Corrected entry: When Robert DeNiro attempts to kill the senator, it is June according to his diary entry, and he has a mohawk. He still has the mohawk later on at the hotel shoot out. In the last scene of the movie his hair is fully grown in. In the conversation with Cybil Shepard we learned the senator received the nomination for president. That had to take place at the party's convention no later than August in the same year.
Sammo
10th May 2003
Taxi Driver (1976)
5th Dec 2001
Taxi Driver (1976)
Corrected entry: At one point when Travis is in his room doing what he does he rips the arm off his white shirt. A minute later, the sleeve is back on.
Correction: We can assume that the shirt Travis has on at the end of the scene is a new, different shirt than the one that he cut the sleeve off. The cut shirt is for his plan against the Senator.
The whole scene shows him preparing for what he melodramatically wants to be his last heroic gesture. We see him sharpen the knife, cut the sleeve with it, and strap the knife to his boot, and write a farewell letter telling Iris that he'll be dead when she reads it. It can't be another shirt. He's not changing shirts to write that letter.
27th Aug 2001
Taxi Driver (1976)
Continuity mistake: In the scene where the man has DeNiro pull over to the curb and says he is going to kill his wife with a .44 gun, there is a close up of the meter clicking over to $2.75. In the next shot from the backseat, the meter reads $0.65.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The reason for that is because after Travis stopped the car, he turned off the meter. Then Scorcese's character asks what he's doing, and to put the meter back on. The $.65 indicates "$.65 first 1/6 mile" as clearly painted on the cab.
As the text of the original mistake stated, there is a close-up of the meter. A biiig one, that follows by quite a few seconds the meter being turned off. You can see the 0.65 before that close-up, you can see it after, it then changes to 0.75 and so on. This correction is totally wrong and the original post is correct.
24th Jul 2008
Taxi Driver (1976)
Continuity mistake: During the fight in the end, Travis shoots a man's hand and his four fingers are blown apart; yet when the same man jumps at Travis as he enters Jodie Foster's room, you can briefly see two of his "missing" fingers on Travis' shoulder. (01:39:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
2nd Jun 2008
Taxi Driver (1976)
Corrected entry: When Travis is with the gun salesman, he is trying out the black gun. You see a close up shot of him holding the gun with his arm outstretched with his jacket on. In the very next shot (no time has elapsed) his arms are at his side and his jacket is now completely off. (00:56:50)
Correction: I am really not sure about the "no time has elapsed" bit. Everything about the setup leads to believe time has indeed passed. He has the gun in his pants and he is checking himself out in the mirror, which is why he removed the jacket and his arm is in a different position. The differences are so many that it's not an awkward mistaken transition or edit hiccup, it's a jump ahead in time, on purpose.
This is verified by Scorsese on the commentary he recorded for the laserdisc release. He specifically states it was a jump cut to speed up the action.
23rd Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Other mistake: The remains of the Death Star would not look like that after being blown up and then crashing on to a planet, the remains would be a crumpled mass of metal. The Emperor's throne room was situated on top of a tower which was shown in ROTJ - it would not have survived the destruction or the collision with the planet in the way that we see it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Death Star was built from made up material in a fantasy universe. Its structures can behave differently from things in the real world.
The window frame has a section missing but otherwise is perfectly good, every tiny metal beam didn't deform or break; it would need to have extraordinary physical properties. Every single mechanism is just fine. And that was after a devastating explosion that nearly pulverized everything.
This was a moon sized space station that blew up a planet with a giant ray powered by magic crystals. It already had extraordinary physical properties. (Also, in the new trilogy, we have seen the Falcon banging into things at high speed without much damage, so the movie makers want us to feel that in Star Wars, ships etc are made of stronger material than real life craft).
There is no door/room next to the Emperor's Throne room in ROTJ, and that room is on top of a spire. In TROS the windows are a different size and spaced differently and the outside shot of where the vault room is when looking through the dagger does not resemble the spire at all. Mostly likely this is a different room with a similar throne chair in it. Otherwise, JJ Abrams just super sucks at continuity.
Made up material in a fantasy universe still has to obey universal laws. If it wouldn't have been damaged in the explosion, entering the atmosphere then crash landing or shifted over time on a wet planet then it wouldn't be destroyed by an exploration.
10th Jan 2020
Knives Out (2019)
Plot hole: The killer shows up at the scheduled appointment at 8 AM. They kill the idiot blackmailer with an overdose of morphine. Remember, that morphine that supposedly killed Thrombey in 10 minutes. Marta finds the blackmailer at 10 AM...alive, and does CPR on them, keeping them alive long enough for the ambulance to come and bring them to the hospital, even if in critical condition. So we went from "kills in 10 minutes, you can't even try to save him" to "after 2 hours, you are still hanging on"? (01:56:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Marta injected an absurdly large dose. A smaller overdose would not kill in 10 minutes.
I read that objection before. From 10 minutes to 2 hours there's quite a leap that the movie does not explain or address at all, if it were part of the plot they should have said why this difference, on something so time sensitive (of which they got the factual details wrong anyway). Even visually when you look at the dose injected to Harlan and the dose in the syringe for the murder, they do not look different. He even stabs her with the syringe. Which makes sense since he has no reason to leave her there with a small. Controlled overdose in her veins risking that she would be saved as it -almost - happens - it's amazing he got away with it to begin with because she is so dumb to show up for no reason in a derelict place without talking to her accomplice that passed her the toxi report, or anyone.Without a throwaway line from an investigator or anything of the sort ("but you injected her the wrong way, so she was still alive two hours after"), we are just left with an inconsistency.
Suggested correction: You've assumed a hell of a lot! Marta said Thrombey was given a dose of 100 mg (instead 3) of Morphine and would die in 10 minutes unless given the antidote. You just asserted that "Thrombey would die in 10 minutes" as if it was fait accompli, while Thrombey didn't die of morphine overdoes at all! (He cut his own throat.) For all we know, Marta's 10-minute assessment was a worst-case-scenario assessment. Fran's age and physique, as well as Marta's CPR, helped negate the effect until the ambulance arrives. If the medics administered the antidote, it could have prolonged Fran's life. Finally, 2 hours is the time after which the viewer is informed of Fran's death, not her actual death time. Most importantly, this happens in the medical world all the time: A person who is supposed to die after 3 days lives for 16 years. There are case-by-case explanations for each one, but they baffle the medical examiners at first.
Two hours is not my assumption or when the viewer is informed of her death; the killer gives the appointment to the victim at 8 AM and to Marta at 10 AM, so as I said, after 2 hours with 0 medical care on her she is still hanging on and with barely a little tap she is ready to dispense important clues. I go by what the movie says also about the 10 minutes overdose time. Of course if you tell me that baffling freak occurrences can happen all the time in medicine and that very precise statements from the movie don't matter because the character can just have gotten it wrong by over 10x and the movie does not acknowledge it at all, well, that's a very respectable opinion; mine is that fiction (a whodunnit, not a slasher flick with a killer surviving multiple gunshots and the like) is not reality and it should respond to higher standards than "I guess she was still alive somehow."
I re-watched the movie to verify that Fran was given an appointment at 8 AM. I discovered something new: The bottle that was injected to Fran contained only 5 mg of Morphine. That's 1/20th of what was "supposedly" given to Thrombey Sr. So, yeah, 10x is OK. In fact, 20x is OK.
No, no; it contains 5 mg of morphine PER ml, it's the concentration, not the total. Go back to the scene when Marta "messes up", the vials are the exact same as the one that Ransom injects (obviously, since they come from Marta's bag after all). It's new for you but I covered that already in the Factual Error about it. It's something that piles upon a previous mistake. She did not give him 100 mg of morphine because it would have emptied the vial (which is more than half full) and because a full vial of ketorlac would have killed Trombe regardless, at that concentration! The movie gets both the props and the medical facts wrong (100 mg of morphine does not even kill most patients, Harlan would have not died in 10 minutes especially since he takes safely big doses of toradol and morphine), but nothing - in the script - says that Marta or Ransom got basic medical facts wrong.
Okay! It seems mistake after mistake is piling up. Now, it appears Fran lived 4 hours, during 2 of which she was unattended. Plus, 100 mg of Morphine from a 5 mg/ml vial amounts to 20 ml of liquid. Well, now, everything you say makes sense... or at least most of the things. On the whole, I think it was a complicated situation.
10th Jan 2020
Knives Out (2019)
Corrected entry: The second scene shows Marta bringing Harlan his coffee first to his bedroom, and when he is not there she goes upstairs to his den only to find him on the sofa with his throat slashed. This does not make sense since she later tells Blanc the true story and how she saw Harlan slash his own throat. Therefore the second scene where she looks for him and then surprised to find his body makes no sense. Furthermore it is unlikely that any blood would have gotten on her shoe since she was a distance away in the doorway when Harlan slashed his throat. Unlikely that the blood would have splattered that far away.
Correction: Fran discovered the body, not Marta. Also, arterial blood can splatter a significant distance.
She was no where near his body when he cuts his throat.
27th Dec 2019
Knives Out (2019)
Stupidity: Spoiler. The protagonist is a trained and competent nurse, paired with one of the greatest murder mystery writers. Neither finds strange in the slightest that after jabbing his vein with a dose of drugs 30 times the norm he is absolutely fine, not just conscious but even able to concoct on the spot a convoluted plot, speaking normally and quite at length, no trouble at all. He should be dead "in 10 minutes" sure, but it's not a time bomb. You'd think one would not be so blasé about slitting their own throat and the other would have to notice how amazingly unaffected and lucid the other appears to be minutes later. Not to mention that his plan would have never worked with the toxicology report, which should be routine in a suicide case also to assess the mental state of the person who left no note or anything behind.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is explained that the drug overdose will kill Harlan in 10 minutes based on the dosage. The implication is that Harlan's heart will stop, not that he will become gradually and obviously sick over those 10 minutes. Regardless, based on what they believe will happen, even if they did notice that Harlan wasn't getting sick they wouldn't have the time to test that theory. The fact that neither Marta nor Harlan thought about a potential toxicology report is a pretty major part of the plot, and it is perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. The plot was hatched on the spot within a few minutes and there are several holes in the plan that drive the story throughout the film. Although a brilliant man and a great writer, Harlan simply didn't think of everything.
She explicitly says "You'll feel symptoms in 5" and when he shuts her up putting a hand on her mouth she says "We have 6 minutes."Then his daughter interrupts them and more time is wasted. By the time when he begins his convoluted explanation of the big plan he should have already been disoriented, sweaty and the whole gamut leading to his respiratory failure. And he goes on for minutes after that. It's very true, it moves the plot along, but by what they say themselves (which is from I understand not medically accurate and contradicted also by what happens later in the movie with the second death) they should have realised that time has passed with nothing happening. You could even say it's Rian Johnson's intentional deconstruction of the artificial nature of the whoddunit contrivances! But also, just saying, one of those "Stupid actions and decisions people take in movies, which no-one would ever do in real life."
Even taking that into account, what you are saying is Harlan should have said "Hmm, a few minutes have passed and I haven't felt any symptoms, so I'm not actually poisoned. Carry on then, false alarm." It moves the plot along because Harlan isn't willing to risk Marta getting in trouble for poisoning him and they have less than 10 minutes to act. This would count as a stupidity entry if Harlan didn't care about who took the blame for killing him, but obviously he does. Remember, stupidity entries are not for poor decisions by characters, they are for minor plot holes. This being "an act no-one would ever do in real life" is kind of the entire point of the movie. Nobody believes Harlan would do this because, well nobody cares about their nurse that much. But he does.
The part I was quoting is the description of the category in the metadata on google, or if you prefer the hover text description just above this very page go by "Something just plain stupid. Not as deal-breaking as a plot hole, but something daft, like running upstairs with a killer behind them, instead of out of the front door." I call "slitting your own throat feeling totally fine after you yourself have been calling the minutes with precision earlier", pretty silly, to say the least. Again, this is all stuff the script itself unnecessarily calls attention on. If he didn't mention twice the time before, if she hadn't said that the symptoms happen after 5 but just "your heart is gonna exploded at the 10 minute mark", then, maybe, I would have simply reported the factual error that this is not how it works. It's the script itself that points out (Harlan himself says it twice) the exact minutes, and the symptoms and how they are gradual.
This still ignores the fact that they don't have time to test the theory. They would have to notice the lack of symptoms, and assume somehow that the lack of symptoms after 5 minutes must mean that Harlan isn't actually poisoned, and stop their plan right then and there. The audience knows that Harlan isn't really poisoned, but we don't find that out until later. I doubt very seriously that anyone watching this film for the first time believed, as you suggest, that Harlan obviously wasn't poisoned because he didn't show any symptoms and it was therefore stupid for him to kill himself. It seems to you to be stupid in hindsight, but I honestly don't believe, based on what the characters knew, that Harlan's action was so egregious that it constitutes a mistake in the script.
We definitely had a very different impression watching it the first time. The thought that this old man could be shot a big dose of morphine in vein and calmly think of perfect murder plans for the next minutes was 200% absurd on first view here. I could say that others thought the same but it's just anecdotical and I respect you having a different take. For the rest, it's again just the script itself drawing attention to it. From the mouth of the same character who nonchalantly slits his own throat feeling still fine. It seems egregiously stupid and contradictory.
But he wasn't shot a big dose of morphine. He got his normal meds, they only think he overdosed.
We don't know that yet. We know that, in their words, he was shot 100 mg instead of 3 (does not matter if true or not, we are fed this information and the characters believe it). Again, the whole scene would have worked if they didn't, themselves, add details. Makes the overdose sound huge, and inserting the 6 minutes mark (which means, barely 1 min till the symptoms show up) before the daughter arrives when more than half of the scene has still to be played, weakens it terribly. Some things are maybe just stupid in hindsight, like the fact that all he needed to do was to write in his own penmanship a suicide note saying he killed himself with an injection once Marta left, but the overdose bit felt absurd on first viewing.
31st Aug 2006
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: After Jerry talks to Joel for the first time on the phone, George asks "who is this guy?" I'm sure that if George and Jerry had grown up together and have been close friends for so long, he would have, at some point in time, heard about him, or even met him. Especially if he keeps calling Jerry and trying to create a friendship.
Correction: Jerry is a stand-up comedian, and has met lots of people on the road at various comedy clubs, many of whom would have had no reason to have ever met George, so this mistake is not valid, as it is a guess, not fact.
Met no, but the mistake references the fact that George never -heard- of him before. If he's been 'stalking' Jerry with calls forever to the point that Jerry is even afraid of answering the phone, it's practically impossible that George never heard of him. An annoying person like this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect them to talk about in their endless chatters about nothing.
18th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Stupidity: The commando mission to save Chewbacca starts gunning down a few Stormtroopers in the hangar. The heroes then go on leaving the troopers lying down on the floor in front of the ship, in plain view. They don't hide them nor ask the droids (who have enough strength and tools to pull them in) to, in fact they tell them to stay put. No wonder they are found out later (after a ridiculously long amount of time).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hiding the bodies would have been a waste of time, anyone who came to the hangar would immediately notice that the guards stationed there were missing and there was now a strange ship parked there.
The droids have all the time in the world, and people just passing by are "more immediately" bound to notice corpses in the middle of a hangar rather than possibly maybe question the fact that you don't see guards in that part of the hangar or investigate the ship - which could approach without anyone taking exception by appearance alone. At least remove the bodies directly in front of the damn ship!
Why would they be more likely to notice dead guards than no guards?
Anyone passing by might well thing the patrols were just out of sync, or a shift change. Sure they might investigate further, but they might not bother. Whereas a couple of dead bodies? Immediate red alert. Worth taking 30 seconds to hide them, surely.
Perhaps, but then it's made irrelevant 1 minute later as Finn and Poe run down a hallway blasting about a dozen stormtroopers.
For that matter, 1 SECOND later they kill stormtroopers in the far part of the hangar. They are killing people all over the ship during their mission and it's not like they hide every single one of them, but they leave two bodies *exactly* in front of their ship (and telling the droids to stay put). You can even see later that there is a stormtrooper with his weapon pointed exactly where those two corpses are, with the 'smart' commanding officer asking "whose ship is this?" at the sight of that. Maybe I am spoiled by a trope here, but it's the first time that I see someone in an action movie leaving corpses right in front of their only escape route/vehicle, that's so counterintuitive. (Did they even have an escape plan, actually? I don't like hypotheticals, but gee, if only she did the Jedi mind trick thing to those 2 guards who came over to inspect the ship instead of doing it later. But I digress).
18th Jan 2005
Die Hard (1988)
Corrected entry: When Hans, Theo, Karl and Takagi come to Takagi's office, Hans quotes that when 'Alexander the Great saw the size of his realm, he wept, for there was nothing left to conquer.' Actually, he did weep because he couldn't conquer more - but not because there was nothing left, instead because his men refused to go any further (they were homesick); and reluctantly, Alexander had to turn back.
Correction: Hans is quoting Plutarch. Whether the quote is actually true doesn't matter - this is not a movie mistake.
We would not judge here as a movie mistake the words of an ancient historian, obviously. Thing is, Gruber is saying something that is NOT what Plutarch said at all. Plutarch's passage had Alexander say: "Is it not worthy of tears that, when the number of worlds is infinite, we have not yet become lords of a single one?" The story as quoted by Gruber (not that he ever said it was Plutarch, mind you, how could he when Plutarch's story has the exact opposite wording?) is entirely made up, and therefore would qualify as a character mistake. It's like the "Helsinki syndrome": something this movie got wrong but that generated a misconception that still survives decades later.
6th Oct 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Factual error: Vers is on the 'phone' with her Kree crew from a public phone on the outside of a club with plenty of posters appropriate for the time period (Foo Fighters @The Fillmore, REM's tour for Monster, etc) but is also plastered with posters for "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness", a Smashing Pumpkins album which came out at the end of October of 1995, months later than when the movie supposedly takes place (June). (00:25:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
9th Oct 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Plot hole: When Vers arrives at the bar, Nick Fury is already there. She went straight to the bar after stealing the bike, while Fury needed still to learn about the theft, link it to the case, with investigations taking place to maybe (only possibility that would not depend on the vehicle being reported) figure out that Pancho's was the destination from examining the search history of the browser. Fury went there by car. His boss also explicitly says to work on the case alone. Amazing he could be there with such timing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Vers probably got lost and had to wander around to find the place.
I can't realistically say it's impossible (it is not shown, after all), but nothing in the movie implies it, and it's the exact opposite. She is shown, driving, fast, on the Sierra Highway, which is where the bar is. Not stopping to ask for directions or at crossroads (something it takes 1 second of movie to show). In perfect Star Trek tradition she can speak the language, she reads the maps just fine, in fact she already looked the place up on the map, that was next to her and she already knew how to use without help, before taking off on her fast bike not hindered by traffic. And again, the head start she has is huge since Fury can begin investigating only once he hears about the stolen bike. Fury is at his HQ and a long time seems to have passed, since he is patched up and a whole autopsy has been done. Vers started searching right away.
1st Oct 2019
The Boy Next Door (2015)
Stupidity: Noah loves the classics, he shows passion and interest in them, it's part of what wins over professor Jennifer Lopez. Witness this risible exchange, about Achilles; "He killed this guy, Hector. But instead of hiding out like a pussy, he..." "Dragged his dead body around for everybody to see." "Yes." The sheer dumbness of this exchange, especially the first statement, hurts the brain; why would a warrior 'hide out like a pussy' for killing an enemy during war?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Achilles killed Hector in an act of revenge, not an act of war. Hector was a beloved warrior and treating his corpse with disrespect could have insulted the Trojans. Knowing this, Achilles dragged Hector's body around the city in an act of boldness. So yes, instead of "hiding out" after killing his enemy, Achilles acted like a "badass", taunting the Trojans with his victory over their champion, disregarding any threat of reprisal. There's nothing stupid about this exchange.
"Dude, there's this book about a Greek war with gods and heroes and sh*t: you know what, the main character kills his enemy in battle and doesn't hide out after! Like it's a war or something." What a stellar and perfectly not stupid pitch about the book! Makes totally sense and it obviously woos the college professor too! Mind you, I don't want to come across as sarcastic and I enjoy reading your comment, but the "not an act of war" objection is irrelevant when all the action happens in the battlefield, regardless of character motivations. Point is, the statement does not follow logic when it comes to pitching an epic fantasy book to a young adult, and on top of that, this fundamentally flawed series of statements is even painted as something totally impressing a college professor.Surely my flawed perspective of a snob living amongst snobs in a country where the study of classics is more widespread than the US, but blurting out something like that would get you a giggle at best.
I think you're putting too much weight on the "not hiding out" part of Noah's statement and not enough weight on the defiance of Achilles, which is what Noah was saying he was impressed with. For this to be a stupid statement, it would have to be incorrect. It isn't incorrect. Noah describes exactly what happened. Sure, he uses a colloquial tone but all he's really saying is "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards, he parades Hector's corpse around the city to intimidate his enemies." You seem to be hung up on the "fleeing the battlefield" part, as if that is a reading of Achilles actions that is so off base it rises to the level of a mistake in the movie. I don't believe that to be the case. Also, this college professor is impressed by the fact a youth would read Homer on his own at all, and the fact that he's incredibly charming and handsome certainly doesn't hurt.
I put weight on it because it sticks out: the line itself is designed to get attention using that colorful expression. Even as you paraphrased it with "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards" etc, the problem is not the tone: since when it's the go-to move in the genre, killing someone in a duel and then fleeing? I can't see why this would be a logical thing to say, so strongly even, to pitch the book to his friend! Like pitching a restaurant prefacing unironically that they do not spit in your food. His reading is not technically incorrect, or I would have put it in the 'character mistake' category, but mentioning what did (not) happen is daft and contrived. And yes, it is a dialogue that is supposed to reinforce that 'incredibly charming' quality you mention but it is written in such a childish way that undermines it, also considering that he told her he already studied Homer in his previous school and he is not exactly a kid.
16th Nov 2019
Batwoman (2019)
Continuity mistake: The bat-signal (or bat-light as Alice calls it) is on a rooftop looking entirely different from the one established in the first episode (from minute 4 on). (00:03:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, because Kate re-designed it.
Ohhh, okay. I must have missed the part when she said she was doing it, my bad. Which episode?
I'll have to look that up, which I will when I have a chance, but it follows in line with the redesign of the batsuit and emblem.
15th Nov 2019
Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero (1998)
Plot hole: There are 17 possible donors for Mrs. Fries. Of all of them, instantly and with no explanation, the doctor chooses Barbara Gordon. She was not the first alphabetically, from the phone call they find out she has a roommate, a boyfriend, she is out for dinner at the moment and is going out of town and of course, REALLY huge warning sign, she is the daughter of the police commissioner (hard to ignore that in Gotham, and Freeze certainly knows him first-hand!). There's no reason why to kidnap her, plenty of reasons not to, and zero reasons given why they did not try any of the other 16 names on the list.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They did explain exactly why they picked Barbara. The names on the list weren't all perfect matches. They were looking for someone "who's approximately the same weight, height, and female." When he sees Barbara's file, she's a perfect match. The fact that it's Jim Gordon's daughter is of no concern to them, assuming they know it's his daughter since Gotham is said to have a population of 10 million.
You are quoting the movie but then describing something radically different from what is shown (which I understand, since what is shown makes little sense). The list of 18 people (one being Mr. Freeze's wife) is the one that appears exactly *after* he has refined it for "approximately the same weight, height, and female." Everyone on that list should be a perfect match, otherwise there was no point at all in showing him writing F, 5'2", 116 lbs, AB Negative in the search fields and get search results for it. If it's not, he has no way to tell at first glance.
26th Jun 2003
A Fine Mess (1986)
Continuity mistake: When Dennis's girlfriend goes to see him at the godfather's house, her car is seen parked directly in front of the house, where the godfather's car was just parked moments ago. (01:18:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Well, yes and no, or rather "no and maybe." The godfather's car was parked far enough from the stairs for another car to park closer, between Pazzo's car and house. And it's what happens here. However I do think there could be a continuity issue with one of the exterior shots when Pazzo's car seems to have been moved quite a bit off position compared to before. The mistake could be there but not as big as it appears to be (I kinda find it hard to judge due to the angle by how much really the car is off position, even, since it's a significantly different one from before).
26th Jun 2003
A Fine Mess (1986)
Continuity mistake: After Dennis punches Spence in the nose the piano starts playing and Dennis just pushes it to turn it off even though every time they had to turn it on and off before then they had to use the on/off switch. (01:01:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I took it as a very movie-like "when you don't know how to fix/start/stop/do stuff to a machine, just hit it" moment. Thing is though, just mere seconds before in the same scene, Howie Mandel bumped against the piano, hitting harder than it does to stop it, and it kept going, so I do think that this entry has some merit.
This correction is unnecessary. It validates the original mistake at the end.
The original contribution points out something that, especially in movies, happens a lot: hit some device and it stops. Personally I don't see it as a mistake and I would have not reported it. But I do think it's inconsistent, that it stopped that second time and not the first. I could have submitted a new mistake entry but I did not find it necessary, or a request to change the entry's wording, but I think it is best to keep the original contribution and present a possible explanation and suggestion of a possible, slightly different, inconsistency in the same scene.
And none of that is needed. Explaining why a mistake happens is never a valid correction. And explaining the mistake in a different way isn't needed either (although one can change the wording of a mistake if one feels the mistake isn't clear enough).
27th Aug 2001
Along Came a Spider (2001)
Corrected entry: When they inspect the dead fisherman they mysteriously find Megan's school sweater. She wasnt wearing it when she jumped overboard, and her clothes weren't thrown in the water. So where did it appear from? (00:47:02)
Correction: The killer may have just thrown this item of clothing into the water as another part of his game.
It's not necessary to invoke the whole "he's crazy and playing games so anything goes" blanket justification here: the original entry is wrong. They do not find the sweater, but the sleeveless vest she was wearing before jumping in water, and that is not on her anymore when Soneji fishes her out.
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.
Correction: Just because Palantine was nominated in August doesn't mean that this scene takes place in August. Bickle hasn't seen Betsy since he was shot. It could be several months later.
Actually, no. The dialogue explicitly says through Betsy, when Travis brings up that he heard that the Senator got the nomination; "It won't be long now. Seventeen days." So, in that context, it would mean that he will officially receive the nomination in seventeen days at the convention. It can't be "several months later."
Sammo ★
She doesn't correct him about already getting the nomination. I interpreted the line to mean it was 17 days to the election.
Mid-October then? Hm, the leaves are bright green and everyone wears the same clothes as the rest of the movie including Charlie in a tanktop, and passersby in just shirts with rolled sleeves and polos, at night in NY. As far as the statement goes, the comment is right, it can be easily read that way too, it's just that the context does not seem to fit well.
Sammo ★