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
21st Sep 2024
Enough (2002)
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."
30th Oct 2018
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Corrected entry: There's no reason whatsoever the trio needed to risk telling Hagrid at nighttime that they knew about the Philosopher's Stone, as it ends up in them getting in trouble. They could have told him immediately after Hermione found out about the Philosopher's Stone in the library. Or if they couldn't find time between classes, they could have waited until tomorrow.
Correction: They are kids, they got excited. It's not a stupidity for a movie to have kids do stupid things. Kids do stupid things, that's why they are kids.
I don't necessarily agree with that. In the book, they had a legitimate reason to sneak out during nighttime as they were trying to smuggle Hagrid's dragon out of Hogwarts without it being seen, which isn't in the film, so there is no reason for them to wait until nighttime to talk to Hagrid about what they know, nor does it explain why Malfoy is there suddenly.
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.
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.
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: 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 ★