Question: In the movie they state the colonel cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the United States. All active members of the US military like the colonel are subject to the uniformed military code of justice no matter where the crime was committed, so how did the colonel prevent the military justice system from being able to charge him?
Answer: Receiving retirement pay and being in the IRR confers jurisdiction, even over retired military personnel.
Answer: "The colonel" was not active duty military, BUT as a retiree he is still subject to the UCMJ.
How are retirees subject to the UCMJ?
They're not, generally. Some service members who've served for more than 20 years but less than 30 are or were subject to the UCMJ. There was a recent legal opinion overruling this though. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/09/new-bombshell-legal-opinion-says-military-retirees-cant-be-court-martialed.html.
Question: Robbie's soldier friend (I think his name was Nettle) was so calm and compassionate with him. He said that the hiding place was in reality the beach cottage and he protects Robbie from the angry soldiers. Did he do that because he saw how sick he is and probably knew, deep inside, that Robbie will not survive the night until the evacuation, and wanted to give him a peaceful end? Why does he take Robbie's letters and pictures with him?
Answer: I think he realizes that Robbie most likely won't make it. He takes the letters so that he can get them back to his loved ones. He probably knows that there is a last goodbye to someone (his girl/his mother) in them. And, if nothing else, even if his body doesn't make it back to them, they have a piece of him to cherish.
Question: What happened to the previous CIA director in The Bourne Supremacy who was replaced by Erza Kramer in The Bourne Ultimatum?
Chosen answer: The script of The Bourne Supremacy actually calls Martin Marshall the "Deputy Vice-Director" of the CIA, although in the same script and film dialog, Landy refers to him as "Director Marshall". So it appears Kramer is CIA Director in all the Bourne films, but Marshall is either acting Director in Kramer's absence or is just referred to as a Director.
Question: If Sandra is at the scene of the accident, what is the purpose of the police officer showing up at the door to tell her Jim is dead?
Answer: It's fairly obvious that this film's theme is that knowing the future changes it. I.e. knowing there would be an accident, she travelled there and caused an accident.
Answer: Possibly she left the scene before the police arrived, so they did not know she had been there.
Question: When Mr Turner notices Kale, it is presumed that he let his victim go. But then later in the film, it comes to the viewer's knowledge that the woman never left. How could Mr Turner fake that?
Chosen answer: When Kale goes in Mr. Turner's house to find his mom, he finds a red wig and heels (when he saw the girl leaving Mr. Turner's house, that was Mr. Turner wearing the wig and taking her car to make it seemed like she had left safely).
Disagree. No way a grown man like that could fit into the dress, or be convincing.
Question: What were the last lines of the movie?
Answer: Marshall's line was, "Why do you fight it so hard, Earl?" Earl Brook's was, "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time and enjoying one moment at a time, accepting hardships as the pathway to peace. Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is and not as I would have it, trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will, that I may be reasonably happy in this life, and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen."
Question: How did Nick Frost pretend to stab Simon Pegg?
Chosen answer: In the pub Danny demonstrates using a ketchup packet to simulate stabbing himself in the eye. Later in the film he returns Nicholas Angel's notebook, hiding a ketchup packet in it. He stabs the pocket with the notebook, causing the ketchup to leak and simulate blood.
Question: The game they play near the start (the knock on wood game) seems pretty interesting. Is the point of it not to get caught moving or is there another goal? Also, can someone help me with the Spanish translation? I can't hear what the Spanish for Knock on Wood is. Thanks.
Chosen answer: It's a Spanish version of Red Light, Green Light where you'd try not to get caught moving. I haven't watched the film in a while but I believe she says "Uno, dos, tres, toca la pared". Hope that helps!
Question: How could Anthony Hopkins be arrested for turning off his wife's life support? He was acquitted of shooting her, so he's legally considered innocent of that, and he was completely legally entitled to turn off her life support.
Chosen answer: Once Crawford (Anthony Hopkins) took his wife off life support, it resulted in her dying. Crawford was arrested for murder, not because of taking her off life support but because his shooting of her resulted in her death ultimately. Crawford was only tried (and acquitted) for attempted murder. Since this is a new charge, double jeopardy did not apply.
Question: Why wasn't Patrick arrested for killing the child molester?
Chosen answer: Even though he executes an unarmed man, it is doubtful given the circumstances that he would be investigated with much fervor for his actions. One police officer has just been shot and killed so Patrick's actions could easily be described as self-defense in the eyes of an investigator. Anyone making a claim to the contrary would risk having to stand up for a child murdering cop killer.
Answer: Many/most people think child molesters are evil, disgusting, utterly loathsome, and irredeemable - they don't deserve to live - so a dead child molester is one less child molester. Even worse, Corwin Earle was also a child killer (although he claimed "it was an accident"). Many people, including police, would believe he deserved to die and Patrick did the right thing. Others, of course, would assert that "street justice" is not justice at all, but there would be little, if any, evidence that Patrick's shooting was not a justifiable homicide. IF Patrick were charged, his attorney would raise a defense that would most likely result in a "not guilty" verdict. Besides, this was a movie, and the audience needs to feel that justice has been served.
Question: Why didn't Walter go to prison after he confessed everything?
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)
Answer: Sleuth was originally produced as a stage play written by Anthony Shaeffer. In that medium, the surprise reveal was more plausible. The 1972 movie, starring Michael Caine in the younger role, was relatively more successful in deceiving the audience, though, it too, was fairly obvious. The 2007 version, directed by Kenneth Branagh, seemed to assume that most of the audience already knew about the plot twist and, as it comes midway through the story, it appears the movie instead focused on the psychological aspects of the cat-and-mouse relationship between the two characters.
Answer: You are completely correct. This is a clear mistake, the colonel could (and would) most certainly be charged for his crimes.
BaconIsMyBFF
Though unlike the movie, it's not up the attorney to decide if a military member gets charged, it's up to the judge advocate general.
Actually it's not a mistake. The colonel is not a member on active duty in the service. He's ex military. He's the one running the contractor group that carries out the senator's dirty deeds.