@HikariWS said:

I know this is an acclaimed classic, but I humbly complain that this was a plot hole.

For all the other crimes, he was killing ppl who had been committing the respective sin, in a way that their sin killed them. He even wanted to get himself killed because he found himself an envy sinner. So, I understand that the serial killer was tired of watching so many sins around him and wanted to make a sermon to call ppl attention into society fall, while killing ppl who were hugely committing each sin. So, it makes no sense he'd kill an innocent person, or create more sin by leading somebody not sinning into doing it.

So it doesn't work out with wrath. The girl wasn't a wrath sinner, she was innocent. Mills also wasn't a previous wrath sinner, he was led into feeling it. In fact, anybody would feel wrath for such murder, even more if related. With the other victims, they were long time sinners and outliers on it, not a short time or average sinner.

We have a few plot holes here:

1) the killed girl was innocent 2) Mills wasn't a wrath sinner, he was led into feeling it 3) it was the serial killer who led Mills into feeling wrath, he wasn't having the sin previously, therefore the serial killer increased sin on society instead of showing how society is sinning 4) Mills, the wrath sinner, goes live instead of dying of it

I understand the intention of creating thriller on the guess of if Mills was gonna fall for the sin and kill him or win against it and arrest him. I've seen a handful of movies and series where police is put under a similar situation and doesn't kill the guy. I even say the scene was worth. But still, IMO, the scene creates a huge plot hole on the movie.

I disagree with the part of your post that I have bolded... Det. Mills was a hothead. I haven't viewed this film in a long time... but a part of it that really stands out is the scene in which he and Detective Somerset find John Doe's apartment. Somerset is cool and rational, telling Mills that they don't have a search warrant and breaking into Doe's apt. won't get them much of anything legally, IIRC (if I recall correctly). Mills doesn't care; Doe hit him earlier and he wants into the bastard's apartment NOW. They conflict for a moment, then Mills just kicks the apartment's door in, expressing basically that what's done is done. Somerset is so angered by this that he starts to insult Mills.

Also, there was the scene where (NO SPOILERS LOL) the media sneak taking a picture of Mills and he goes berserk on them. Somerset tells Mills after the media leave that it's "impressive" to see a man feeding off of his emotions or something to that effect.

So really, it was in Mills' character to feel some wrath. Sure, John Doe blew it up into a supernova doing what he did, but he really played Det. Mills like a piano if you think about it in context.

Also, what I loved about the killed girl being "innocent" (your first alleged "plot hole") was that the filmmakers changed the M.O. of John Doe somewhat, instead of just going through rinse-repeat, rinse-repeat, alright, here's the aftermath of another one of Doe's killings discovered too late. By the third act of the film, I had grown tired of the rinse-repeat cycle of how the victims were being found. So the situation with the delivery person and Det. Mills was a welcome derivation in the story for me.

I'm just not so sure that the killed girl being "innocent" as you put it is really an objective plot hole.... if she is, as you say, it doesn't really weaken the film's plot.

Indeed, I didn't see it like that. I'd not call emotional as wrath, but the movie makes it clear he acts on his emotions and let them control him.

@HikariWS said:

Indeed, I didn't see it like that. I'd not call emotional as wrath, but the movie makes it clear he acts on his emotions and let them control him.

Maybe the only character who seems to make an explicit, clear-cut case for his / her "sin" is the "gluttony" one.

Others do too. The greed guy promoted impunity by freeing a criminal, the pride girl could have survived but preferred to die, the sloth guy is the least detailed but is said he was very lazy.

My criticism is that on other victims he chose ppl who were living in sin and used their sin to lead them to death. But in wrath we didn't have Mills living in anger (as I said, being emotional and acting emotionally doesn't fit), it was created on him. Yeah, his personality made him vulnerable to it and was contrasted with Sommerset's, but I don't see him as a wrath sinner.

HikariWS, I'm quoting you not because I want a debate, but because I want to address some of your points one by one.

@HikariWS said:

Others do too. The greed guy promoted impunity by freeing a criminal, the pride girl could have survived but preferred to die, the sloth guy is the least detailed but is said he was very lazy.

That is a good point you made about the "pride" victim. I just meant that the "gluttony" victim's sin was visually explicit--we could see what eating did to him. It was said that the "sloth" guy was very lazy but I don't recall seeing anything to substantiate this behavior.

My criticism is that on other victims he chose ppl who were living in sin and used their sin to lead them to death. But in wrath we didn't have Mills living in anger (as I said, being emotional and acting emotionally doesn't fit), it was created on him.

I got your point earlier, yeah.

Yeah, his personality made him vulnerable to it and was contrasted with Sommerset's, but I don't see him as a wrath sinner.

OK.

Ah so u mean the move visually depict their sin. Yeah some were barely shown, but we also need to consider it's alrdy a 2h movie and they had to introduce characters, depict 5 victims and make the consclusion scene. It's normal to summarize the plot on movies, I guess that on the book we have more details.

To add more description, I'd see a sin on the movie context as losing control to oneself. As the guy getting very fat and the girl worrying so much for her beauty that she rathers die than live disfigured. For a wrath sinner I'd expect somebody who actually and often loses control to anger and practices violence.

It makes no sense for the criminal to be disliked to watch so many ppl sinning, but to kill somebody innocent and cause somebody to sin. I'd expect his intentions to be both punish existing sinners and lead ppl into reflecting about sins and stop doing it.

He should award innocents or at least leave them alone, and he shouldn't put ppl not sinning in situations where they'd sin. By doing that, he's breaking his own point, because he's showing that ppl aren't guilty for their sins and instead anybody may sin when led by other situations into commiting them. So the cause is society, context, etc and that's what he should fight against.

@HikariWS said:

It makes no sense for the criminal to be disliked to watch so many ppl sinning, but to kill somebody innocent and cause somebody to sin. I'd expect his intentions to be both punish existing sinners and lead ppl into reflecting about sins and stop doing it.

I just don't see John as being especially rational about what he does... I dunno, maybe he saved his best ideas for acting out his plan, which he said would go down in history.

Take the argument between John and Mills in the car on the way to the climactic location where the delivery is made. That was a really good, funny conflict where the two men really voice their dislike for each other and why. Mills sticks to the idea that John is a nutcase; John keeps goading Mills, preparing him for the film's climax.

Also, when the cops are searching Doe's room, Somerset, I think, reads some of his journal to the other guys there. It sounds like insanity... something about how John puked on some other guy on the bus because of the banality of what the guy said.

I only bring this up to try to defend why John changed his M.O. for the film's climax. Oh, and I enjoyed the M.O. change, personally. That just kept the film from being boring.

He should award innocents or at least leave them alone, and he shouldn't put ppl not sinning in situations where they'd sin. By doing that, he's breaking his own point, because he's showing that ppl aren't guilty for their sins and instead anybody may sin when led by other situations into commiting them. So the cause is society, context, etc and that's what he should fight against.

Again, I just think John is a nut, when all's said and done. Your logic seems to make more sense than his does.