MikeH

15th Feb 2017

V for Vendetta (2005)

Other mistake: In the final fight, V slices a man's right wrist, but blood only comes out of his left arm.

MikeH

13th Feb 2017

Boogie Nights (1997)

Question: Why was Little Bill so casual about seeing his wife cheat on him? I know he was furious, but he was still unusually calm, he just acted like he caught her holding hands with someone else, not like she was having sex with someone else. And why was his wife so casual about it too? She acted like she did nothing wrong.

MikeH

Chosen answer: SPOILER ALERT: It was the 1970's. Loose morals. The era of free love. Little Bill and his wife were active in the porn industry. It's likely that his wife presumed, but never discussed with her husband, an "open relationship." Bill, stunned by his discovery (but, perhaps, suspecting it all along), was simply trying to maintain his composure and not seem pathetically unhip by what would be perceived as an absurd overreaction. Clearly, however, he was suppressing a great deal of internalized rage. Ultimately, but very calmly as always, he eventually shoots and kills his wife and her gentleman caller mid-coitus, and then eats his own gun, at Jack's New Year's Eve Party, 1980.

Michael Albert

Chosen answer: In the book, yes, Starling knew that Senator Martin was not aware of the deal she and Crawford were offering Lecter. However she only inferred it because Crawford wanted her to be able to swear under oath she was not told this explicitly.

Sierra1 Premium member

Answer: In the movie, yes, she admits that the bio-research island was her idea.

13th Feb 2017

Django Unchained (2012)

Chosen answer: There is nothing in the film to indicate that he is not. He has the paperwork to prove the bounty he was pursuing, and he is not held by the authorities or charged with any crime, so we can assume that he was.

13th Feb 2017

Django Unchained (2012)

3rd Feb 2017

The Dark Knight (2008)

Question: If The Joker wanted to get arrested, instead of engaging in a huge chase with the police where he shoots at them with a machine gun and an RPG, why didn't he just walk into the police station and turn himself in? I know he's theatrical, but he's very lucky he wasn't shot, which would've ruined his plan.

MikeH

Chosen answer: Because the police would have suspected something if he just turned himself in out of the blue, and would have been more vigilant in looking for a trap. As it is, the police are convinced they legitimately captured Joker and derailed his plans with no further need to be on the lookout for unexpected surprises from him.

Phixius Premium member

30th Jan 2017

U.S. Marshals (1998)

Chosen answer: Because the glass was made with the same or similar material as the helmet, blocking Xavier's powers.

lionhead

24th Jan 2017

Bruno (2009)

Question: Why wasn't Sacha Baron Cohen arrested for secretly filming people having sex without their permission? Also, what was up with the scene where the camper knocks the camera over? Did he realise what was going on? What happened after?

MikeH

Chosen answer: Because this film was staged even more than Borat was.

Phixius Premium member

Answer: This is not a hidden camera movie. Everyone filmed believes they are being filmed for a documentary. So the swingers knew they were going to be filmed, but didn't know the shenanigans SBC was going to pull. The camper dude probably started realizing there was something weird going on and got mad that he was being made fun of, so knocked over the camera.

24th Jan 2017

Inception (2010)

23rd Jan 2017

The Reader (2008)

Chosen answer: "The Aufseherinnen (German for "female overseer) were female guards in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust. Of the 55,000 guards who served in Nazi concentration camps, about 3,700 were women. In 1942, the first female guards arrived at Auschwitz and Majdanek from Ravensbrück. The year after, the Nazis began conscripting women because of a guard shortage." - source: Wikipedia, "Female Guards in Nazi Concentration Camps".

Michael Albert

23rd Jan 2017

Die Hard (1988)

23rd Jan 2017

The Dark Knight (2008)

Chosen answer: One of his character traits as the Joker is his hunched posture. He's not standing fully upright.

16th Jan 2017

The Godfather (1972)

Continuity mistake: At the end of the shot where Al Neri shoots Emilio Barzini's bodyguards, the one on the right is still in the process of falling and hasn't hit the ground yet before it cuts, but in the next shot, he's already on the ground and not moving.

MikeH

16th Jan 2017

The Godfather (1972)

Other mistake: When Al Neri shoots Emilio Barzini's bodyguards, they're both only shot in the torso, but when they're on the ground, there's only blood coming out from under their heads.

MikeH

Question: In the trial at the start of the movie, we see a flashback of Andy walking with his gun. Where exactly was he? Was that a real flashback, or just what the prosecutor was assuming happened? Did Andy actually almost kill his wife but decide against it?

MikeH

Chosen answer: Andy showed up at his wife's lover's house, either to kill them or just threaten them. He had a change of heart and left. Unfortunately, his fingerprints were all over the bullets and liquor bottle he left at the scene, which was pretty damning.

Brian Katcher

1st Jan 2017

Goodfellas (1990)

Chosen answer: Most probably due to mass corruption within the prison. Guards on the mafia payroll would let them wear their own clothes in the same way they didn't eat the prison food but got to have their own superior food brought in.

The_Iceman

Question: When Andy got Norton and Hadley arrested, how did he manage to prove that they murdered Tommy? How did he manage to prove that he wasn't trying to escape?

MikeH

Chosen answer: He provided the authorities (and the media) evidence of all the money-laundering and illegal activities that happened at Shawshank...any specific evidence he had regarding Tommy is not shown in the film, but it can be assumed that Hadley, as revealed in Red's narration, broke down and confessed. Andy never intended to prove he wasn't trying to escape...he DID escape, so any attempt by him to prove otherwise would have been met with skepticism. Also, as far as the authorities are concerned, all the evidence came from his alter ego, "Randall Stevens."

Question: If Norton had helped Andy get a new trial, would it really work? There was no evidence that Elmo Blatch committed the murders.

MikeH

Chosen answer: The sole piece of evidence was to be Tommy's testimony, which could have exonerated Andy even if it didn't prove that Blatch was the killer. When Tommy was murdered by Hadley under orders from Norton, that ended any chance of Andy getting a new trial.

zendaddy621

Answer: I would say that Andy getting a NEW trial would be virtually impossible. For a prisoner to get a new trial, their attorney has to file an appeal with any information "supposedly" exonerating their client and/or proves some kind of malfeasance or errors in the original trial. Now courts rarely like to ever grant new trials to begin with so one must have awfully damning evidence to get one. I can only surmise that it would've been even harder during that Era than now as well. Now here's the problem or rub for Andy. All of the evidence, which is to say one piece in the testimony, wouldn't likely even be allowed into record or entry as evidence. First, it would likely fall under the here-say rules and deemed inadmissible in court... However, say even Tommy stayed alive and testified to what he knew and it could be entered in as evidence, it would do nothing without verification/corroboration. Now I can't remember if anything was said to whatever became of Elmo Blatch... I never read the book either so I can't say... But HAD Mr Blatch still been alive at that point, he would have been investigated and interviewed. If any evidence was found that pointed to Mr Blatch and/or Mr Blatch admitted his guilt, only then would Andy likely have enough for a new trial which would almost certainly end with Andy's conviction vacated especially if Blatch admitted it. However, via the film, all evidence leads to Andy and there's almost no chance Blatch would have admitted his own guilt especially since he relished the fact that someone else was paying for his crime. The only hope Andy would have had is that Mr Blatch had at least one or more other cell mates that he also spilled his guts to. Then Andy might have some hope that enough admissible testimony might award him a new trial. Problem is that none of that would have completely exonerated him and he'd just be retried. Which would still point to him because even if they could prove that Blatch had been in the area and his "supposed" confession, it would be circumstantial evidence and not likely to overcome the physical evidence that pointed straight at Andy. Hence Andy would just be back into jail. There's a lot that would have to go right or break Andy's way for him to get exonerated. He was the perfect patsy which was even an intended outcome by Blatch.

28th Dec 2016

Braveheart (1995)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Could that be because in the first scene his shirt is torn open, and they haven't started the disembowelment. Then they start the process and blood spurts up across his chest and neck?

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.