42, I'm amazed that you would make excuses for their bad plotting. Â #1 & #2 were explained poorly and confusingly. Â I base my opinion not only on my observation, but on several coments made by people with whom I watched the movie. Â The tension of the conflicts presented was weak because the audience didn't understand why the characters' actions were going to make any difference. Â This is especially sloppy with #2, since it was intended as the Hyde character climax, and was used to overcome his inner 'demons' so that he could become a productive member of the team.
#3 has similar problems. Â You can't resolve a conflict by having a character say, in the movie 'If I look at the painting, I'll be killed--implying that he would never do such a thing--then, later on, have him simply have him look at the painting without explanation. Â For the climax to get the payoff it needs, it needs to be resolved through cleverness or heroism of some sort by a main character. Â Dorian needed to be tricked somehow into looking at his painting. Â Instead, we sat there and watched, as he did, knowing exactly what was happening. Â
And to Gemm--your solution does have some merit, but it makes for bad plotting. Â Again, you can't have a character be defeated by a simple whim. Â The picture had, assumedly, been hanging on the wall of his house. Â Why didn't he look at it then? Â Why did he resist all that time, then finally decide to glance at it when it would give his enemy victory? Â
#4 Was this really part of the original? Â From what I heard, they changed so much of the story, that it would be ironic for them to keep this one section that makes no logical sense. Â Regardless, if it is from the original, that's no excuse for poor plotting.
How about I throw a couple more out?
#5 How did Sawyer survive the missile blast?
#6 Did they really expect us to believe that the invisible man was the one stealing things? Â And that he would just stay quiet and play along? Â That was one of the worst examples of a Red Herring I've ever seen.