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.
Movielover1996
11th Oct 2024
The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992)
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.
19th Oct 2023
Fear (1996)
Stupidity: There's no reason whatsoever for Mr. Walker to trash the other rooms of David's partners. Someone as tough-minded as Mr. Walker would have been able to recognize the consequences of his behavior. He could have simply trashed David's room and let it be. It simply seems like a plot device to justify David's gang attacking the Walker residence.
19th Oct 2023
Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)
Question: Why would Martin risk putting Laura in danger by sailing for the first time (which backfires on him anyway), especially at night, when he knows full well (believes) that she can't swim? He could have had her practice a few times to make sure she was comfortable and ready, then it would be easier to convince her to come along.
Answer: Considering Martin's controlling, sadistic nature, his driving motive most likely was to further torment Laura by forcing her into something he knows she fears. Though he was not intending to deliberately put her in danger by the unexpected storm, he had no concern about her emotional comfort and security. Also, I don't believe it was the first time Laura went sailing. As I recall, Martin said he tried to get her out on the water at least once a year.
8th Oct 2023
House of Games (1987)
Plot hole: After Margaret kills Mike at the end, she leaves through the door that is right next to his corpse, leaving her fingerprints on it, since she is not wearing any gloves. Under these circumstances, the police surely would have done some forensic investigation and dusted the doorknob for prints, which would lead back to her. Considering Margaret moved up from being a psychiatrist to a lively con criminal, you'd think it would occur to her to clean up a little bit, but she gets a happy ending.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As she tells Mike, she's out of control. I don't think she planned to kill him, but he goads her into it by telling her she really hadn't learned anything and he played her. THAT was the point she learned the lesson. She took the risk and killed him. The doorknob fingerprints were a risk, but not much of one since a lot of people probably used that door before the police got there.
As for many people using the door after the murder, probably only one person might have used it if they opened it from the hallway side, only touching the hall side knob. That person would have immediately seen the body and called the police. Anyone on the baggage handling side wouldn't have touched the doorknob. Still, Margaret is not in much peril from fingerprints, since we are led to believe she has always been a "good person" who would probably never have had her fingerprints taken.
7th Oct 2023
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Were the terrorists intending to blow up the entire building, as opposed to just the roof, to fake their deaths? If that's the case, then how can they continue with the plan to fake their deaths if McClane already took some of the explosives on the lower floor?
Answer: They were planning to blow up just the roof, with the hostages on it, while they (Hans and crew) were safely below, to make law enforcement, the FBI, etc. think they'd been killed along with everyone else in the roof explosion. The plan was to then escape with the loot in the ambulance that Theo was driving and flee the country before anyone could discover their bodies were not among the scores of others. The former element was foiled by McClane's intervention on the roof, leading Hans to activate the explosives prematurely, while the latter was stopped by Argyle when he t-boned the ambulance and punched Theo unconscious in the parking garage.
But what would cause the authorities to think that the terrorists would be on the roof when it blew up? They could have been on the bottom floor for all they knew. I remember the movie quite well, but may have missed a line that clarifies to the authorities that they were going to be on or close to the roof.
As Hans says: "When they touch down, we’ll blow the roof. They’ll spend a month sifting through rubble, and by the time they figure out what went wrong, we’ll be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent." I don't think Hans was expecting the authorities to assume they were all dead forever, just cause enough carnage and confusion that they can escape. The FBI might think they were dead, or if nothing else not know where they went. The bodies McClane had left behind might even help muddy the waters. They could then escape to a non-extradition country and live in peace, no matter if anyone figured out they were alive or not.
Shortly after he kills Ellis, Hans radios Deputy Chief of police Dwayne T. Robison. He tells him to get his "comrades" released. He lists off several actual terrorists, then tells Dwayne that after those people are released, the hostages will be taken to the roof and accompany them by helicopter to the airport. Later, Agent Johnson of the FBI tells Hans that his demands have been met and that helicopters are en route as requested. That's why the Feds think the bad guys will be on the roof.
6th Oct 2023
Enough (2002)
Question: If Mitch set up a custody battle for Gracie while Slim was hiding, then why doesn't he file a missing persons report for them as well? Surely he would have figured the law would be on his side as she would seem completely unreliable for "kidnapping" his child and disappearing, and that there would have been some kind of manhunt or tracking done to find her? So why waste his own time into searching when he could just have the authorities do the work for him?
Answer: Mitch is trying to control the situation completely. Yes, he could have filed a missing persons report, but he would prefer to get Slim and Gracie back in his own way. He wants Slim to respect his dominance.
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: 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.
raywest ★
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."
Exactly, and it's the same as how pedophiles entrap young victims by gaining their trust, being the friendly, helpful, normal-appearing person who fools those around them.
raywest ★