Plot hole: In the end of the film it is heard the police want to exhume the body of Charles Lee Ray from his grave site in New Jersey. Now when Chucky and the crew get to the grave site they find and kill a coroner who is digging up the body. He is the only one there at 1am, by himself, a lonely coroner without any police officers, after all this is a police investigation and I doubt the cops would have him there alone. Then right at the end the Detective who is hunting them arrives. Now he is a cop from Lockport, about six states away. A. Why did he drive all that way to see the body? B. A cop from all the way down there shows up but no new Jersey cops are at the scene?
Plot hole: We see Jason get his outfit from Harold's clothes line. Yet in Chris's flashback Jason has these same clothes already on.
Suggested correction: I went and looked at both Chris version of Jason and Jason in the recent Part III. The Part III Jason outfit in Chris version has a lot darker clothes. Same style, just darker. That type of clothing is very similar though.
Plot hole: So he needed the help of a big strong burly guy to flip the safe with the body, end over end to the pit, but he somehow was able to easily get it out of his basement and into the back of his car by himself?
Plot hole: How did the men on the ship get killed? The bridge was intact and the T-Rex was still inside the cargo hold. [A raptor was meant to escape from the boat when it pulled in to the harbour, but they cut the scene from the film and now that bit doesn't appear to make any sense.] (01:40:55)
Suggested correction: The idea of raptors being on the boat is a myth (likely spawned from a similar thing happening in the first book's ending). Though it's very poorly communicated and leaves many unanswered questions (the captain's hand the least of which), the dead hand holding the cargo hold controls implies that the T-Rex somehow got free, killed the crew, then was either lured or willingly returned to the hold where a dying worker closed the doors again.
Plot hole: A core plot point (lifted by the comics) is that Venom needs phenethylamine, and the only way to get it is from brains and from chocolate. Let's just go with it and forget the fact that phenethylamine can be legally purchased as dietary supplement, which would solve every problem. So, Venom gets incredibly angry because Mrs. Chen's shop ran out of chocolates, and *therefore* they need to go raid a chicken plant to eat some chicken brain. Uh, Venom lives in San Francisco. Chocolate is sold everywhere. If Mrs. Chen ran out of it, there are hundreds of stores and vending machines that have it in abundance. The escalation does not make sense.
Suggested correction: The point is he needs to steal it. At Mrs. Chen's shop he gets it for free because he protects her from robbers. Eddie doesn't have the money to buy all the chocolate Venom needs all the time. Stealing some chickens as an alternative is better than trying to shoplift at a different store.
In the rest of the movie Eddie lives in his old apartment constantly in need of repairs, but shows zero serious money problems. He has lavish breakfasts, and he replaces the $2,000 TV the same day. Raiding the chicken place appears riskier than slipping his symbiote in a vending machine or shoplift, especially if it's just temporary - again assuming he's so poor that he literally has no money to eat, which is something the movie should have let us know, instead of pointing to the contrary and making him talk angrily about the need for them to not draw attention.
Not only are the original mistake and Sammo 100% correct, but chocolate isn't exactly expensive. You can get 5 pound bulk orders of melting chocolate on Amazon for like... $25. And that's just a quick 2-second Amazon search. You could probably get it even cheaper elsewhere online. Even if Eddie hypothetically has little money (which doesn't seem to be the case - he has a nicely sized apartment in a major city, new TV, etc.), it's still ridiculous that he couldn't get his hands on chocolate. This is definitely a case of the movie ignoring practicality and reason to manufacture a funny situation.
I agree. There are many other stores that sell candy so all Eddie had to do was to go to one of those instead. Plus, at the end of the first movie, Eddie told Ann that he was going to become an investigative journalist, so he has a new job.
Suggested correction: Which would you rather have phenethylamine, chicken, or chocolate for dinner? That's like saying just because we need food to survive...we should just eat anything or buy our base vitamins and minerals over the counter and from the store.
Sure. How does that have anything to do with the entry? Venom wanted chocolate for dinner and not chicken, supplements to a diet don't mean that you can't eat actual food and the main point was and is that if a store in a metropolis is sold out of chocolate of any kind, there are a dozen other stores in a few blocks' radius who sell it without you having to resort to crime to eat it.
Plot hole: In the beginning, Rachel and Loomis are referring to Rachel's mother as being Jamie's step mother and Rachel refers Jamie as being her step sister. Rachel's mother is Jamie's foster mother and Jamie is Rachel's foster sister as said in Halloween 4.
Plot hole: In the scene where she goes to her house after escaping there is no police tape on the front door even though it is a crime scene. Earlier the police searched and taped her office - it only makes sense that they would do the same to her house.
Plot hole: No one wonders what happened to all the staff and patients at that sanatorium? No police ever came there and checked the place out after 30 years? And all the patient records, furniture, etc are still there?
Plot hole: When the security guy goes inside the secret hole, there is no way he'd have been able to cover the rug. When the other guys come in the rug is covering the hole.
Plot hole: Through this film (and its predecessor) it is established that the creature imitates its victims perfectly, having all of their knowledge and memory. At the end, when the female lead tells the male lead she knew he was human because of his earring, he reaches for the wrong ear, confirming he is The Thing. Even if The Thing couldn't reproduce the earring, it would have known which ear it was supposed to be in.
Suggested correction: It is also established in this film that the creature cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials; the tooth fillings, metal plate, etc. Kate knows that Carter is The Thing and asks him a trick question about his earring to confirm it. The fact that The Thing reaches for the wrong ear means that it didn't know where the earring really was because it cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials. There is no mistake here.
The mistake has nothing to do with The Thing not being able to imitate inorganic material. The mistake is The Thing has all the memories and thus should know which ear was pierced based on these memories.
This goes with my theory that he was actually human because he didn't try to assimilate her when they we're alone and far away from people, and he didn't change when he was threatened and accused which was backed by (potentially false if the theory is correct) evidence which would make it defend itself.
You're obviously wrong here. The Thing imitates the human perfectly including the memory and I'm pretty sure that if you only have one ear pierced you'd know which one is it, therefore the imitation would know.
Plot hole: During the end the murderer is thrown out the front window of the building. The students leave the building through the front door, but yet there is no body, and that doesn't seem to bother them!
Plot hole: Barry gets killed violently at the pageant. So obviously there should be blood everywhere. When the police go up to the crime scene, they find nothing. There's no way the killer had time to clean up anything, let alone drag away Barry's body without someone seeing him. And blood starts dripping after the police leave the scene.
Plot hole: Andy is suspected of having killed Eddie Caputo, because he was at the scene when Eddie's house blew up and Eddie was killed. But there are glaring things that go unquestioned: None of the cops seem to think it's strange that a six-year-old kid would travel by himself so far to some random house in order to blow it up. The South Side neighborhood where Eddie lives is halfway across the city from Andy's apartment. How did Andy know where Eddie lived? How do the cops think he even knew Eddie at all? None of them address this most puzzling problem.
Suggested correction: The police believe Andy to be insane (hence why he is sent to a mental institution instead of juvenile hall), and thus do not believe his choice of victims to be in any way rational.
Also, as unlikely as it is that a six-year-old child could (or would) travel halfway across the city to murder a random person, the possibility that a child's doll came to life and carried out the act was considered far too outlandish at that point in the plot.
Suggested correction: We don't see the entire investigation. We just see the cops holding Andy then taking him to a psychiatric clinic. Chances are they were asking those questions and we just didn't see it because it's not important to the plot. Regardless, the cops have every reason to believe Andy either knows about or was partly responsible for the murders considering he keeps showing up at murder scenes. There's only so many conclusions you can draw, even if they don't make sense.
Plot hole: The police Inspector recounts the murders, comparing them to the ten Biblical plagues of Egypt, and he states that in keeping with this theme Dr. Kitaj was killed by rats. First, Dr Kitaj dies in a plane crash. Okay, he was attacked by rats in flight but nobody would know that - his plane crashes in a huge, violent fireball and nobody would find any rat remains after that. Second, there was no plague of rats in ancient Egypt! (Go ahead, look it up). Even if the police had made the connection between the mysterious deaths and the ancient plagues they would not make the connection here.
Plot hole: Where exactly did all the other people go on the ship? In the beginning of the movie there were people everywhere then all of a sudden it's down to the main characters.
Plot hole: The motivation of the cult in this film - a dark entity trying to birth their demonic god - is completely different from the cult of the original film, which was portrayed as fanatical Christian witch-burners. No satisfactory explanation is given in the film to explain this and in fact the film explicitly implies they are the same cult on several occasions. The explanation that the cult of the original film is some sort of offshoot or different sect of the cult from this film cannot explain this as it is pure fan speculation and conjecture (thus non-canonical) and in fact raises several more plot-holes.
Plot hole: Tommy leads the mob after the 2nd escaped patient, thinking it's Michael, but Tommy should have known it wasn't Michael. He saw the patient on the TV at the bar at the beginning of the film.
Plot hole: When Hooper and Chief Brody are trying to get the Mayor to re-close the beach after finding Ben Gardner's boat, they fail to mention they also found Ben Gardner's severed head. The Mayor would be forced to re-close the beach if yet another confirmed shark fatality had been mentioned, but Hooper and Brody never bring that important detail up. [This is still a mistake, but the explanation for this is that the scene where they find Ben Gardner's head was not in the original script. Originally, they just found his boat. Spielberg felt the scene needed a little more shock value so they shot the part with the head in a swimming pool long after the main filming had been completed.] (00:50:20)
Suggested correction: First off, it wasn't a severed head as you can still see the body attached to it, and second, what difference would that make? Two people and a dog already died, with the death of the Kitner boy being witnessed by several people, and the beaches still stayed open because the mayor was too stupid to close them. Not only that, but during the scene you mentioned, I believe it was Hooper who said that THREE incidents had occurred BEFORE the third killing takes place on-screen.
And not only that, but the mayor witnessed Hooper saying that the shark they caught was not the same one, or at least it was possible that it wasn't. Either way, shark attacks were happening, but the mayor did nothing about it.