Film fans have just noticed huge plot hole in My Cousin Vinny that changes ending

A huge plot hole has been discovered by film fans in an Academy Award-winning movie that completely changes the ending. Hollywood flick My Cousin Vinny would bag Marisa Tomei her first Oscar, and while the highly-regarded movie has been praised as one of the best films around, there's a massive plot error that's just been discovered.

The 1992 film, which stars Joe Pesci of Home Alone and Goodfellas fame, was a hit at the box office and with audiences on its release. Now viewers who have returned to the film decades later are noticing something doesn't quite add up during one of the film's most pivotal scenes.

The film's plot revolves around two young adults facing trial for a crime they didn't commit, and tyre tracks play a crucial part in their testimony.

• BBC's Stranded on Honeymoon Island 'axed already' amid dire ratings
• Craig Revel Horwood calls for ex Strictly pro's return almost 10 years on from sudden exit

A scene depicting Pesci's character, Vinny Gambini, winning the case with Mona Lisa, played by Tomei, seems to have an important detail missing. A post to the r/TodayILearned Reddit page saw fans pick up on the plot hole.

One person wrote: "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 missing car has changed the point of the film for some viewers, though others are defending the decision to not include the car.

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 believed little changed because of the omission, as the car itself is too light to leave the tyre tracks used as evidence in the film.

Another has suggested the omission of one car is fair enough, and that they too would have taken the risk of not mentioning it in the scene.

They wrote: "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 agreed, adding: "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?"