Movielover1996

Stupidity: When Laura visits her mother in disguise, she tells her about meeting a nicer man after leaving Martin. It's one thing to tell her mother that he teaches Drama, but it beggars belief when she tells her the precise location of where he teaches! You would think that being her first time seeing her mother in a long time while disguised as a man, she would keep this information to herself until she was comfortable. Of course, Martin immediately manages to extract this information from Chloe.

Movielover1996

24th Mar 2025

Common mistakes

Deliberate mistake: In crime films, when the protagonist is being stalked by the villain and manages to alert law enforcement, it will always be only one cop showing up. This isn't how actual crime procedure works, as cops are required to work with a partner or backup in potentially risky situations, and the lone cop will always let their guard down or not observe their surroundings carefully enough. This gives the villain a chance to kill them and crush not only the hero's hopes, but the audience's as well.

Movielover1996

16th Mar 2025

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Stupidity: The villains decide to eliminate the entire police force to get away with their crimes after previous attempts have been unsuccessful. We see cops caught off guard, blown up in their houses, as well as one being shot at an opportune moment. So, why would the henchman ruin their moment to strike by trying to kill Murtaugh with physical attacks when they could have blown up his house or shot him too?

Movielover1996

6th Mar 2025

Common mistakes

Factual error: The idea of a suspect being shot in the shoulder or leg to apprehend is a myth that is often driven by Hollywood media. In reality, the femoral artery is a major artery in the leg that a person can bleed out and die in minutes with a clean shot, and the shoulder also has major blood vessels nearby, which can cause critical problems. In reality, cops are encouraged to only use lethal force "to kill," as opposed to the "shoot first, ask questions later" scenario seen in multiple works.

Movielover1996

21st Feb 2025

Batman Forever (1995)

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

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

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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)

Movielover1996

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

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

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

raywest

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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?

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.

Movielover1996

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.