in the cut logic

has anyone seen in the cut by jane campion yet? its as an okay film, but i think there is one major logical mistake innit.
can anyone help me? click
the logical mistake: towards the end of the film meg ryan’s character finds in detective malloys pocket the small metal jewelry, the one from her charm bracelet that she had lost earlier. from that she deduces that he is the killer, which of course in the end he turns out not to be.
but this is not logical, i think. she lost the jewelry in her bed, in her appartment, while having sex with dt. malloy. so why would her finding it in his pocket indicate he was the killer?
i do wonder why jane campion had to have a go at an erotic thriller. the thriller part of the story is much too formualic – introduce three suspect characters and in the end its the a fourth one, one nobody had on the list. the strongpoints of this movie are the athmospheriques, the characters lost in their individual confusions, the flashbacks of meg ryans character. the cocksucking scene is somehow very sexy, i must admit.

About Jan Zuppinger

Jan Zuppinger has been writing this blog since 2002. He likes to grow vegetables. He likes to eat them too. He has opinions on everything, but sadly no one cares. Jan Zuppinger is not joking, just joking, he is joking, just joking, he's not joking. *click.