Over 100 plot holes and mistakes in this film! Terrible!
-
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
-
AarOnHisBox — 11 years ago(August 08, 2014 01:22 PM)
How many times did you even bother to watch the movie??
- Mason Verger was drugged out of his mind when he cut off his face. The "popper" Hannibal gave him was without a doubt extremely powerful.
- What "errors" did the detective in Italy make? Thanks for specifics.
- He did not initially ever intend to take Hannibal by himself. He was in direct contact with the thugs that worked for Verger and all Inspector Pazzi intended to do was to wait for people to leave Hannibal's presentation and then ask him out for coffee by which he would really escort him down to a place where Verger's men would be waiting.
- Your comments about the finger prints again shows your lack of intellect or inability to pay attention to a movie. Inspector Pazzi tried to get Hannibal's finger prints many times. After noticing that Hannibal wipes his own glass down after drinking at the caf, he realized Hannibal took precautions. SO, then you see when Pazzi came alone (despite him saying he would send people to pick the belongings of the previous librarian) to pick up those items, first Pazzi asked if the list laying on top of the suitcases was the inventory and Hannibal responded that it was. They both were standing on either sides but when Pazzi asked if he could see it, Hannibal did not take it and hand it to him, he just said yes and made Pazzi pick it up himself.
THEN Pazzi asked if he could have help carrying the suitcases outside and Hannibal said yes but then excused himself for a second to go put on gloves. While Hannibal was doing it, Pazzi was looking around for something that might have his finger prints and saw the knife and I believe glass on the table from where Hannibal had eaten but Hannibal did not give him really any time or opening to just grab one of them and leave. He had to be subtle so as not to arouse any paranoid in Hannibal (even though Hannibal was already onto him). So you are way off on that.
The inspector turned his back to him because of what Hannibal put up on the slide that was a picture of his ancestor who had hung himself from that very balcony outside. Hannibal had already mocked Pazzi a little bit about it not being easy to be a "Pazzi" even over 100 years later and his comments about how because of who he was he was being held back in his professionHannibal had already started working on Pazzi psychologically from the first scene where he mentioned the fact that he had gotten taken off an important assignment for a much less prestigious one, working on Pazzi's issues on what were most definitely insecurities about his ancestors. I mean, its not like he turned his back on him for something simple, but something that psychologically affected Inspector Pazzi. - God did you even watch this movie? Why wouldn't Pazzi just arrest him? Clarice Starling tried to talk to him about thatyou see, Verger WANTED Hannibal alive. That is where the reward money was coming from you dolt. Arresting him would not have gotten him that money he so desperately wanted (they show how he had a young beautiful wife and her high maintenance as it pertained to money).
- Exactly how fast do you think cops can respond to something like that? Once he hung Pazzi out the window, he gave a quick wave to a surveillance camera and then was on his way out, only stopping to very quickly to kill one of the people after him with a quick swipe of his harpy and then was off.
- Then, how did Mason's men find Lecter? Lecter WANTED TO BE FOUND. The whole scene where Verger's men were watching Clarice in order to find Lecter was on purpose, giving her hints in their conversation about Mason Verger and how he knew Verger's men were following her. He needed to let Clarice know it so that she could rescue him. If you don't think he was trying to get caught, why in the hell do you think he would, while knowing Verger's men were trying to get him, jump up on a carousel and ride around on it for Verger's men to see exactly where he was.
Finding the right barn? It was on Verger's property. Duh.
Then you ask how did the FBI know where they were at? Clarice CALLED THEM when she woke up before going downstairs to Lecter's meal. Double Duh.
You are pretty clueless about almost every aspect of this film. Yep yep. I would stick with movies that don't require thought from now on if I were you.
-
the_la_baker — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 07:47 AM)
Well said AarOnHisBox.
Hannibal was already onto him
You think he knew that early? I thought maybe he was just being smart. I didn't think he was wiping his glass at the cafe to thwart Pazzi. Just being consistently careful and meticulous. -
italbarenow — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 09:21 AM)
Your post is full of plot holes! You've clearly just ranted and rave, and not done any homework and are making statements that are completely false. I'm going to read all the replies and I'm sure other people are going to eviscerate you more than I could. Starting with Virgil's face, you clearly don't even read the news this is cold right out of the truth and Actually happened
-
Luke_was_a_terrorist — 10 years ago(September 13, 2015 07:34 PM)
There is a HUGE difference between "plot hole" and not paying attention/retaining information provided. What we're you doing while watching? Cause it wasn't processing information also I love that your defenition of 100 is 7.
"We stayed up all night dry humping, it was awful, I think she gave me poison ivy." -
arkayenether — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 03:14 PM)
1: Completely messed up on drugs. Broke his neck with the noose. You need things spoon fed to you don't you?
2: Well that's vague
3: He wasn't after the FBI reward. He was after the Mason Verger bounty. He wanted to make sure it happened himself because it's Hannibal Lecter and he'll eat you.
4: You obviously weren't paying attention in the movie. He took great care to never leave his fingerprints anywhere. Handling his wine glasses with a napkin and wearing gloves all the time. He wouldn't even hand the inspector the inventory.
5: Clearly you've never heard of an informant. Ever.
6: I guess seeing an image of your ancestor being disemboweled wouldn't yield any kind of emotional response, amiright?
7: Again, Mason Verger bounty. Arresting him wouldn't gain it.
8: Same reason he got away in the first movie despite being a well known serial killer who has a face everyone knows.
9: As you can see above, it makes plenty of sense if you have at least a double digit IQ, which I assume you don't.
10: Following Clarice upon figuring out that Lecter was heading back to the states.
"Nothing was explained" Yeah actually it totally was. You either weren't paying attention, or you haven't seen the movie and are just trolling.