departement, because he accused and even arrested the wrong person as 'Il Mostro' (that serial killer in Florence). The man sat some years in prison before his innocence came out. All the fault for that got to Pazzi. When he met 'Dr. Fell', he was just waiting to get removed from his job. So he wasn't in a very good shape, when he decided to go against Hannibal.
And I think, some people didn't really understand the reward: The FBI wasn't offering any kind of reward. The Most wanted list was only visible for law enforcemnet people, who have a login code (like Pazzi). Verger offered a reward of $ 200.000 for information about the doctors whereabouts (with a fingerrpint in situ) and $ 3.000000 for the person, who is responsible for catching Lecter. I guess, Pazzi was afraid that Carlo and his people would cheat on him, so he wanted to be involved as much as possible.
ANd he couldn't get help from his colleagues, because he operated very much outside the law. Therefor getting Lecters fingerprints was not an easy task(and I'm pretty sure, you can't get fingerprints from a newspaper).
As I mentioned earlier: I don't know the movie as well as the book (which is far better), but I'm pretty sure, that at least Pazzis predicament concerning the 'Il Mostro' case was mentioned, when he first met Dr. Lecter at the Palazzo Vecchio (it was the scene, when the Studiolo decided, if 'Dr. Fell' should be allowed to stay as curator of the Palazzo Capponi) -
coolbrett — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 03:08 AM)
I thought that if you slice off your FACE, it does permanent physiological damage to the rest of the body too, as there are vital nerves there that lead to the brain. Or at least that's what I thought. I vaguely recall another instance in which someone's face was severely damaged and that was the cause of them being wheelchair-bound