Continuity mistake: The two protagonists are having a conversation at a long table. Michael Caine sends a bottle of wine rolling across the table. Jude Law opens it and pours. The bottle label now faces him. After Caine says the line "I've never heard of an Italian called Tindale", Milo hasn't moved but the bottle faces the camera now. There's another subtle change in angle and level of the liquid a bit later when Caine says that his wife would get the "Tindelini" last name. (00:09:20)
Milo Tindle: If you think you're broke now, you'll be ten times broker by the time she's finished with you. She'll have your guts for garters.
Question: I have to admit that I don't know if this can be called a 'mistake', so I just post is as a question also to gauge the response from others who may have seen the movie. The 'trick' the movie's second act is based on, with Jude Law showing back at the novelist's house posing as an investigator... Would ANYONE be fooled by this? I don't pinpoint an obvious flaw in the make-up that maybe would be a Character or Continuity mistake, but seriously; is there ANYONE who wouldn't see through that silly disguise, especially considering that it's the only other visitor the guy had in days, that he is obsessed with him, Law comes to see Caine about his 'own' disappearance, which as opposed to the audience Caine knows is fake and left him open to at least a prank or revenge. I mean, they are up close for so long during this, both times, it is such a wild stretch of the suspension of disbelief. I was truly convinced Caine had seen through him right away and was playing with him, but shockingly, that was not the case. (00:02:30 - 00:39:40)
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.Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.