Question: How on earth could it take as long five years for a possessive and controlling abuser like Mitch to first show his true nature? I get that with some abusers it can take a bit of time, but five years seems a bit of a stretch. Also, did Mitch really believe himself to be in love with Slim? It seemed to me that he was far more arrogant and greedy, rather than lusting.
Movielover1996
16th May 2023
Enough (2002)
Answer: In addition to the other answer here: Abusers often *do* believe that they love their victims. They have a distorted idea of how to behave and treat someone who they love. Mitch can certainly be arrogant and greedy, while also "loving" Slim in his own sick way. There are even non-abusive people who are arrogant and greedy, but love their partners and families.
2nd May 2023
Enough (2002)
Question: When speaking with Robbie, Mitch says he thinks he chose his family out of "love." Does he really mean that? Because he seems MUCH more interested in his own self-serving desires at the expense of tending to his family. Surely that should mean he would easily be capable of moving on from his family, as Robbie suggested? He even acted liked his family wasn't a huge importance until Slim called him out on his nonsense.
Answer: I believe that yes, Mitch really means it. Abusive people often have a twisted idea of love. He loves Slim and Gracie -according to his own sick idea of love. This is one reason why he can't simply move on. Also, as an abuser, he wants to control his family. If he gave up on finding them, Slim would "win", and he cannot tolerate that. He needs for his victim to come back and be controlled by him again.
27th Apr 2023
Unlawful Entry (1992)
Question: Why did Pete keep insisting that Michael beat up the burglar, instead of listening to him and simply hauling him away? Surely he would have still got on Michael's good side just to take him in, so why not just do want Michael wants, rather than complicate matters, which leads to Michael cutting ties off with Pete for good?
Answer: Pete was a psychopath and a murderer who did not think or act in a logical, reasonable, or restrained manner. He had become so enamored of Michael and Karen and their affluent lifestyle, that he went to extreme and dangerous lengths to ingratiate himself with them. He was not at all rational.
And also, his years of being a patrol cop and seeing the brutality of society on different calls may have made him snap. I mean, look how heartless he was-he throws a naked woman out into the street in a dark alley and leaves her there after having sex with her in his patrol unit, no regards for anything or anyone at all.
27th Apr 2023
Scream (1996)
27th Apr 2023
Home Alone (1990)
Factual error: Plane doors are only closed when the flight is ready to take off and most passengers have been accounted for. They are not reopened for late passengers, so in reality the family would have been left behind.
27th Apr 2023
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
Plot hole: There is absolutely no way that a hotel staff employee would ever let a child check in alone. The staff would be required to personally contact the owner of the credit card Kevin hands them personally to make a reservation, not to mention Kevin never had his dad's government I.D on hand, so there was no proof of verification whatsoever, which is also required. Not possible today or even back then, especially considering the lawsuits, terminations, and bad press that it could lead too.
27th Apr 2023
The Boy Next Door (2015)
Question: Why in the world would a school principal scold a teacher for apparently putting her hands on a student who had been expelled, not to mention for nearly killing someone, showing he was dangerous? Shouldn't all that make her "putting her hands on him" irrelevant? Especially if he's not a student and wasn't actually injured?
27th Apr 2023
Fatal Attraction (1987)
Stupidity: After Dan confesses his affair to his wife, he never thinks about bringing the tape Alex had sent him to the police. This would have been proof beyond a reasonable doubt of her mental instability and harassment of him, and she would have been immediately sought out and likely committed to an institution, and both of the film's endings wouldn't had to happen.
27th Apr 2023
Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)
Plot hole: It makes no sense for the woman from the YWCA to call Martin at his job, which ends up hinting to him that Laura may have faked her death. First of all, how did she get his work number? And Martin never knew anything at all about Laura being at the YWCA, so she was obviously smart enough to NEVER discuss her husband or personal life, such as where she lived, and other personal info. So it seems nonsensical that someone who knew Laura at the YWCA would be calling Martin to offer condolences.
27th Apr 2023
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Stupidity: If the family is planning a big shopping trip, why would Clark still be in his morning clothes and busy putting presents in the attic as if he didn't know? And why wouldn't have anyone told him or reminded him before leaving the house? It just seems like a plot device using the foolishness of the characters to have him trapped in the attic.
13th Apr 2023
Basic Instinct (1992)
Question: Why did Catherine change her mind about killing Nick at the end? Obviously she was planning on killing him anyway, but she changed her mind only hours after ending their relationship when her book was finished and was of no further use. So why did she spare him? Was it because she fell in "love" with him?
Answer: There's no definitive answer to this and the ending is deliberately ambiguous and open to interpretation. The audience is left to speculate whether or not Catherine kills Nick, or if she intended to kill him but changes her mind because she loves him, or intends to kill him at a much later time, and so on.
20th Mar 2023
Enough (2002)
Continuity mistake: When Slim and Mitch embrace after she finds out he is cheating, she is wearing a purple dress/robe, but for some weird reason after the fade out, they are still embracing and it has changed to a white tank top. (00:18:14)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not for some weird reason. It follows the fade out with the title "more than enough" and it's meant to creatively signify the passage of time between the two embraces. The first embrace is after Mitch tells Slim that everything is going to be OK, even though he cheated on her, and she believes it. Then a notable amount of time has passed, both of them are dressed entirely differently, and with this turn of the second embrace Slim tells Mitch that she can smell Darcelle's perfume. So she's now aware of all his lies.
You are correct. Slim finds out about Darcelle. She smells the perfume on a different day - meaning that Mitch is still having affairs. She says "You're not going to talk your way out of it this time." So time has passed since she first caught Darcelle's page to Mitch.
16th Oct 2022
Beetlejuice (1988)
Stupidity: During the wedding, Barbara slowly takes her time saying Beetlejuice's name three times, despite having previously done so immediately fast and instantly earlier in the film.
10th May 2022
Disclosure (1994)
Question: Was Garvin the actual mastermind behind the plan to blame Tom for the CD-ROM problems from the very beginning or was that Meredith's idea? It would be unwise for Garvin to have set up Tom from the beginning since he appeared to have confidence in the merger going through prior to the sexual harassment case. And if Meredith was going to make changes to cut costs, why would she not learn about how the drives work and any potential problems that she may cause?
9th Mar 2022
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Question: What is wrong with Frank? He seems to have some mental illness considering his suicidal behavior and his random outbursts with his family and at the hearing at the end of the film.
Answer: He's not mentally ill. He was an arrogant, high-ranking military officer who blinded himself in a stupid accident which ended his career. He is now bitter, lonely, and sad. His outbursts are fueled by his anger, regret and the total loss of his former life and independence. He has become so emotionally despondent that he wants to end his life. I have to add, this is Al Pacino, and his acting tends to be over the top in most of his post "Godfather I and II" movies.
25th Feb 2022
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: How did the police not come across the fact that Nichols drove Richard's car, meaning he had access to the keys to the house or that a phone call was made from the car while it was in his possession? Surely this would have been known or mentioned to the investigators since they had a timeline of Richard being at the fundraiser?
Answer: Yes, but as is shown in the film, the police investigation was incompetent at best. They decided very early on that Richard was guilty, and did only the most rudimentary of legwork to prove their theory, while not following up on leads like this one that would just muddy the waters. Definitely a misstep on behalf of Richard's defense not to bring it up at trial, of course.
For sure, the Chicago PD thought they had an easy open and shut case and did no real investigation. That's why they are still mad at the end because they were jerks who didn't want to admit how lazy they were.
18th Feb 2022
The Fugitive (1993)
Character mistake: The investigators say that the prints found in Sykes' apartment belong to Kimble after dusting for them, making it clear they didn't use any equipment for fingerprint analysis or testing. No forensic investigator would confirm who the prints belong to until they run a thorough analysis. It seems as if they were basing the fact that they belonged to Kimble because they traced the call to the apartment, rather than acknowledge that the prints could belong to someone else.
9th Feb 2022
Hostel: Part II (2007)
Question: In the bloodbath scene, is it really possible for someone to lose that much blood and remain conscious, even if barely? Not to the mention the fact that the person was a young woman.
Answer: Probably not, but given the actual murder was only about 1 minute long, you could argue that with enough adrenaline, you might be able to stay awake just long enough for the scene to play out. Obviously, you should take the movie with a grain of salt since it's for entertainment, and they're exaggerating the volume of blood, the spray, etc. for the sake of cool visuals. In reality, your risk for passing out starts getting higher and higher as you hit 30%+ blood loss, and they say you experience organ failure and will probably fall into a coma when you hit 50% blood loss. But at the same time, I actually know a guy who recently had to get emergency surgery and an absolutely massive emergency blood transfusion after losing more than 50% of his blood internally... and he took himself to the friggin' hospital because he was feeling a bit weird and was worried he might have COVID. He didn't even know what was going on until he was examined. So stranger things have happened. The human body is weird.
13th Sep 2021
Common mistakes
Plot hole: Despite there being hundreds of witnesses, a villain who assaults someone or commits some other crime are not arrested or sued and are free to just walk away and live their daily lives as if nothing ever happened.
13th Sep 2021
Common mistakes
Factual error: Mostly in horror films, people going through prolonged periods of physical pain or torture never fall unconscious. In reality, they would pass out much quicker under so much pain.
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: Terrifyingly, it absolutely is not a stretch; abusers can lay the groundwork for a very long time, including years, before "revealing" themselves. The better to manipulate not only the victim, but the people around them, who will say "Oh, I've known him for years and he wouldn't do that" if the victim discloses abuse. As to your second question, you have to decide for yourself; abusers will often explain their actions as being motivated by love, but whether they believe it themselves or simply use it as a controlling tactic is a vexed question.
I believe that Slim was not abused at first because everything was going fine for Mitch. Slim was - as she later points out - taking care of his house and his child. She had not yet realised his deception. He was able to work, engage in affairs, then return to his nice home, with a beautiful wife and child. When Slim finally caught him and refused to tolerate his behavior, he was ready to "openly" abuse and control her.