26th Jun 2019

Child's Play (2019)

Other mistake: Andy and his friends are watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" in one scene. However, the scenes they watch are completely out of order compared to the actual film.

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

New this month Suggested correction: Actually this is simply a movie convention. When kids watch films onscreen, they deliberately only show the best bits of the film as oppose to just playing the film normally. Otherwise it would look dull and pointless.

Gavin Jackson

New this month Explaining why a mistake exists doesn't invalidate them. Skipping time or jump cuts is one thing, showing scenes from a movie kids are watching out of order, without a valid in-film reason, is still a mistake.


New this month The issue isn't that they aren't showing the whole movie. They did the right thing by just showing clips, since it illustrates a passage of time. The issue is that the clips they show are all out of order. (You'll see one from the ending of the movie, then one from the beginning, then another from the ending, then one from the middle, etc.) They could have just as easily shown a couple clips in order from throughout the film, and it would have worked, but they chose not to for some bizarre reason.


23rd Aug 2019

The Mummy (1999)

Question: What's the significance of the tattoo on the hands of the medjai? Not the medjai symbol but the 3 lines?

Answer: The tattoos they have are various symbols that mark them as Medjai. The sequel, "The Mummy Returns" confirms this.


Yes, I know, but the tattoos on the top of the hands are different from the one on the forehead and the cheeks. It makes me think of pyramids.

I believe it's just that seal of the Medjai. I don't think there's much significance beyond that.


14th Jul 2019

Tremors (1990)

Question: When Val and Earl first come into Perfection the sign says population 14. If you add up all the characters in the movie excluding Rhonda, there's 14 people. The question is who is taking care of Melvin?

Answer: According to one of the writers, his parents were both immature ne'er-do-wells who would often abandon him for long stretches of time. So he's pretty much on his own. (Hence, his parents are not counted on the population sign, since they're barely there for him).


Answer: His Uncle Nestor.

To my knowledge, nothing in the film indicates Nestor is related to Melvin.


12th May 2011

Silent Hill (2006)

Question: Anyone have any idea why Rose decided to try and outrun the police officer? It didn't appear Rose did anything illegal, so it seems she could have just waited to see why she was pulled over and then continue on her way.

Answer: It's illegal to enter Silent Hill and Rose knew the officer would try to stop her.

Phixius Premium member

Why is it illegal to enter Silent Hill?


The air is toxic from the coal fires. Too much of a potential for people to get hurt or die by going in for too long.


Corrected entry: When the Medjai face the final onslaught of the Anubis' warriors, they keep their swords in a ready stance, but they don't move them even when the army hits them. That would be a perfect way to fight if they want their heads chopped off, since the swords would have no hitting power if swung from that stance. (01:54:45)

Correction: They WANT to get their heads chopped off. The entire army of Medjai barely fought off the first wave. The survivors give up and crave a quick death.

No, they don't want their heads to be chopped off. They literally say they're going to fight to the death right before. They just picked an odd battle stance. It'd be completely out of character and nonsensical for them to randomly just want to die suddenly out of nowhere.


Question: After finishing the game, did Spencer, Fridge, Bethany, and Martha still have detention or did changing the timeline prevent them from their punishment?

Cody Fairless-Lee

Answer: They still had detention. The only thing that changed was Alex. But since they had become such close friends, detention would hardly be a punishment for them anymore.


It just seemed like they just simply walked out of detention. I mean did they finish their detention or did they had to continue on a Saturday?

The movie doesn't explain. But regardless, it also really doesn't matter.


9th Oct 2018

Venom (2018)

Plot hole: The Riot symbiote inhabits the body of the paramedic immediately after the crash at the beginning, then goes into the body of an old woman who goes to the airport and proceeds to take control of a little girl who's going on a flight to San Fransisco. Riot then takes over Carlton Drake's body. The entirety of these events would need to have taken six months, for it to be consistent with the timeline of the rest of the film.

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

Suggested correction: Riot only arrives at the airport as the old woman after 6 months. There is no reason given why Riot decides to stay in the body of the woman for so long, but not giving a reason doesn't make it a plot hole. It stayed in the old woman for 6 months maybe because it needed to gather strength or devise a plan.


The director has even admitted it's a plot hole. Regardless, the film does nothing to suggest it was doing anything other than traveling towards its destination, so this does constitute a plot hole.


Why does it constitute as a plot hole if it's traveling towards its destination? Why does one thing imply the other?

Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.

Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).


Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.

Charles Austin Miller

He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.


Corrected entry: Throughout the movie the cars and building are shrunk down to size and carried by people. Though the size has changed, their mass hasn't. In this and the original film it is specified that the Pym Particle works by reducing the distance between atoms. That's absurd, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that a human reduced to the size of an ant would have an unimaginable density, and thus his mass and weight would stay the same. There's no way the characters could carry those things with little or no effort, they would weigh as much as they did before they were shrunk.


Correction: While it's easy to miss, there actually is some brief dialogue in the first film when Scott is learning about the suit that establishes the rules. In addition to shrinking and growing, things like mass, energy and weight are also affected by the Pym-Particles. Sure, perhaps it's not 100% realistic, but the films do address these issues and offer explanation. Hence people can carry around shrunken buildings, tanks, cars, etc.


In this, and the previous film, it is specified that the Pym particles work by reducing the distance between atoms. That is utterly impossible, of course, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that shrunken or expanded articles or people retain their mass and weight. This is an inescapable mistake for both films, and the original posting is correct.

The shrinking works differently on inanimate objects. It's the suits that let the person being shrunk to maintain its mass, anything else being shrunk loses its mass. Blowing stuff up works differently though, the technology to do that is just different. The way Pym particles work is one thing, but how all of the technology involved works is a totally different thing.


Here's the problem with this reply - the first film specifically states that it's not just the distance between particles that's being altered - other properties change along with them as a result of the Pym particle. The fact of the matter is yes, you can try to apply real-world logic to it and pick it apart, but the films do an adequate job explaining why it's possible to do things like carry buildings or tanks around so long as they are shrunken down, or for a plastic children's toy to become a destructive object when enlarged, as they are effected by the mysterious properties of the Pym particle. Hence, it shouldn't be considered a mistake unless a specific scene contradicts something else shown earlier in the film.


Correction: This isn't a mistake so to speak. The abilities of Ant-Man and the whole shrinking and growing thing is very much a comic book thing. And the only way these movies even work at all is through the suspension of disbelief.

Quantom X Premium member

Maybe, but in the first film they explicitly state that even though the shrinking technology makes objects sizes' smaller, it doesn't change their mass.


15th Jul 2003

Robocop 2 (1990)

Continuity mistake: When RoboCop is being scraped up against the wall creating a shower of sparks, we cut to views of Cain. In one of these shots of Cain, the background suddenly changes - the wall he's scraping up against is nowhere to be seen and the sparks vanish. In the other shots of Cain, the background is correct. For some reason, a shot was taken from another part in the sequence and added in here, creating an odd continuity gaffe in the background. (01:02:02)

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

Suggested correction: This is not correct. When they show the interior shots, you can see the red brick wall out of the window.


This correction is untrue. You can find the scene on YouTube (look up the video "Robocop 2 (6/11) Movie Clip - Demolition Ride" and pay attention from about 0:55 - 0:58), and the background is definitely totally different - different type of brick, graffiti is missing, there's no sparks and it's in the distance. The original mistake is correct.


31st Jul 2018

Men in Black (1997)

Question: I loaded the film up on Netflix, and it seems that the dialogue in one scene was edited. In the standard cut of the film, Jeebs says "You insensitive prick!" to K, but in the version I saw on Netflix, Jeebs says "You insensitive jerk!" What's the deal with the Netflix version changing this one single line? The original "prick" line appears to be on both the VHS and Blu-Ray edition I own.


Answer: As more films become available online and are accessible to a wider audience, the studios edit mature content that is unacceptable to under-aged viewers. It's the same as movies that are shown on airplanes where the adult content is edited or removed altogether.

raywest Premium member

Netflix doesn't censor their movies, though... So this explanation makes no sense.

It just seems odd, as Netflix basically never censors content in other films they host (since they're supposed to be hosting the officially released versions anyways), and the rest of the profanity/violence in this particular film is unedited.


31st May 2017

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Corrected entry: After freeing himself from the symbiote, the symbiote begins to fall into the area where Eddie is. In an overhead view, the symbiote is seen rapidly attaching itself to Eddie's arms and covering them. The very next shot shows the symbiote rapidly enveloping his arms again.

Correction: Just watched the scene to check and this is incorrect. The first shot (the overhead shot) merely shows the symbiote grabbing onto his shoulders. We never see it covering/enveloping his arms until the second shot.

I have seen the scene to and the overhead shot does indeed showing the symbiote covering his arms and then covering his arms again when a close up of his transformation is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqdiN5cFgZs&app=desktop.

I just watched the link you sent. While it's true that his right arm (mainly the hand and forearm) is starting to be covered in the overhead shot, there's no inconsistency. The amount of symbiote on him is the same at the end of the overhead shot and the start of the next shot where we see him. So it's still not a mistake.


27th Oct 2013

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Plot hole: When Chucky is decapitated, no blood comes out. He still has the scars from Bride/Seed of Chucky so that means he's still in the same doll's body. The longer he remains inside the doll the more human he becomes, so he should definitely bleed by this point in time.

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

Suggested correction: There's no telling exactly how his Voodoo works.

The writer/director even admitted this scene was a mistake. Prior films showed that once Chucky inhabited the doll for long enough, blood and organs would appear. The director simply chose to ignore this for this one scene, and has admitted it's a mistake.


Factual error: Chucky is not tall enough to rev the engine of the car in the garage when trying to suffocate Nica.

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

Suggested correction: All he would have to do is stand on the gas pedal.

He's standing at the wheel the entire scene. He's not tall enough to be doing that and pressing the gas pedal.


26th Feb 2018

Jigsaw (2017)

Revealing mistake: At the beginning when the coroner cuts the bucket off the body, the metal is red hot and her pinky touches it. Not only does it not burn the glove but it doesn't burn her.

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

Suggested correction: The metal is not red hot, it was cut by a laser that gives off a small amount of smoke. Nothing says the metal is hot. So no burn is reasonable.

Ssiscool Premium member

Your correction suggestion completely contradicts how laser-cutters work. The metal would definitely be hot if cut with a laser cutter. That's how laser cutters work - they essentially melt the material they're pointed at in a very controlled fashion, and they do indeed get quite hot.


Smoke doesn't make the metal glow red, that would be heat. Also for the laser to cut through thr metal it needs to heat it up.


Question: How did Tony know about Spiderman's real identity?


Chosen answer: He's a multimillionaire with unlimited resources. He probably had his AI do some digging - facial recognition on the picture/video he had?

Annabel Keeley

As evidenced in "Iron Man 3", Tony can easily access GPS, satellite imagery, files, etc. and be able to investigate events even better than the authorities. (Remember that he was able to create an accurate 3D map of the Chinese Theater bombing and work it out when nobody else could.) He very likely was able to use the information available to deduce Parker's identity by tracing his steps, noticing patterns, working out likely candidates, etc., even though nobody else could.


Continuity mistake: Whenever Goldmember undresses. it causes a gold glow to light up the surrounding area. Later on in the movie when he reveals the 'second key', it stops producing this effect.

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

Suggested correction: We still see the glow as he's getting the key.

I believe he's referring to the fact that once removed, the key is no longer glowing, even though the film indicated it glowed.


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.