MovieChat Forums > The Fugitive (1993) Discussion > Masterpiece, but with flaws

Masterpiece, but with flaws

posted 2 years ago by Drooch (5333)
13 replies | jump to latest

The film is so good that these flaws barely make a dent but when a film is great the interesting question becomes… ‘is there anything wrong with it?’

My first issue is ‘Kimble called Sykes’. We’re supposed to believe the otherwise cunning and devious Dr Nichols borrowed Kimble’s car and then called his hitman from Kimble’s car phone? This is such a dufus move, he instantly incriminates himself in that moment and this of course leads to his arrest in the end. Nichols is absurdly lucky the original detectives were too incompetent to spot this.

Secondly, the film centres around the killing of Kimble’s wife, but we never really discover why she was killed. We know the intended target was Richard, and we can assume she spotted the hitman and got the ‘no witnesses’ treatment, but it’s… vague. Indeed, when Kimble dangles Nichols off the building and asks ‘why Helen?’ we conspicuously never hear an answer.

The script had a notoriously messy history and they were even rewriting as the film was being shot. I think these issues would have been ironed out if there were some clearer decisions and more time.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

I never understood why Nichols didnt just call the police outside his tennis club after meeting with Richard. The easiest thing for him would have been to have Richard thrown back in jail.

[–] ak47wong (608) 2 years ago

Because we are meant to think Dr Nichols is Kimble's friend.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

I know for the sake of the plot why they did it, but Dr Nichols is supposed to be an intelligent man.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

It’s possible that Nichols would rather keep Richard away from the justice system - it’s blind luck that the original detectives failed to discover that he called his hit-man from Kimble’s car phone on the night of the murder. If Kimble went back to court this could be unearthed, it might be safer to have Richard taken out.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

Why would Kimble have gone back to court? He was already convicted. At that point, he had no evidence Nichols was involved.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Nichols knows that Richard is innocent and that he’s ‘smarter’, so it’s a safe bet that Richard is in the process of trying to clear his name, digging for the truth.

Presumably if you’re on death row and evidence emerges that proves your innocence they’re not going to kill you.

Therefore, it makes sense that Nichols would rather have Richard rubbed out before he unearths anything that could implicate Nichols.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

"Presumably if you’re on death row and evidence emerges that proves your innocence they’re not going to kill you."

Yes but there was no evidence at that point in the film, and he is going to have a hard time searching for evidence from prison. In fact, the only reason Kimble gets evidence is because Nichols allows him to access the records at the hospital. This also makes little sense, even though he had Sykes waiting for him outside the hospital, there was a huge risk there in letting Richard learn the truth. Of course, this all could have been avoided, if Nichols had simply called the police on him while he was outside the tennis club.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Nichols knows that Richard is innocent and that he’s ‘smarter’, so it’s a safe bet that Richard is in the process of trying to clear his name, digging for the truth.

If he succeeds then he won’t get the death penalty.

Therefore, it makes sense that Nichols would rather have Richard rubbed out before he unearths anything that could implicate Nichols.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

I get that but how much can Richard really access from prison in the pre-internet era? Richard being murdered on the run would also arouse suspicion. And even if he managed to prove his innocence through lawyers and appeals, the process can take years and years. If Richard managed to get out, then Nichols might want to bother with trying to kill him but the much safer play still would have been for Nichols to report Richard to the police and have him thrown back in prison.

[–] GolfnGuitars (3035) 2 years ago

I think you and Drooch have both made valid points in your discussion...I enjoyed reading that. I've wondered in hindsight if, during the scene where Kimball meets Nichols at the tennis club, when Nichols tries to get Kimball to get in his car, would Nichols have tried to kill Kimball, had Kimball gotten in the car? I think it's a possibility.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that the only time Kimball and Nichols met in person until the climax? Even if Nichols had called the police on Kimball, I don't know if it would have made much of a difference. The police were already looking for Kimball. Kimball never told Nichols his whereabouts, so I don't think Nichols really knew where Kimball was. Only near the end does Nichols know where Kimball is...and he sends Sykes out to kill him.

Also...if Nichols would have called the police on Kimball (or alerted that officer behind him at the traffic light), that would have definitely been the"ultimate betrayal" and would have aroused Kimball's suspicions. I think seeing Kimball at the tennis club probably rattled Nichols (something he wasn't expecting). Sometimes, in a situation like that, one just doesn't always think rationally. I do agree that this is a "flawed masterpiece." I really do love this movie, despite its flaws.

[–] BillySlater (4256) 2 years ago

Calling the police mightn´t have made a difference but that isnt the point, it seems like Nichols was only helping Kimble for the sake of tricking the audience. They obviously wanted Nichols being the bad guy as a plot twist but it makes his character logically inconsistent. Nichols could have tipped off the police anonymously, no problem.
I love the movie too, its one of my favourite movies of all time, I still think Nichols´ actions made zero sense though.

[–] ccr1633 (1531) 2 years ago

"Presumably if you’re on death row and evidence emerges that proves your innocence they’re not going to kill you."

Similarly, since Kimble already had a death sentence he had nothing to lose taking every chance imaginable to clear his name, even at the risk of getting gunned down by hostile cops. I suppose it's possible that Nichols thought that Kimble might use his superior brainpower to hide out the rest of his life under a new identity, but that was a bad bet the instant he saw Kimble in his tennis club parking lot. Another possibility is that Nichols was flustered by Kimble's appearance and didn't have the wherewithal to think things through and quickly determine that ratting Richard out to the police then and there would prevent him discovering the truth.

[–] ccr1633 (1531) 2 years ago

The biggest flaw I find with this film, a minor one at that, is the drawn out ending beginning with the death match between Kimble and Nichols. Up to that point I thought this movie was really tight, with great tension, clever action sequences, and a wonderful mystery unraveling. But we knew from its tone that this film would have a happy ending. There was almost 10 minutes of the two ex-friends pounding on each other, creeping around maintenance rooms, beating up on US Marshalls, Gerard yelling at them, etc. What was meant to be a rousing bang of a finale had no suspense because the result was as predictable as it gets. And it's not exactly believable that two famous doctors both had a latent Chuck Norris within. The Kimble-Nichols battle should've been confined to maybe 30 seconds. Other than that and a couple cheesy scenes designed to reenforce what a great guy Kimble is (e.g. the kid he brought up the OR), it was a grade A action flick.