Former detective Pat Postiglione has revealed David Fincher‘s $327 million thriller gets some crime-solving details right, but called out Brad Pitt’s character for inaccuracy. Fincher’s best movies include plenty that focus on criminal activities, whether it’s through the perspective of the people committing the acts, or law enforcement investigating what transpired. His latest crime film is 2023’s The Killer, focusing on an unnamed hitman (Michael Fᴀssbender) who seeks revenge after his girlfriend gets attacked. It’s been critically praised for its dark elements and thrilling storyline.

However, at the opposite end of that are his projects focusing on criminal investigations. One of his best known movies in the genre is Zodiac, dramatizing the real-life manhunt for the Zodiac Killer in the 1960s and 1970s. In keeping with this realism, he also created Mindhunter, a TV show on Netflix focusing on two detectives interviewing serial killers. While Mindhunter season 3 was sadly confirmed not to be happening, the filmmaker’s career is still defined by his realistic crime dramas. However, it turns out not all of his famous films are as accurate to reality as anticipated.

Se7en Isn’t As Accurate To Real-Life Serial Killer Investigations As It Seems

Brad Pitt’s David Mills Is One Key Element As To Why

Despite having a dark, grounded story, Se7en isn’t actually fully accurate, despite getting some crime-solving details correct. The film follows homicide detectives David Mills (Pitt) and William Somserset (Morgan Freeman) as they investigate a string of serial murders, seemingly influenced by the Seven ᴅᴇᴀᴅly Sins. However, their personal lives soon become wrapped into the case as new clues slowly start to emerge. The movie has become a modern classic since it was released in 1995, with the shocking ending of Se7en becoming a staple of film history.

However, speaking with Insider on their series How Real Is It?, Postiglione explained how not every detail about Se7en‘s criminal investigation scenes were accurate to real life. At 10:32, the former homicide detective explained how the team entering a crime scene and securing a victim who was still alive was realistic. However, the behavior of Pitt’s David, from touching pH๏τos at the scene despite telling everyone not to touch anything, to pursuing a suspect without calling for backup, isn’t accurate to how a real detective would react. Check out the full video and what Postiglione had to say below:

Well, I think when they entered the crime scene, they had the whole team with them, which I think was fairly accurate. In the beginning of the scene, when they approached that, they didn’t know if they had a suspect. They didn’t know who was lying on the bed there. If you think the killer’s in there with the victim, then the evidence actually becomes secondary, because the victim becomes your primary concern. So let’s go there with the troops and go on in there with some heavy artillery in the event we can catch the killer before the killer actually kills our victim.

You want the victim to survive, because that victim is a wealth of information, obviously. And if we’re dealing with a serial killer, this victim could potentially tell you things about this serial killer that will link him to maybe 10 other homicides. Who knows?

I think it was further accurate when the detective said no one touches anything. I think what kind of blew that up was when he picked up, he picked up a whole bunch of pH๏τographs and started going through the pH๏τographs after he got done saying no one touches anything. He expressed the pH๏τographs, I ᴀssume a timestamp on it that showed three days ago. Anything with a date on it, whether it’s a real date, or whether somebody put that on to try to throw off the investigation, anything like that is useful.

I mean, I’ve been in situations very similar to that, where the suspect is there, and the suspect has a weapon. The suspect, like in this case, shoots at you, you’re going to immediately call for backup. And they didn’t do that. Now you can chase the suspect, I’m with you on that, but at the same time, you want him to hear the sirens. You want him to hear the backup coming for you. That may make him run away, that may make him stop doing what he’s doing, but you want that backup en route.

The suspect is still in there. Then they got all the innocent people out. That’s typically what they would do. The bad guy shoots at the police. You don’t necessarily want the police shooting back, because you don’t know who’s behind that door. Like in this case, they went inside, and there was three kids in there. Had they sH๏τ through the door, you know there’s a good chance they would’ve struck somebody totally innocent, uninvolved.

Well, sometimes you have to kick in the door, but I can tell you through experience that sometimes, the door’s not easy to kick in. So they have these little ramrods that they use, they can slam the door open, and you go like that, and it just bangs it open real quick. There’s a ᴅᴇᴀᴅbolt involved and whatnot. You may not be able to physically kick the door in. If you got to know how you’re going to get in this door, and the killer’s on the other side, you’re really exposing yourself to some real dangers.

I give this a five.

What Se7en’s Inaccurate Details Say About The Crime Thriller

The Mistakes Are Reflective Of Pitt’s Character

While Postiglione’s sentiment about David’s actions dropped the film’s accuracy score, those small details are reflective of Pitt’s character throughout the movie. The young detective is often shown to be brash in his approach, not always following protocol the way he’s supposed to. His brashness is contrasted with Freeman’s William, whose seasoned work makes him more cautious in his approach to the investigation. This becomes an important part of Fincher‘s Se7en as the story evolves, proving that, despite the inaccuracies to realistic detective work, these small details still favor developing the protagonist.

Source: Insider/YouTube