Question: Would it really have been possible for Nygma to modify the security footage to make it look as if Stickley was committing suicide at the time, with Nygma nowhere in sight?
Movielover1996
21st Feb 2025
Batman Forever (1995)
15th Feb 2025
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Plot hole: The cops are waiting for the robbers to arrive at the hideout after the robbery so they can bust Joe, and most certainly, they would have put surveillance on the warehouse. So why don't they intervene when Mr. Orange is presumably seen wounded outside of the hideout, or especially when a kidnapped cop is brought inside the warehouse? Cops aren't going to waste any time whatsoever letting one of their own be put in mortal danger, even over serious business.
15th Feb 2025
Enough (2002)
Plot hole: When Slim attempts to leave with the help of her friends and is being beaten by Mitch, they are able to hear a bit of the ruckus while parked outside of a van. So how come Gracie, who is asleep in the same exact room as Mitch and Slim, is able to sleep through such a ruckus at all? It seems very laughable that a very young child such as Gracie wouldn't wake up in the middle of all that, not to mention she only does so when Phil physically wakes her up.
19th Jan 2025
Common mistakes
Factual error: Hollywood tends to greatly exaggerate people who are killed as dying immediately, when the reality is that most people tend to bleed out or "shut down" gradually. Even seemingly lethal methods, such as a bullet to the head, are not a guaranteed instant kill; a non-example is in Reservoir Dogs, where it takes a bit of time for a character to die after being shot in the head. This is often most used for story and plot demands, though it can also be easier for filming as well.
10th Jan 2025
Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)
Revealing mistake: When Laura shoots Martin the first time at the end, you can see the red laser dot at where he will be shot in a blink-and-miss moment. (While it’s much easier to see in slow motion, you can see it in normal speed if you pay attention). (01:32:25)
11th Oct 2024
The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992)
Question: Is there any indication that Mrs Mott knew that her husband was sexually assaulting his female patients? I doubt any pregnant woman would be pleased if she found out her husband was taking advantage of other women for his own desires behind her back.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but would add that Mott's previous victims only came forward after Claire made her allegations. Many sexual assault victims fail to report crimes because they are embarrassed, think they won't be believed, fear public backlash, dread the legal process, etc. Mott, being a doctor, made it hard to prove his actions were "sexual" in nature. He was pretty subtle, leaving his victims unsure and making it difficult to prove sexual assault.
I just figured that maybe there was occasional gossip/rumours about Mott's behaviour before Claire reported it. But you are very correct - his actions would be subtle and difficult to prove. Also, the people who do these things are usually popular and well-respected, not stereotypical "creeps."
Answer: I don't think she knew. Later on, while talking to Claire, she sounds happy about him and says that he was the only one who really understood her. It's also possible that she heard occasional rumours about him, but refused to believe any of it. This happens in real life - a person will ignore numerous allegations against their spouse/partner. They don't believe it, and/or they want to cling to their ideal fantasy life. Notice how Mrs Motts thinks of her husband's death as a murder, and Claire is the "murderer."
21st Sep 2024
Enough (2002)
Question: If Mitch was pleased with the way his marriage had turned out and he admitted that Slim was a great sexual partner and she did nothing wrong to justify his affairs, then why does he still have "needs" that need to be met by sleeping around? He seemed to know full well he was risking throwing away all the success he had achieved and wanted to keep just to fool around.
Answer: You've answered your own question; he just wanted to continue having affairs and was using his "needs" as an excuse. Abusers manipulate/gaslight their victims by placing the blame for the abuser's behaviour onto them, knowing full well it is a lie.
Well, did he have an actual reason for doing that in the first place, since he stated that he was satisfied with his marriage? After all, he never denied that Slim was a great partner and did a lot for him, and he wouldn't have lost his family if he had acted like a responsible family man.
Right, he *acts* like a responsible family man. This is part of his abuse. The point is that he is NOT a responsible family man; never was, never would be. He's an abuser, and Slim is his victim. From the moment they met, he was manipulating her into thinking he was devoted to her. This is how abusers work: act like the perfect partner on the surface until they have total control over their victim, when it's too late for their victim to escape. Everything he says about being "satisfied" is a lie.
You do make a good point about how him saying he was truly satisfied with the marriage life was a lie. I was a bit skeptical since he did seem content with his marriage for the most part prior to truly losing control, but the possible idea did occur to me that he was probably playing the role of someone who he really wasn't, such as putting on a face of being a strong and hard-working man, when in reality he was weak and a coward. I appreciate the feedback and insight.
I've known a few men who were completely satisfied being married, loved their wives, and enjoyed the perks and comforts of domestic life with their spouse running the house, caring for the kids, coordinating their social life, etc. But despite all that, they had affairs on the side, apparently enjoying the thrill of secret liaisons and wanting variety. Eventually, their wives divorced them.
Answer: Along with the other comments here, I want to point out that abusive people can have a twisted idea of "love" and acceptable behaviour. Mitch might actually believe that he loves his family and he is a good husband/father, who likes to have the casual affair "on the side."
13th Aug 2024
Common mistakes
Plot hole: In situations where the protagonist is framed, they will be firmly believed to be guilty by everyone despite the lack of sufficient evidence. This is often achieved by focusing more on motive or odd circumstances that make the hero look guilty, rather than the little evidence which could establish reasonable doubt, with some evidence even being inaccurately seen as proof of a crime. It's a plot device for the hero to solve the mystery by themselves for dramatic purposes.
13th Aug 2024
Common mistakes
Plot hole: Movies in which the protagonist isn't believed is often exaggerated to the point of crushing suspension of disbelief. Most times, other characters will not even give the protagonist the slightest benefit of the doubt and may even be needlessly angry for even suggesting that the "very loving and considerate nice guy" is actually a bad person. The Good Son and Orphan are classic examples where the villain is believed over the hero, despite there being no evidence to contradict the hero's claims.
1st Aug 2024
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Stupidity: The type of steak that Clyde demands has a sharp kind of bone inside that can easily be used as a weapon. No prison would be foolish enough to overlook this fact, especially as the warden had everything double-checked.
1st Aug 2024
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Stupidity: Despite the fact that Clyde is somehow very easily managing to kill people from his cell, it never occurs to assign some kind of security or a camera where he could be consistently watched in case he did something out of the ordinary. Nor did they even both to thoroughly scan his cell, something which should have been done in the first place for any irregularities, and especially once again after it became known that he may have been still killing people despite being locked up.
7th Apr 2024
Flightplan (2005)
Plot hole: Kyle is an airplane engineer and designer (decent paying job) who is flying on the same plane that she helped designed, and she is traveling with her daughter back home to family after her husband's untimely death, transporting his body in a casket. No one under these circumstances would be traveling lightly (possibly no economy) as she does. She would almost certainly have special privileges and notice from officials, and there would be impending knowledge of her flight prior to boarding.
21st Mar 2024
Lost Highway (1997)
Revealing mistake: When Mr. Eddy is shot in the head and killed, there is an extremely quick shot that you can catch of what is a puppet's head exploding from the shot, before it cuts to Mr. Eddy falling back dead.
18th Jan 2024
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Plot hole: There is no way Riggs and Murtaugh would have let Joshua kill the two officers guarding the house, if they were already waiting for him. And if they didn't get to the house first, there certainly would not have been enough time for them to reach the house and leave a message waiting for Joshua in that short space of time. So, were they waiting for him or not, and why let two cops be killed if they were?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They didn't get to the house before Joshua; they showed up after he killed the two police officers. The note is in a child's handwriting, so it's more likely that Murtaugh called the family to tell them to evacuate the house, and one of his kids left the note.
18th Jan 2024
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Deliberate mistake: At the end of the film, two officers attempt to surround and handcuff Joshua. Using two officers to cuff someone is NEVER done for the exact reason of what ends up happening, as Joshua manages to grab a gun from one of the officers. Only one officer would have been doing the deed in the real world, but it's clear this error in being completely against police protocol had to happen so the good guys could prevail over the villain.
25th Dec 2023
Die Hard (1988)
Factual error: Obviously done to spice up the action, but there would in no way be enough time for McClane to jump away when he sees the rising inferno of flames coming up the elevator, as it would be too fast and burn him to a crisp.
22nd Dec 2023
Enough (2002)
Question: Two questions in the opening montage: 1. Why did Mitch seem somewhat ungrateful when Phil handed him some money as a sole act of consideration and respect for him, and what was he inferring when he told Slim "he really loves you"? He didn't even seem all that interested in Phil's compassion towards him even though he accepted it. 2. Why was Mitch upset on the beach? Why not just join Slim and his daughter, talking with them and ask how they are?
Answer: 1. Mitch was being "polite" - putting on a good image - by accepting the money, despite not needing it. Abusive people can seem nice, charming, and respectable outside their homes. He told Slim that Phil really loves her because he has observed the bond between them. 2. I viewed his behavior at the beach as distant rather than upset. He might have been thinking about work, his affairs, or whatever. Also, it was just one moment. Maybe he joined them off-screen. Remember, Slim thinks her life is overall great until she finds out that Mitch has affairs. So he was probably acting like an ideal husband and father most of the time.
6th Dec 2023
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Question: If Alex was being honest about being pregnant with his child and wanting Dan to take responsibility for it, then why didn't she just make an appointment with the authorities? If the child was proven to come from him, then surely he would be required to support it by law, at the very least financially.
Answer: Alex is completely mentally unstable. She doesn't just want child support or a legal acknowledgement of paternity. She wants Dan, and she wants him all to herself.
Is it possible that she was not even pregnant? (I have not re-watched the movie recently, so apologies if I forgot something.) There are a couple of online discussions about this.
There's a scene where Daniel is talking to his friend and he's explaining what the situation is and asks him about family law. He mentions speaking to Alex's gynecologist, and the doctor congratulates him (regarding the pregnancy). Alex gave Daniel the doctor's number and says he can call to confirm if he wants to - she likely gave the doc permission to discuss it with Daniel.
Of course, that was possible. I'd wondered about it too. She was either lying to trap him or allowed herself to get pregnant. The chances of her being pregnant were slim, however, since they basically had a one-night stand. She could also have gotten pregnant by somebody else. My own opinion is she was not pregnant, at least not with Dan's child.
That's true. However, they do say in behind the scenes though the her becoming pregnant was to be a motive to not move on from Dan. Though they probably decided to make it ambiguous. Though I'd say she's at least pregnant given the way she vomits unexpectedly when watching Dan and his family.
3rd Dec 2023
Child's Play (1988)
Revealing mistake: Look very closely at the way Maggie is knocked backwards after being struck with the hammer. It seems as if she is deliberately throwing herself backwards, which also means they may have used reversed footage.
3rd Dec 2023
Child's Play (1988)
Other mistake: Being struck on the forehead with a toy hammer would not cause someone to be knocked off balance to the point that they are flying backwards the 15-20 feet or so we see with Maggie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
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.
Answer: That's an extremely difficult question to answer because you have to look at it from two perspectives. In real life at the time in the 90s? Probably not, because the technology wasn't really there to convincingly create a convincing computer simulation/fake footage that quickly. (Even the special effects wizards who had months to make the movie did a good job but didn't quite nail the digital Batman in the few shots he's CGI.) But in the context of the movie? Yes. You have to remember, this movie is set in a highly stylized, fictionalized universe. One with superheroes, supervillains, highly advanced technology, doomsday machines, and all that jazz. The movie isn't meant to be realistic. It's meant to be exaggerated and cartoonish. So you can safely assume, in the context of the movie, Nygma had the means to create the fake security footage.
TedStixon