How To Spot The Culprit
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The General's Daughter
jonascord — 20 years ago(August 16, 2005 04:08 AM)
It was relatively easy to work out who the actual murderer was very early on in this movie.
It just followed the old and rather hackneyed plot device - just look for a fairly well known actor in an inappropriately minor and ostensibly superfluous role - who also, usually, has a history of friendship with the leading actor's character.
Now, who, in this particular movie, fits these characteristics ?? -
childintime-1 — 20 years ago(February 26, 2006 11:47 PM)
Does that mean Brenner suspected Sarah more than Bill? It seems to me the opposite, but your simplistic, flawed logic would suggest otherwise. Anyone who watched this movie and thinks that the point was find out who done it should stick to watching CSI reruns, and leave serious films to those who appreciate a little more depth in human relations.
-
Devans00 — 20 years ago(March 11, 2006 09:46 PM)
I agree with you
jonascord
. When I saw that Jim Cromwell and James would were on staff, I thought either of those two were the villian. I thought Clarence Williams and Tim Hutton were thrown in for red herrings. I was only partially wrong.
It's like watching a Law and Order or CSI episode. You can project who's going to be the culprit as soon as all the cast for the episode have been introduced. Usually a movie star or someone you haven't seen or heard from in a while. -
mattjaco24 — 18 years ago(May 10, 2007 07:33 AM)
well that is certainly interesting but i have a better way and here it is the part when trovolta fights the guy in the mask at one point in the fight he does a foot sweep on him and the next time that travolta sees the murderer kent he kind of has a limp when he walks around the part were cal is introduced into the movie you know the big fat guy with no hair.
-
Jaxotea — 18 years ago(May 18, 2007 05:05 AM)
Be careful on that one.
Not with this movie but a friend confidently declared after seeing the trailer for that he knew who the killer was for the same reason and was completely wrong. They had deliberatly mislead.
To be honest Timothy Hutton didn't stand out enought to me to suspect him. -
midsomermurderer — 18 years ago(June 20, 2007 04:52 AM)
i have to agree with the op. its probably because i watch too many movies. i recognised timothy hutton and though it was odd he wasnt in it much. my wife enjoyed it more and didnt guess cos she has no clue who timothy hutton is.
spoiler
it was the same with alan alda in murder at 1600. he appears then at the start then dissappears for most of the movie. obvious (to me anyroad) that he's gonna turn up at the end probably as the killer -
jcush21 — 15 years ago(May 19, 2010 01:13 AM)
Bones recently did a spin of this. I forget the episode name, but it was only a few weeks ago. Robert Englund (the TRUE Freddy Kreuger) was a guest star, and acted suitably creepy throught the episode. I sat there and said, "Well I know one thing for sure. He's NOT the killer."
I also could tell that
Gary Sinise
was the villian in Snake Eyes just from watching the trailer. (never did see the whole movie. Didn't see the point.) -
LLOwens — 15 years ago(July 02, 2010 01:14 AM)
It just followed the old and rather hackneyed plot device - just look for a fairly well known actor in an inappropriate minor and ostensibly superfluous role - who also, usually, has a history of friendship with the leading actor's character.
While this method could be used in films with mostly unknown actors, this would NOT always work in films with an all-star cast. Like one of the previous posters mentioned, Timothy Hutton would also match the description that you offered. But then again, wasn't John Travolta the lead actor? So how exactly did Col. Robert Moore have a history of friendship with Paul Brenner? Or because Warr. Off. Sara Sunhill was Brenner's ex girlfriend, did her past relationship with him make her a prime suspect? Actually I do know what you are talking about when you referred to "a history of friendship with the leading actor's character." However, wasn't the general the "actual murderer" according to this movie and Col. Moore simply a pawn in this game of corruption and cover-ups that went all the way to the top of the military food chain when he was the one who put Sara Sunhill "out of her misery?"
She's standing deep in the hurt locker."
~ Col. William Kent -
SausagePourVous — 13 years ago(March 09, 2013 02:22 PM)
Yeah,even though the pace and score and adequate acting from a few others might temporarily make you forget tnat its a whodunit and there really are no options. By this time,1999,"fairly well known actor" were words that describedthis guy pretty well.
Also,the screenwwriters go overboard,its really overkill when it comes to getting us to Not suspect this guy,played by a somewhat known actor who pops up every now and again,does not have one single memorable line or moment,not even a personality,until the climax,where he almost gets a personality and turns out to be a rejected guy who took Sunhill to the scene of the crime,only to commit suicide by mine after confessing turns out to be his only agenda.
His name is only mentioned,this is what gets our lead to suspect himand their history was vague at best.
West pulled that The usual suspects flashback thing(which,despite being a masterpiece didnt completely work there either,not when it concerns picking beans in Guatemala and a fat guy in a quartet),where Travoltas character lets us into his head and a suspect starts to pop up just in scenes where he goes"Strangalation,huh?" "Shes not here." and completely irrelevant flashback moments,lines reveal zero. It is an entertaining film taken on its own terms,though.
When you reminded me of the rules for the culprit,hasbeen or"almost-made-it" pops upKiss the girls and Cary Elwes,a villain/cop with no personality at all prior revelation and no connection between his methods and motive in any way.
The fairly well knowns are needed from time to timejust a bit more fun when its not painfully obvious. What was this film gonna end with,it NOT being this guy playing an extremely major part? So very well said,its a good rule. -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 01:45 AM)
I think I'm correct in saying that the "formula" that posters in this thread are discussing is one of the reasons Kevin Spacey agreed to (or even suggested) that his name not be mentioned in the introductory credits and posters of Se7en, even though it wasn't actually a traditional "who done it?".
-
SausagePourVous — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 02:58 AM)
Well,Se7en has a unique structure,at the same time asif we knew Spacey portrayed the killer,it would hurt the story just by the fact that we know he is going to pop up,just billing him arouses extreme suspicion to say the least.
Though I dont think I can say that it would hurt the suspense once he was introduced and certainly not take away the power of the ending. But with it being the year of Spacey,1995,The usual suspects,Outbreak,Seven and one more I think,this was a very smart move. He became a star within months. Sure,you recognized the voice but with so much going on,you forget about it.
But like stated,Se7en is in this aspect very original and billing him would make it a different film. Its a cameo,pretty known actor not credited,probably the most powerful one ever and unlike not billing Gene Hackman in The firm,it makes sense.
Otherwise,when it comes to spotting the culprit,you have"The very known actor without much significance in the film so why is he in it?" Silly but watchable Twisted with Samuel Jackson as a nice mentor for 90% of the film until its time to go nuts,naturally. Was there ever a doubt that either DeNiro or Pacino was the killer in Righteous Kill? No,thats sort of half the point and why they signed onif that film had a point. Why would Downey Jr. be in U.S Marshals,to be some agent?
Jim Caviezel in another mediocre Judd vehicle,High Crimes? Pointless role. Hes probably gonna say something that not even a retarded retard would say to give himself away
Think there is a chance that just maybe Jon Voight,killed after 12 minutes in M:I might turn out to play an important part after all,billed before the rest whos in alphabetical order? Was there ever need for an uncredited performance, that could be oneyeah,spotting the culprit is too easy sometimes. -
lakealice — 10 years ago(January 15, 2016 07:20 AM)
Not to sound smug, but I guessed Hutton was going to be a bad guy the minute I saw him in his first scene. Something about the way he acted he looked shifty and weak , and it was a relatively minor role, which is a giveaway. As the movie went along, I kept thinking he would turn out to be the murderer, and I was right. I've seen too many movies!