Corrected entry: De Niro pronounces 'Hereford' incorrectly when interrogating Sean Bean's character. He say 'Here ford', as in two different words. It should be pronounced 'Herryford'. I am surprised Sean Bean didn't correct this.
Bishop73
27th Aug 2003
Ronin (1998)
2nd Dec 2009
The Dark Knight (2008)
Trivia: This is the first Batman film in which Bruce Wayne does not appear in a tuxedo.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He does; he is wearing one during the restaurant scene.
No, he's wearing a regular suit in the restaurant scene, if you're talking about the one where he and his ballerina date sit down with Harvey and Rachel.
I don't know what you think the definition of a tuxedo is, but it's equivalent to a dress suit or dinner suit (or even black tie). So basically, dress shirt, dress shoes, trousers and a jacket.
There's a distinction between a tuxedo and a suit, and what Bruce is wearing isn't a tuxedo. There's also a difference between a dress suit and a dinner suit, also known as a black tie, so dress suits and dinner suits are not equivalent. What British refer to as a dinner suit is what Americans refer to as a tuxedo. Wearing a suit at dinner or a black tie doesn't make it a tuxedo.
So what makes a tuxedo?
The type of jacket and pants (or trousers), and often the shirt, shoes and accessories. Satin on the jacket lapel and side of the pants and pants without belt loops. Usually a tux comes with a pleated shirt with studs instead of buttons. Often you wear a bow tie and cummerbund, but it's not necessary. A casual or dress suit is made out of all the same material with acrylic and uncovered buttons.
6th Nov 2022
The Twin (2017)
Plot hole: Derek, who escaped the mental hospital by pretending to be his twin brother Tyler, was able to locate Tyler's vehicle by using the keys to beep its horn. Once inside the SUV, he apparently found Tyler's cell phone, which is odd because most people carry their cell phones with them. But Derek did not ask Tyler for his cell phone's password before rendering him unconscious - so how did he gain access to the cell phone without the password? (It isn't likely that Tyler previously gave it to him). (00:20:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tyler never left his cell phone in the car. He had with him when visiting Derek. We see him pull out his cell phone to show Derek a picture, so the phone was already unlocked, assuming he locks it with a password in the first place.
I haven't had time to finish posting the rest of the mistakes I have, but I just uploaded two that should show up under "pending submissions." They probably should have been posted before the one above. I suppose the real question is where the cell phone came from each time.
8th Sep 2004
Duel (1971)
Continuity mistake: When David Mann is at the cafe, the waitress brings over his sandwich and water. He immediately drinks all of the water, yet when the shot changes to above the table, of him looking at his sandwich, the glass of water is completely full again.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is an empty glass next to the full glass.
The mistake is valid. David drank all his water before getting his food and asked the waitress for another glass of water and aspirin. She then brought him the food, aspirin, and 2nd glass of water. He drinks all the water after taking the aspirin and sets the empty glass down. In the next shot he's holding a glass with water. There should be two empty glasses.
18th Oct 2022
Wayne's World (1992)
Question: It seems like there's some stuff cut out of the scene where Wayne and Garth meet the cop outside the donut shop. He stops them for some unsaid reason, then flips a coin at the end. What does any of this mean? Does he just get charmed and distracted by them?
Answer: It was just establishing that Wayne and his crew were friendly with Officer Koharski. They cut their conversation short because they were afraid Phil was about to throw up and needed to get him a cup of coffee.
Before Phil gets sick, they're just having a conversation. After it cuts from Phil, Koharski is suddenly holding a quarter in between his fingers. There seems to be a scene cut before they see Phil get sick to explain where the quarter came from. (Like if I had to guess, does Koharski pull out the quarter to show what he found in the cavity search?) That's what the question is asking, not is there a scene cut after Phil gets sick to explain why Koharski just walks away.
7th Oct 2022
An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (1991)
Factual error: Sometime when Chula the spider is chasing Fievel, he sings a version of "Itsy bitsy spider." However the film takes place in the 1890's and the song "Itsy bitsy spider" was not written until 1910.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It had been around for much longer than that, that's just the oldest book we have a record of which listed it.
Except the 1910 version was the "Spider Song" since it didn't use the words "itsy bitsy" and those lyrics didn't come until later in the 40's.
24th Jul 2010
Casper (1995)
Corrected entry: It is said that ghosts don't crossover as long as they have unfinished business. This means Casper, Stretch, Fatso and Stinky should have unfinished business, but why they are present is never explained.
Correction: I don't see how this could be considered a plot hole. It's just an element that they decided to ignore. The story is about the misadventures of a friendly ghost and some annoying ghosts. Why they're there really doesn't play a part in the theme of the movie.
That still doesn't answer the question as to what their unfinished business is which they have seen as how they haven't crossed over.
27th Aug 2001
What about Bob? (1991)
Continuity mistake: Leo Marvin is at the window watching Bob 'leave' and he is holding the newspaper in his left hand. Then he waves and it is still in his left hand. When he walks towards his family it is in his right. He could have switched, but that is some pretty fast switching.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He could have switched. It, for me, wasn't that fast.
I agree. It wasn't a continuous shot, and he's off camera for 3-4 seconds before we see the paper switch hands.
25th Jul 2005
Over The Top (1987)
Corrected entry: To make the movie seem as authentic as possible, Stallone told the guy playing Bull not to take it easy on him when it was time for them to shoot the final scene of their match together. The guy laughed about the idea but still agreed to do so even though he warned Stallone that he may hurt him. Stallone, made him eat those words when he beat him for real. Everything in that scene is authentic except for close-up shots of their face that were done later due to injuries that both men suffered while the scene was being filmed. Stallone suffered a strained forearm while Bull Hurley's character suffered a dislocated shoulder. The cry from him that you can hear when Stallone is pulling his arm down at the end is the real thing. That's when it happened.
Correction: I don't know where you came up with Stallone beating Zumwalt for real. Not on his best day and with two Arms. Rick Zumwalt was a real arm wrestler. By the time they filmed the finals Stallone could barely pull. He did way too much, thinking because he trained all the time. It would be easy. Arm wrestling is an entirely different sport, and everyone in the beginning deals with unimaginable pain.
I tried to look up stories of Stallone actually beating Zumwalt. In all the stories from the people and wrestlers at the tournament, nothing is mentioned about it. Only that the punch from Zumwalt was real. There's only one source I found "10 things you didn't know about 'Over the Top'" by Tom Foster. The trivia entry is almost word for word copy of some the "facts" listed. However, Foster doesn't site any sources, quote anyone, or mention at all where he got this information.
11th Oct 2017
Halloween (2007)
Character mistake: When Sheriff Brackett is talking to Loomis at the food stand, he calls him Don. His name is Sam. Even says it in the subtitles. (01:19:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He could possibly be saying "Doc".
No, he's definitely saying "Don." It's never been addressed, but I think it's an honest mistake with two people who have never met before and maybe an homage to Donald Pleasance, who played Loomis before.
It's hard to say, but it does sound like "Don." The sheriff says "doc" two times later in the same scene and those two times definitely sounds different than the first time. But I don't think it's meant to be a homage to anyone. I think it's just an actor who flubbed the word.
21st Jan 2018
John Carter (2012)
Factual error: Carter's war record says he won the Southern Cross of Honor during the American Civil War. While this medal was authorised, it was never actually awarded.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: John Carter isn't a real person either. This is science fiction, not a historical documentary.
It's still a valid point that he has a decoration that was never awarded. It's mostly science fiction, but the parts that take place in the real world are supposed to take place in the real world.
I think you're missing the point. The medal could have been awarded during that time, but no real person actually was awarded it. There's nothing preventing someone from being awarded it, and John Carter, as a fictional character, was awarded the medal. It would only be a mistake if they showed a real person who actually existed be awarded the medal or if the medal was never commissioned at that time.
3rd Jun 2003
The Italian Job (2003)
Factual error: During the escape at the end of the movie, when the Minis come out of the pipe and drop down into the basin of the LA River they fall nose first into the pavement. However, with approximately 9 million dollars worth of gold in the trunks of the cars, they would be back heavy, not front heavy, and fall more evenly or even back first. It's been suggested that Wrench could have put a ton of weight up front to balance the cars properly, but the amount of gold carried in those special boxes loaded into the back end of the very short wheelbase Minis could not be balanced even by the legendary Wrench without severely re-engineering the vehicle. If that was possible, the handling of the unladen Mini would be woeful, and the chase scene BEFORE the subway gold heist would be impossible. The Minis would have fallen like bricks nose-first onto the subway track when jumping from the platform.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I have spoken with an expert in vehicle dynamics and physics, and he said that the falling of the vehicles is absolutely correct. He has seen the movie and finds nothing wrong with the scene. The front of the car starts falling first, and therefore will land first. The cars would have to fall a much greater distance for the weight to take over and cause the back of the car to drop and hit first - it would have to have fallen perhaps as much as 25-30 feet. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but in reality it was real as presented.
Sorry, your expert must have been a friend of the stunt coordinator. It was the worst car stunt mistake of all time and why they never balanced the cars and reshot the scene is anybody's guess.
Of course the front end starts to fall first, that's the point of the mistake, it should be backend heavy. If you watch the scene, it's clear there's a ramp at the end of the tube (whether intentionally done by the characters or for stunt purposes). When the cars hit the ramp, they fly up so that the front end is up in the air above the back end. Then the cars fall front end first, fairly quickly, that if even if they fell from higher up, the back end would never fall faster than the front.
2nd Nov 2017
The Martian (2015)
Other mistake: Rich Purnell explains his plan to redirect the Hermes to Mars in order to rescue Watney, positioning people to represent planets and using a stapler to show the trajectory of the vessel. He is talking to experienced, qualified engineers and technologists working at a very high level on the space programme. They don't need drama school play acting to be understand things like this. He could have explained his plan in the most complex and abstruse terms and they would have been way ahead of him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't really a mistake. Yes, the character oversimplified the explanation but, as is shown when the character is introduced, he doesn't exhibit typical social behaviour. To him it's probably normal to explain things that way to strangers (which is basically what the people he's talking to are).
I think this is one of those borderline mistakes. Movies and TV shows often have a character over-simplify things, especially when involving science, for the audiences' sake and not for any of the characters. This type of mistake is similar to when characters start a conversation, but the show skips time by having characters arrive at a new location in the next scene without showing them traveling, but then the characters continue their conversation for the audiences' sake.
27th Aug 2022
The Black Phone (2021)
Character mistake: In the very beginning at the baseball game the runner is running to second base and the fielder doesn't even try to tag him out. Just runs right by him and gets the ball to the pitcher. (00:00:53)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The center fielder missed the ball and the right fielder got it. The second baseman was at the border of the infield and outfield and the right fielder may not have noticed that the short stop moved to cover second base. By this time, the players might have been more concerned over the opposing team scoring a run because a player had advanced to third base. It was a "revealing" mistake or overall "stupidity" by the team as each player was playing "musical positions" more so than good baseball.
With regard to "revealing", the players may have been instructed to be active on the field and cover bases for each other as needed and this was the "mess" they produced.
Suggested correction: Baseball players make mental errors all the time, even major leaguers.
I've watched the scene a few times and can't agree or disagree with the mistake, but it certainly doesn't look like a mental error one would see in a game, even a little league game. It just looked like two kids were given directions what to do and the timing might have been off and the director on set didn't bother changing it. (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with the correction either, just making a statement to help others decide).
8th Nov 2010
An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)
Corrected entry: This is just plain weird. I have seen the movie at least 10 times. At the very end Gere walks up behind Debra Winger. She takes out her ear plugs and her hands are in camera view all the time. She reaches up to his mouth and it appears that she pops the ear plugs into his mouth and then kisses him. Call me crazy but look for yourself.
Correction: It does look like it doesn't it!? But, her ear plugs are on a cord, she just leaves them hanging around her neck. She lets them trail out of her hands, which does make it look like she grabbed them.
Then what does she put in his mouth?
It's definitely an awkward move she does, but it doesn't look like she puts anything in his mouth. She just reaches to touch his cheeks, but then she moves arms around him.
28th Feb 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Corrected entry: In the first scene from 1955, November 6th, where Marty watches the mix of people in Courthouse Square, there is a shot where a boy in mustard yellow pants, standing next to a man, under a tall tree, is "bouncing" down the sidewalk on a pair of spring-laden shoes. These shoes were called "rocket shoes", and were not invented until the late fifties/early sixties, not 1955.
Correction: There were a few different versions of these sprung shoes from different makers, and went by similar names like moon shoes, satellite shows, and rocket shoes. They were all inspired by the space race going on in the 50s and 60s. And they do date from at least 1955, since there is a 1955 pair on display in the Brooklyn Museum.
This correction slightly contradicts itself. If the ones you could find from 1955 were in New York then they must have been released to the public in the same year in the Northeast States. However, Hill Valley is in California, a western state. This means that the product probably wouldn't be there until 1956 onward.
True, but the fact is that they still existed. We don't know what that character did offscreen before the date shown in the movie. He could have gone on a vacation to New York and bought the shoes there for all we know.
Without you providing a specific company and evidence of a spring shoe sold (either nationwide or California) the mistake is valid since the shoes you mentioned were patented in 1968.
Correction: The original poster claimed the shoes were not invented until well after 1955, so I gave an example of ones from 1955 that demonstrated the claim was wrong. Also, your logic is off since 1) that doesn't mean they were only first invented in 1955, just that they were provably invented BY 1955, and 2) being in a New York museum doesn't mean they were only released in the Northeast in that year. There is no contradiction in my post.
There's no evidence that any type of spring shoes were invented and sold by 1955. Unfortunately when you just Google things like "satellite shoes" or "rocket shoes", you get results from sellers like on Etsy who claim they're from the 1950's or 1950's inspired, but no date is ever given. And the Brooklyn Museum never makes a claim the shoes they have are from 1955. In fact, they say the shoes that have were patented in 1968. So, no, you didn't actually give an example of a spring shoe from 1955.
23rd Nov 2008
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
Continuity mistake: When Po's Dad puts the apron on his following their hug the apron appears out of nowhere, having not appeared in any previous scene.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you are talking about the event at 1:07:40, it is not a mistake; Po's stepdad put the apron on him. There is a suspicious woosh sound and Po's right eye (left side of the screen) opens in surprise. The apron also unfurls, as if it was just worn.
The mistake seems valid. When Po's dad see him, he raises his arms (wings) and his hands are empty. When he hugs Po, his arms in no way come close to wrapping around Po's belly. So why we can't see what Mr. Ping is doing during the hug, his position doesn't move, so there's no way he could tie the apron around Po if we assume he somehow had the apron in his pocket (even though there's no evidence for that).
I know. But the whoosh version that the filmmakers have chosen is more fun than your literal-minded version. It is an established tradition in cartoons to replace very fast actions with cartoonish materialization accompanied by a whoosh sound. Following that tradition is not a mistake, especially when the film is a work of fantasy.
15th Nov 2007
Sliders (1995)
Corrected entry: In the episode where the Sliders go to the world where Quinn sees himself as a child attending his father's funeral, Quinn helps his young self deal with bullies. Quinn repeatedly mentions it was all happening exactly the way it did on Earth Prime. The flaw here is that in the series premiere episode, they showed a picture of Quinn, his mom and dad. Quinn was a teenager in that picture, not a kid. Therefore the events in the alternate world could not be happening the exact same way. And we know his mother never remarried and the man in the picture could not have been a stepfather because throughout the whole series they repeatedly show Quinn's father and he is the very same person in the picture.
Correction: The odds of everything happening the EXACT same way is too thin for it to actually happen. Just like the first world that he Slid into, it was just a VERY similar world, although not exactly the same. It's the same case here, Quinn was just wrong in his assumption.
You're missing the major point. The picture with Quinn and his parents in the pilot shows he was older than 11 at the time. But in "The Guardian" we learn Quinn's father died when he was 11, which he remembers, that's not Quinn being wrong in his assumption. The days of the bullying occurred on the exact days he remembered because the events were the same, which is why he was able to be there at the right time. Even his dog running away was the same.
10th May 2019
The Great Wall (2016)
Continuity mistake: When they are in the big hall he goes to demonstrate that he can shoot. He shoots 5 arrows. When you see the arrows hit the bowl only three hit. (00:32:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Sometimes he shoots 2 at a time. He does shoot 3 times, but he shoots five arrows.
The correction is valid. He never shoots 2 arrows at once. You may need to watch in slow motion if you can't see what happened. He grabs 3 arrows with his right hand and keeps them in his hand as he shoots 1 arrow at a time. This is probably most obvious on the 2nd shot where you see the 2 arrows in the bow, but when he releases his hand, you see one arrow still in his right hand and 1 arrow leaving the bow.
He starts holding all 3 arrows, shoots 1, reloads holding 2, shoots 1, then reloads and shoots the last arrow.
21st Dec 2003
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Trivia: This movie set a long-standing Guinness World Record for the largest number of automobiles ever destroyed in a movie, 104, including 60 refurbished and reinforced police cars wrecked (most beyond repair) in the various chase scenes. This record held until the belated sequel, "Blues Brothers 2000," (1998) deliberately set the new record by wrecking one additional automobile for a total of 105.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It possibly depends on what one counts as "destroyed." Sources suggest there were 104 cars destroyed in BB, with 105 in BB2000. The record has been broken several times since and now stands at 532. It'd be great to see evidence of the numbers for verification. whatculture.com/film/20-things-you-didn't-know-about-the-blues-brothers?page=12 www.startrescue.co.uk/news/top-10/the-10-films-that-destroyed-the-most-cars.
The trivia entry is mostly correct and doesn't need a correction. Just a word change to make it accurate. "Blues Brothers" (1980) did hold the record. 60 police cars were wrecked, but so were an additional 43 cars for a total of 103. "Blues Brothers 2000" beat their own record by 1 car. It seems person who made the entry found on the internet that "Blues Brothers" wrecked 60 cop cars and thought that was the record and assumed 61 was the new record.
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.
Correction: De Niro's character is American and he wouldn't know the correct pronunciation. As for Sean Bean's character, he doesn't correct De Niro because he is a fraud, as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't know what color the Hereford boathouse is. His accent and background are faked.
Phil C.
There is zero indication that Sean Bean is not British and why would he fake being British on top of everything else? Every Brit knows how to pronounce Hereford and De Niro uses the mistake that is only made by Americans indicating he messed it up and nobody dared to correct him.
The correction is still valid. It's not a mistake for an American character to pronounce a word in an American way. The mistake seems to indicate Bean in real life didn't correct Pacino (which the comment also indicates), not that the character Spence should have corrected Sam. Pronouncing words in an American or British (or any other country) way is only a mistake if it goes against how the established character would say the word (e.g Dr. House saying a word Laurie's natural British way).
Bishop73