Corrected entry: When Fletcher goes to pick his Mercedes Benz up after it is towed, he screams about a scratch being on the car. There is no scratch visible throughout the rest of the movie.
Continuity mistake: When Fletcher takes his son to the office, they step out the lift and a woman in a purple suit is seen walking to the left. In the next shot, the same woman is walking to the right. (00:06:25)
Suggested correction: That's a different woman with a different hairstyle. The second lady's hair is up over her ears and the first woman's suit is a darker purple.
I don't think there's enough detail in the wide shot to say it's a different woman or not. She's seems to be carrying the same clipboard in the same way. Plus, in the next shot, the first woman should still be seen somewhere in the wide shot off to the left, and she's not.
Again. In the wide the woman's hair is up. You can even see a pin in it. It's not in the first shot. Also, she would not necessarily need to be seen in the wide shot. The first shot has them in the elevator, then there's a hallway, before they cross the doorway into the lobby. She would have already walked past the desk (notice the lamp) by the time they were a few inches out of the elevator. By the time they walked to the doorway she could easily be out of frame.
Impossible. The very short distance she walks takes her almost 2 seconds, and then she's off camera for maybe a second. The distance to the hall to be out of the shot is almost twice the distance she was just seen walking.
Depth perception. She's walking directly in front of the desk. She's not in the same spot as the second lady (in front of the lobby door). She walks across the screen before Max's feet leaves the elevator. The distance between the left side of the desk and off screen is fairly short and plenty of time for her to cross before they exit the elevator. Third time...different hairstyle. I'm pretty sure the second lady is even wearing a different shirt underneath her jacket too.
Question: Does Fletcher also have the ability to know everything? Just think about this dialogue: Fletcher : Your honor, would the court be willing to grant me a short bathroom break? Judge : Can't it wait? Fletcher : Yes it can. But I've heard that if you hold it you could damage the prostate gland, making it very difficult to get an erection, or even become aroused! Judge : Is that true? Fletcher : It has to be! That dialogue implies that he had never heard that fact, but he still knew it.
Answer: There's a lot of things people hear that aren't true (myths, old wives tales, etc), Fletcher only HEARD that it could damage the prostate, but it's not a real fact. Since Fletcher did hear the myth, he technically wasn't lying, even though he was wrong. While holding in your urine for extended periods of time can lead to some issues, like an infection, enlarging the prostate isn't one of them.
And, just to expand: Fletcher says it has to be true, but this is just due to his own imperfect understanding of what is happening to him. As the answer says, he says he HEARD it, which allows him to say it even if it's not a true fact. The important thing about the curse is HIS OWN perception of what he says. If he believes it himself, he can say it.
Question: After Fletcher gets his son to try to unwish the "No lying" wish, he tests to see if it works. He gets slapped in the face. When his son asks "Did it work?", Fletcher says, "Not as well as I had hoped." What did he mean by that?
Answer: As you said, he was testing to see if the wish was broken--by going up to an attractive woman and talking to her. While we don't hear what happens, he apparently said something a little too "forward" to her (probably more forward than he would have done otherwise, hence the "not as well as I had hoped"), and got slapped, so he knew that he was still under the wish's effects.
But I want to know what he said to the woman.
It's deliberately made unclear what he specifically said, because him getting slapped in the face is the gag that shows the audience that he's still under the spell. If we heard what he said, then we would know right away the new wish wouldn't have worked. It's ultimately up to the viewer's imagination to decide what he told the woman.
Corrected entry: When Fletcher proves his client was underage at the time of the prenup making it void he also proved she was underage when signing the marriage license. This was previously corrected by stating "An underage person has a certain amount of time to invalidate a contract once the person turns 18 after which it then becomes valid". So fair enough - the marriage then becomes valid as they were married for longer than this period. However under the same law the pre nup would ALSO become valid at such time, making it a valid contract.
Correction: Most states allow marriage at a younger age with parental and/or judicial consent. A marriage is not the same kind of contract as a prenup agreement or any other agreement.
No, but any kind of contract with a minor - marriage or prenup - is ratified after a certain period after the 18th birthday if it is not specifically voided before that time. Both the marriage and the prenup should be valid given Samantha's age (for marriage in California the deadline is two years).
Corrected entry: If Samantha Cole had lied about her age on her pre-nup, that would constitute a fraud committed on both her husband and the court. Her husband would not be held liable to pay the money, given that fraud. She wouldn't get 11 million dollars. What she would get would be multiple felony convictions, as she has obviously perpetuated her lie on other official documents (i.e. the driver's license).
Correction: That's all very true, and there would likely be another fraud trial later, negating any settlement Mrs. Cole was to receive. But in terms of the prenup what happened in the film is correct.
Under common law a contract with a minor is voidable, not automatically void. In most U.S. jurisdictions the deadline for avoiding a contract is 6 months after a minor's 8th birthday; in California, for a marraige, it is 2 years. The prenup would have been ratified as would the marriage. (Whether the terms of a particular prenup are enforcable either in part or in its entirety by its very nature is another queston that would need to be dealt with).
Corrected entry: In the state of California, all parties are required for consent to be recorded, much less be used in a court of law as evidence as one's infidelity in the tape recording we hear.
Correction: True, but irrelevant as the gentleman himself confesses to the adultery while on the stand. It's not illegal to present the recording, it just can't be taken into consideration by the court as evidence.
What would be the point to presenting evidence that can't be considered as evidence?
Correction: The Mercedes got scratched at the towyard, and you don't see Fletcher's car again for the rest of the movie.
You do see his car again before the end of the movie - he drives to the airport in it when he goes there to get Audrey and Max back before they leave for Boston.
Heather Benton ★
Yeah, but we don't see the side that was scratched.
lionhead