The Fugitive

Question: At the very end, what was in the plastic bag that Tommy Lee Jones' character gives to Harrison Ford?

Chosen answer: It's a cold compress. You squeeze it, and the inner bag breaks mixing chemicals and it gets very cold. It helps to minimize swelling. He gave it to Kimball for all the bruises he had.

Grumpy Scot

Question: Again, was the Polish woman's son really a drug dealer? A little piece of me thinks that it could have been a ruse by the Chicago PD to get him in and let Kimble think he was safe for the moment. Or, did he tell the cops that Kimble was living in his mother's basement as leverage to get out of being arrested for drug dealing?

Chosen answer: Why on earth would the Chicago PD leave Kimble to think he was safe if they knew his location? He's a convicted killer - they find him, they grab him, they throw him in prison, end of story. No requirement to lull him into a false sense of security. They busted the Polish woman's son for drug dealing - he turned Kimble in to try to buy some leniency.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: When Kimble got his foot stuck in the door and was trying to escape, Gerard shot him in the chest several times. A little excessive and unnecessary, but Kimble was convicted of murder and was running the streets, so to Gerard he could've posed a severe threat. But then once Kimble fell down and was apparently subdued, why would Gerard shoot him in the head? He was supposed to take him in, not kill him. If the glass wasn't bulletproof, surely Gerard would've gone to jail himself. I know in action movies the characters have the right to kill whoever they want whenever they want, but this just seems way too far-fetched and actually rather comical in a really dark and sadistic way. I'm not talking about Gerard repeatedly shooting the glass after it's clear it's bulletproof, I'm talking about before that. Gerard shoots Kimble repeatedly in the chest thinking he actually got him, Kimble fell over in shock and Gerard thought it was because of the bullet wounds, but then while Kimble's on the floor, Gerard points his gun at Kimble's head and shoots.

Answer: Kimble doesn't fall from shock, he falls because his foot is caught in the door and he loses his balance. And Girard never thought he'd hit Kimble, which is why he keeps firing after Kimble is on the ground; he's still trying to incapacitate him. He's not aiming for Kimble's head per se, it's just that on the ground, Kimble presents a much smaller target, so his head is just as likely to be hit as the rest of him (his still-vulnerable foot, for example). Perhaps if the glass had not been bulletproof and Girard had, in fact, killed him, Girard would have been in trouble, but since Girard did not intend to kill Kimble, he probably wouldn't have been punished too severely.

Question: Lentz knew that the RDU-90 protocol drug Provasic was causing liver damage and was going to report it which is why he was murdered, but why try to kill Richard? At what point in the film was Richard trying to find out how the failed attempt on his life tied-in with Provasic and did he know that it was causing liver damage before his wife was killed or while searching for the one armed man? If it was while searching for the one armed man, then why try to kill him at all?

Chosen answer: Richard had investigated Provasic and saw that it caused liver damage, including the man he had to perform emergency surgery for on the night of the murder. He spent most of the film trying to find his wife's killer and when he does, he discovers that he was the original target and the reason behind it. Lentz was a neutral party in the film and Nichols framed him as the one who planned the murder attempt.

Question: In real life, when are cops allowed to shoot people? I find it hard to believe Samuel Gerard would have been allowed to shoot Richard repeatedly in the torso just for running away from him. I know the glass was bulletproof in that scene, but Gerard didn't know that.

raph

Chosen answer: Richard is a convicted murderer on the run. A police officer would be justified in shooting him to prevent him from injuring anyone or taking a hostage.

Jason Hoffman

Question: Towards the end, before the confrontation with Kimble and Nicholls, the guy who was tracing Kimble's phone records tells the Marshalls that Kimble telephoned Sykes on the night of his wife's murder. But obviously it wasn't Kimble calling Sykes, it was Sykes using Kimble's phone. But why would Sykes be calling himself?

jenn_s_h85

Chosen answer: He didn't. A key plot point is that Nichols borrowed Kimble's car on the night of the murder. The call to Sykes, which is expressly stated by the marshals as being on Kimble's car phone, was from Nichols, presumably arranging to meet so that he could give Sykes Kimble's keys to get into his house to lie in wait for him.

Tailkinker Premium member

And Tommy Lee Jones tells Kimble that they knew Nichols called Skyes from his car, but how? Wouldn't the more logical answer have been that the US Marshals thought that Kimble called Sykes from his car to tell the killer his wife was home alone? There is no way the US Marshalls would have known that the Kimble let Nichols borrow his call - that's the mistake in the movie! It actually should have made the Marshalls suspicious of Kimble, not exonerate him.

The Marshals know Kimble let Nichols borrow his car because Kimble told the police when he was initially interviewed following the murder. He gave a detailed account of his actions and whereabouts that night and mentioned that Nichols had borrowed his car. It didn't seem suspicious to the police at the time because Richard claimed he fought with a one armed man he didn't recognize; a story the police did not believe because there was no evidence of this and Kimble's wife "identified" her attacker as Richard. Gerard puts everything together when he realises that Nichols lied about knowing Lentz.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: This is more of a question really. What kind of defense attorney did this high dollar, Dr. Kimble hire who do not show their defendant pictures of the one-armed men the police question? How do his attorneys not ask him, Ok, which of these one-armed men did you fight with in your house?.

Question: How does Kimble get the new set of clothes after leaving the "Men Only" hotel (after the St. Patrick's Day parade)? Is this an allusion to some inappropriate activity?

Chosen answer: While it is not specifically shown how he got the clothes, the "inappropriate activity" would likely be that he had stolen them. They could also have been donated clothing that was available to those in need.

raywest Premium member

Question: Originally, the plan was to kill Richard himself rather than his wife in order to keep him quiet about Provasic causing liver damage. But wouldn't Devlin MacGregor eventually have had to deal with the side effects anyway, especially when the wrongful death lawsuits began pouring in? I know some suspension of disbelief is required, but this still seems like a stretch.

Chosen answer: Not really. If anybody raises a wrongful death lawsuit against them, Devlin MacGregor's high-priced lawyers can just point to their battery of "successful" test results to show that no side-effects occurred during their comprehensive testing. If they then dig deeper into the case, then, lo and behold, it's revealed that the tests were all faked, with the fake results signed off on by Dr Alexander Lentz, who was, rather conveniently, tragically killed in a car accident. It would be easy to cast Lentz as the villain, faking the test results for his own reasons, which gets Devlin MacGregor off the hook. In all probability, the original idea was to frame Kimble for the fraudulent testing - with Kimble killed in a "burglary gone wrong", he could easily be used as a scapegoat. When things went awry and Kimble's wife was killed instead, this gave them the perfect angle to completely discredit Kimble, taking him out of the equation, and they switched to a replacement plan of using Lentz as their scapegoat, forging his signature on the test results and arranging the car accident that killed him.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: At one point, Kimble steals an ambulance. We then cut to the U.S Marshals, who say "An ambulance has been spotted...". They then run off to intercept it. But surely there's more than one ambulance in that area, and surely more than one person has seen an ambulance in that time?

Chosen answer: True, but if they cannot contact this one or it is seen driving eratically or out of it's designated area, that is sufficent to cause suspicion.

David Mercier

Question: What does the woman ask her son in Polish? with my limited Russian and Serbo/Croatian skills, I believe she started with, "What do you think..."

Chosen answer: She says: "What do you think? I think he is going like it." (Or "he is going to be satisfied").

Question: How much time does this movie cover? I ask because when Sykes is being interrogated, he says he was questioned about Helen Kimble's murder a year ago. And Nichols says that Lentz died last summer, but Richard saw him at the fundraiser the same night his wife died. Is this a mistake or is there something I'm missing?

Brad Premium member

Chosen answer: Murder investigations are not, as a rule, speedy processes; it's quite plausible that a year could have passed between Helen Kimble's murder and her husband's conviction for the crime. The police have to gather evidence, question witnesses, put their case together and so forth. The main body of the film, from Kimble's escape onwards, probably only covers at most a few weeks, but Helen Kimble would undoubtedly have died some considerable time prior to that. The time periods stated in the film are quite reasonable.

Tailkinker Premium member

Question: When Kimball's dying wife calls 999, why does she say "Richard is trying to kill me?"

Chosen answer: She said "Richard, he's trying to kill me" refering to the one armed man. It sounded like "Richard is trying to kill me".

SanDiegoDeputy

Question: Why don't the US Marshalls also go after the other escaped prisoner that was on the bus? He was the one who helped Harrison Ford escape and told him not to follow him. Why wasn't it as important that he be caught too?

Chosen answer: He's the one whose house they storm (he gets shot).

Question: When Dr. Kimball gets his foot stuck in the security door, the Marshal looks at him and mouths the words "Tilt it" to Kimball. Does the Marshall want Kimball to get away?

Answer: He does not want Kimball to get away. Although you can't know for sure what Gerard is saying, it looks like he may be mouthing a silent expletive because he knows Kimball is escaping.

raywest Premium member

Question: I don't think this was ever addressed. Sykes had an alibi, that several people could vouch for him. Not that it's really important to the main story, but did the police ever find a hole in it or disprove it? Was it ever checked out, or is it just assumed that he lied?

Chosen answer: It was never specified. Gerard, based on his years of experience, just had a gut feeling from Sykes' behavior that his story was not legitimate. He already suspected that he worked for corrupt medical executives.

raywest Premium member

Answer: I find it more of interest that Sykes said the police 'questioned him about the whole thing' during the initial investigations into the murder, presumably during Kimble's trial and before he was convicted. That was when Sykes said he was never in town that night and that 'at least fifteen people verified it'. Why would the police have been questioning Sykes in the first place when he was never a person of interest until Kimble broke into his apartment? That should have set off alarm bells for Gerard right then and there.

Question: Since Lentz was really the mastermind behind the entire thing, why did Nichols have him killed?

Answer: Lentz was not the mastermind, Nichols was. Nichols had Lentz killed to tie up a loose end.

BaconIsMyBFF

Question: Who was the man shot by Gerrard in the house after Richard went in the woman's car for a ride?

Answer: That's Copeland, the other fugitive besides Richard Kimble.

Question: Why wouldn't Nichols just alert authorities right away if he was behind this whole thing the whole time? Made no sense. Good plot twist, but in real life, you would think the mastermind would get Kimball tossed in jail ASAP to avoid being revealed like he was.

Israel Joffe

Answer: One, the authorities are already on Kimball's trail, literally one step behind him the entire film, so Nichols wouldn't gain much by alerting them. Two, he knows that if Kimball finds out he (Nichols) alerted the police, it would pretty much prove to Kimball that Nichols was the one behind everything; safer for Nichols to appear innocent and, more important, cooperative, so that if and when Kimball is recaptured and tells his story, he has nothing on Nichols to tell the authorities. This backfires, of course, but it is the most logical course of action.

Question: At what scene in the movie does Deputy Gerard know Richard was innocent?

Chosen answer: He appears to be convinced that Kimble is innocent right after he and the other agents break into Sykes house and find incriminating evidence. Gerard realises that Kimble sent him there to prove his innocence.

raywest Premium member

Question: I am curious why Helen was killed when the doctor was the target. Harrison Ford (the doctor) said he found out why Helen was killed - he said on the phone and stated the reason was "they were after me." So - someone goes to kill him and kills his wife instead? Was it to frame him and if so, wouldn't it have been easier to kill him instead?

Chosen answer: The one-armed man was there to kill Richard, but Helen was the one at home. Sending him to prison would have discredited him enough to satisfy the pharmaceutical company.

Captain Defenestrator Premium member

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.