From a recent review I posted:
Okay, a question for all the scribes: must a thriller be totally plausible in order to be entertaining? Many film critics and TS reviewers behave like merciless logicians by pointing out each and every plot hole and logic flaw and thereby rejecting entire stories because of said plot holes no matter how small they might be, as if that's the only thing that matters in a movie. Well, it all depends up on the size of the holes, doesn't it? Most film students know that almost every thriller under the sun has plot holes and flaws in logic in them but they are still accepted and beloved by many because of so many other elements of quality craftsmanship. I think there's a sliding scale involved. If a movie takes itself seriously and yet you can't buy into it's incredibly flawed plot, then yeah, it officially sucks. Unless, of course, it is a movie that doesn't really take itself too seriously and is INTENDED to be wildly impossible but entertainingly so, like, say, a James Bond movie, then okay, no problem. If a serious thriller can hold water for the most part (or not leak too quickly), I won't condemn a movie over a few minor leaks...
...I also think you guys offered a huge volume of characters because you're not yet disciplined in the difficult task of exploring (and exploiting and giving arcs to) just a few characters with depth. I would've preferred fewer twists and stronger scenes and more attention to a smaller number of characters who have more depth. I'll praise a movie even if the story parts do not fit the whole so long as the scenes play strongly on their own and the parts work together even if the whole leaves me a little uncertain. A lot of movies are certain about their story as a whole but are made of careless parts, which is what I feel like we have here. Forced to choose, I would take the strong parts over the whole...
