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."
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.
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.
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.
29th Sep 2023
They Live (1988)
Question: When Nada first puts the sunglasses on, when walking on the sidewalk, what did he see on the ground that made him realise something was wrong and different?
Answer: The glasses use a filter that makes everything appear similar to black and white television. This was not immediately noticeable to Nada until he recognized that the grate on the sidewalk appeared a different color with the glasses on (dark gray instead of bronze).
20th Jul 2023
Lakeview Terrace (2008)
Question: Just a thought. If the Mattsons chose to file a complaint against Abel, would his history of unethical behaviour on the job make his superiors more inclined to take the complaint seriously? It just seems odd to me that accusations of inappropriate behaviour against a policeman outside the job would be dismissed so easily when he has a long history of questionable behaviour on the job.
Answer: It's not unheard of that some police departments have covered up their own officers' inappropriate behaviour or misdeeds, particularly ones who are higher ranking. It would then become a matter for Internal Affairs or even the Department of Justice to investigate.
20th Jul 2023
Lakeview Terrace (2008)
Question: Just a thought. If the Mattsons chose to file a complaint against Abel, would his history of unethical behaviour on the job make his superiors more inclined to take the complaint seriously? It just seems odd to me that accusations of inappropriate behaviour against a policeman outside the job would be dismissed so easily when he has a long history of questionable behaviour on the job.
Answer: The department may want to cover up Abel's behaviour to avoid bad publicity or accusations about police brutality and corruption. Most likely, it would result in an investigation by Internal Affairs, which they may have various reasons, aside from Abel, of wanting to prevent.
16th May 2023
Enough (2002)
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
11th Sep 2021
Disturbia (2007)
Question: Even if Turner planned to stage Kale's murder as a suicide, wouldn't the fact that someone who accused a neighbor of being a serial killer, only to turn up dead only hours later make Turner an immediate suspect? I would think that most serial killers wouldn't be dumb enough to risk having the person who accused them to turn up dead in only a few hours no matter if it was staged as a suicide.
Answer: Being a serial killer, Turner is most likely a transient. When he starts to feel threatened (close to being identified as a suspect) or has committed several murders in one area without getting caught, he will sense the need to move on - relocate with a new identity. At least initially, he can portray himself as a law-abiding "gentleman" to reduce/ eliminate suspicion or buy himself enough time to flee the area and avoid getting caught.
Answer: Turner might be considered a suspect based on Kale's accusation, but there would have to be solid evidence, for which there was none. More likely, it would probably be theorized that Kale's recent erratic behavior and emotional state is what led to his "suicide" and that he had become fixated on Turner and irrationally fantasized and falsely claimed that he was a serial killer.
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 ★