Worst plot holes ever? (Worse than Malice?)
Adam Tyner
I was talking with some friends today about really bad movies, and I started
thinking about 'Malice'...
Is there a movie with bigger plot holes than 'Malice'...?
The plot twists made practically no sense and clashed intensely with...well,
the first third or so of the movie.
-Adam Tyner
--
/----=========================================----\
Looking for He-Man, "Weird Al", Yoo-Hoo, and MST3K?
Then go to http://www.awod.com/gallery/rwav/ctyner/
cty...@awod.com O- MiSTie #67,326
Colin C.
Adam Tyner wrote:
>
> I was talking with some friends today about really bad movies, and I started
> thinking about 'Malice'...
>
> Is there a movie with bigger plot holes than 'Malice'...?
>
> The plot twists made practically no sense and clashed intensely with...well,
> the first third or so of the movie.
>
> -Adam Tyner
>
COLIN
Matt Lynch
"Colin C." <col...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Adam Tyner wrote:
>>
>> I was talking with some friends today about really bad movies, and I started
>> thinking about 'Malice'...
>>
>> Is there a movie with bigger plot holes than 'Malice'...?
>>
>> The plot twists made practically no sense and clashed intensely with...well,
>> the first third or so of the movie.
>>
>> -Adam Tyner
>>
While I didn't think that the plot twists in "Malice" were bad, I did
think that they weren't really "twisty". Make sense? What I mean to
say is, it was sorta like..."ok, now he did it. Now she did it." It
all seemed very low-key.
Zach D.
In article <51v1qs$1h...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
>>> Is there a movie with bigger plot holes than 'Malice'...?
>>> The plot twists made practically no sense and clashed intensely
with...well, the first third or so of the movie.
What were the problems with malice?
Inquring minds want to know.
Adam Tyner
In article <524q34$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, za...@hub.ofthe.net says...
>
>What were the problems with malice?
>Inquring minds want to know.
Here are just a few:
1) Why would a surgeon need to stay in a boarding house?
2) Ummm...Tracy's been seeing a doctor for 2 years for a serious medical
condition, yet her husband's need seen, talked to, or met him???
3) What's more lucrative---a practice in Cardio-thorassic surgery or $5 million
dollars?
4) Apparently Dr. Hill's the only surgeon in the hospital, considering that
he happened to be the one on duty, and that type of surgery isn't exactly
his specialty.
5) That "blind" kid sure looked like he was staring at them to me early in the
movie...
6) Andy's sterile! Yay! It only took half an hour and a pointless subplot to
get to that fact.
7) Okay, Jed and Tracey obviously have been planning this for a while? So why
does she act so odd around him even when her husband isn't around like in
the bathroom scene early on?
8) How can a doctor maintain a double identity? Let alone a double identity
with a different specialty... And if his practice isn't legit, then why
would he have an answering service?
There's a lot more, but it's 1:30 AM and I still have studying to do.
G'night! :>
Michael Kersey
cty...@awod.com (Adam Tyner) wrote:
>Here are just a few:
>
>1) Why would a surgeon need to stay in a boarding house?
>2) Ummm...Tracy's been seeing a doctor for 2 years for a serious medical
>condition, yet her husband's need seen, talked to, or met him???
>3) What's more lucrative---a practice in Cardio-thorassic surgery or $5 million
> dollars?
>4) Apparently Dr. Hill's the only surgeon in the hospital, considering that
> he happened to be the one on duty, and that type of surgery isn't exactly
> his specialty.
>5) That "blind" kid sure looked like he was staring at them to me early in the
> movie...
>6) Andy's sterile! Yay! It only took half an hour and a pointless subplot to
> get to that fact.
>7) Okay, Jed and Tracey obviously have been planning this for a while? So why
> does she act so odd around him even when her husband isn't around like in
> the bathroom scene early on?
>8) How can a doctor maintain a double identity? Let alone a double identity
> with a different specialty... And if his practice isn't legit, then why
> would he have an answering service?
>
>There's a lot more, but it's 1:30 AM and I still have studying to do.
To be perfectly blunt: I could'nt find one point up there that I agree
with. This film was nearly flawless in it's delivery, gives continuous
twists and turns and it's plot is not easily summed up. This film does a
complete 180 on you yet never cheats you by making up new plot points
that did not exist before.
This was one of the best mystery thrillers ever and it's a shame more
people did not see this film. They don't make thrillers like this
anymore.
Michael
Adam Tyner
In article <5262h3$j...@herald.concentric.net>, kers...@concentric.net says...
>
>To be perfectly blunt: I could'nt find one point up there that I agree
>with. This film was nearly flawless in it's delivery, gives continuous
>twists and turns and it's plot is not easily summed up. This film does a
>complete 180 on you yet never cheats you by making up new plot points
>that did not exist before.
>
>This was one of the best mystery thrillers ever and it's a shame more
>people did not see this film. They don't make thrillers like this
>anymore.
I thought it was great when I watched it, but when I drove home, I realized all
the problems with it...
I wonder what other people will think of the points I raised... Although some
of them aren't 100% flaws (like why a surgeon would need to stay in a boarding
house---maybe the husband was just stupid not to recognize that fact), some,
like the double identity, are just pathetic.
Michael Kersey
cty...@awod.com (Adam Tyner) wrote:
>
>I thought it was great when I watched it, but when I drove home, I realized all
>the problems with it...
>
>I wonder what other people will think of the points I raised... Although some
>of them aren't 100% flaws (like why a surgeon would need to stay in a boarding
>house---maybe the husband was just stupid not to recognize that fact), some,
>like the double identity, are just pathetic.
I'd have to watch the film again. But the Doctor had just moved into the
area I believe. Maybe he did'nt want to buy a house because of the
responsibility involved. Maybe he had bought a different place but was
waiting for it to be completed. Maybe he wanted to hang a little with
Tracy's husband.
What is the double identitiy that you're referring to? Dr. Lillian Fields
was a cover for bigger and better things. Namely 20 million dollars.
I remember reading the review of this film in The Atlanta
Journal/Constitution. It was hard for them to review it because
everything is relevant in this film yet nothing is what it seems. Even a
glance in this film has implications. I'm a tough person to please when
it comes to thrillers. It's hard to get anything past me. The only thing
that I guessed would be that they had replaced the little boy with a
dummy. Other than that...Tracy's duplicity, the boy being blind, Tracy's
husband being sterile, the murders having nothing really to do with the
overall plot, Tracy's mothter being alive, were all surprises. Even when
Peter Gallagher's character mentioned that Tracy's mother was still
alive, it still went right over my head. Got to pay better attention.
Mike D'Angelo
First of all, I'm moving this into r.a.m.past-films, since it's evolved
into a general MALICE thread. Secondly, I will now add a fairly
superfluous (read a thread devoted to plot holes of movies you haven't
seen at your own risk, folks) SPOILER warning.
Adam Tyner (cty...@awod.com) wrote:
: Here are just a few: [plot holes, he means]
:
: 1) Why would a surgeon need to stay in a boarding house?
The real reason, of course, is that it makes it easy for Jed and Tracy to
remain in regular contact; they've presumably been communicating in secret
for some time, so it's no doubt a relief for them to be inhabiting the
same house. As for the ostensible reason (i.e. the reason he'd offer to
Andy) -- true, he could afford to live elsewhere, but he's new in town,
and Andy's the only person he knows, and wouldn't it be fun for a while,
and blah blah blah. Andy, at this point, has no reason whatsoever to
question Jed's motives or sincerity, so any lame reason will do, really.
: 2) Ummm...Tracy's been seeing a doctor for 2 years for a serious
: medical condition, yet her husband's need seen, talked to, or met
: him???
This is not all that implausible; I really doubt that my father has ever
met my mother's gynecologist, for example. Unless there's some sort of
medical emergency, why would he make the lengthy trip? Especially since
Tracy was undoubtedly dissuading him?
: 3) What's more lucrative---a practice in Cardio-thorassic surgery or $5
: million dollars?
It's possible that my memory is playing me false here, but I seem to
remember the sum as being closer to $20 million than $5 million. At any
rate, we're offered a separate, non-financial motivation for Jed, who
wanted to revenge himself against the prominent physician played by
George C. Scott, by humiliating him with the "God complex" stuff. And
now Jed has all the money he needs (assuming everything goes according to
plan) without ever having to pick up a scalpel again. The scene on the
beach exists solely to address this question, in fact.
: 4) Apparently Dr. Hill's the only surgeon in the hospital, considering
: that he happened to be the one on duty, and that type of surgery
: isn't exactly his specialty.
It seems to be a fairly small town. Also, presumably Tracy intentionally
timed it so that Jed would be on call when she went to the hospital
(though how much control she had over her illness is unclear to me).
: 5) That "blind" kid sure looked like he was staring at them to me early
: in the movie...
Of course he looks like he's staring -- he's blind! Yo!
: 6) Andy's sterile! Yay! It only took half an hour and a pointless
: subplot to get to that fact.
This is genuinely ludicrous. It's also one of the reasons I love MALICE
as much as I do; it takes some major chutzpah to create an elaborate
serial-killer/rapist subplot that turns out to be a huge red herring. I
was getting bored with the film early on, since it seemed painfully
obvious that Jed was going to turn out to be the killer (or, failing
that, either Andy or Tracy...one of them would turn out to be the killer,
that is; I never expected Jed to turn out to be Andy or Tracy...oh, skip
it), and I was truly thrilled when the plot took this wacko twist into
Cloud Cuckoo Land. As I remarked to a friend at the time, it's as if the
writers had been assigned to a typical Whoever-from-Hell thriller, and
got bored, and decided to just go for broke and come up with something
unique. I always appreciate it when a film doesn't go where I expect it
to.
: 7) Okay, Jed and Tracey obviously have been planning this for a while?
: So why does she act so odd around him even when her husband isn't
: around like in the bathroom scene early on?
If you look at that scene closely, it makes perfect sense. Here's how it
goes (from memory, but it should be close):
Tracy in bathroom. Jed walks in, says Hi. Tracy screams, drops
something.
TRACY
Jesus christ. You scared
the shit out of me. What
are you doing here?
They both stoop down to pick up whatever she dropped; I think he maybe
grabs her hand or something. Andy calls from downstairs, "where are
you?," and they share a look. Then Tracy, who looks and sounds pissed,
says "Up here!" End of scene.
The first time you see the film, you assume she's pissed off because he's
behaving creepily, coming on to his friend's wife. Once you know the
truth, though, it still makes sense: she's pissed off because he's not
supposed to approach her alone when Andy's around. He's in danger of
blowing their cover. Watch it again with that in mind and it'll all be
clear.
: 8) How can a doctor maintain a double identity? Let alone a double
: identity with a different specialty...
The same way anyone can maintain a double identity; lots of people have
done it throughout history. I don't quite understand this objection.
Don't get me wrong: MALICE is a dumb movie. But it's dumb in a way that
I really enjoy, and all three of the leads (especially Pullman and
Baldwin) are superb. The plot is ludicrous and implausible, but nothing
that happens is *impossible*...and in a thriller this entertaining and
gleefully bold ("they created an entire subplot just to introduce a minor
plot point?!?"), that's good enough for me.
Mike "aforethought" D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
http://pages.nyu.edu/~mqd8478
ko...@ix.netcom.com
cty...@awod.com (Adam Tyner) wrote:
>In article <5262h3$j...@herald.concentric.net>, kers...@concentric.net says...
>>
>>To be perfectly blunt: I could'nt find one point up there that I agree
>>with. This film was nearly flawless in it's delivery, gives continuous
>>twists and turns and it's plot is not easily summed up. This film does a
>>complete 180 on you yet never cheats you by making up new plot points
>>that did not exist before.
>>
>>This was one of the best mystery thrillers ever and it's a shame more
>>people did not see this film. They don't make thrillers like this
>>anymore.
The plot of malice was pretty average and the script was pretty bad.
The movie was one of the best I saw that year because of the
performance of the actors. Bill Pullman was not well known then and
Kidman was known more as a pretty face (so those two surprised me)
while Baldwin (alec) has always been extremely underated. I cant
think of any other actor who could have pulled of those terrible lines
in the deposition scene as well as baldwin did.
In reality I like the luncheon meat spam as well as treat and various store brands as well as souse, scrapple, and dinty moors beef stew. I just dont like the intrusive off topic scam posts.