A massive plot hole has been uncovered by cinema fans in an Academy Award-winning film that entirely transforms the ending.
The Hollywood blockbuster My Cousin Vinny secured Marisa Tomei her maiden Oscar triumph, and whilst this celebrated motion picture has earned acclaim as amongst the finest films ever made, there’s an enormous narrative flaw that has recently come to light.
The 1992 film, featuring Joe Pesci from Home Alone and Goodfellas renown, proved successful both commercially and critically upon its debut.
Contemporary audiences revisiting the picture decades afterwards are spotting that something fails to align during one of the movie’s most crucial sequences.
A moment showing Pesci’s character, Vinny Gambini, securing victory in the case alongside Mona Lisa, portrayed by Tomei, appears to lack a significant element.
The storyline centres around two youngsters confronting trial for an offence they didn’t perpetrate, with tyre impressions serving a vital role in their evidence.
A submission to the r/TodayILearned Reddit forum witnessed enthusiasts highlighting the narrative inconsistency.
One individual commented: “Even though Mona Lisa Vito wins the case in ‘My Cousin Vinny’ by testifying there was only two cars made in the 1960s with independent rear suspension, the screenwriter left out the Chevy Corvair.
“He thought no one would find out but a high school friend called him out about it at the premiere.”
The absent vehicle has altered the essence of the picture for certain spectators, whilst others are championing the choice to exclude the automobile.
One person explained: “The point about only two cars leaving the marks on the road is brought out when she says ‘only two cars had post traction, an independent rear suspension and enough power’ to have far those tire marks.
“Pretty sure that Corvairs and VWs did not have that kind of horsepower.”
Another added: “Yes, as a late model Corvair owner, that line seemed obvious to me.
“Even a turbo Corsa model, with 180hp, was not gonna burn rubber like that, partly because Corvairs were very light cars.”
Some viewers reckoned little altered due to the omission, as the vehicle itself is too lightweight to create the tyre marks utilised as evidence in the film.
Another has proposed the exclusion of one car is reasonable enough, and that they too would have chanced not referencing it in the scene.
They penned: “I would have taken the same risk. What are you going to do in 1992 with the knowledge that the Chevy Corvair also had independent rear suspension?”.
Another concurred, stating: “Even if there was a third car, wouldn’t that have been irrelevant? Wasn’t her testimony that it was impossible for the defendants’ car to make the tire tracks at the murder scene?”