Corrected entry: If it has been a year since Eric and Shelley's death, who the hell has been feeding the pedigree house cat, which would be incapable of hunting for itself, for the last year to keep it at its same size?
TedStixon
10th Dec 2001
The Crow (1994)
Correction: I have an indoor house cat who's never been allowed outside unsupervised or without a leash, and despite the fact she's pampered and doesn't have to fend for herself... she definitely still can. She catches (and eats) mice every time we get any in the house, is a keen hunter and is super cautious and territorial when she needs to be. She still has all of her survival instincts. So yes, house cats can definitely thrive and survive without their owner around. Especially in an apartment building like Eric's where she could easily get in and out.
Correction: The young girl, their friend kept coming back to feed the cat.
She specifically says "I thought you were dead" when she finds the cat, implying she hasn't seen it in quite some time. She also had to break into the building just to get inside. She definitely wasn't coming there to feed it.
Sorry meant the young girl.
28th May 2007
The Monster Squad (1987)
Corrected entry: They make a big scene that a virgin is needed to read the text from Van Helsing's diary in order to get rid of the monsters. After Patrick's sister fails because it turns out she isn't a virgin, everyone freaks out until they realize Phoebe could help them out. Not once is it mentioned the virgin had to be a female. So why couldn't the 12 year old boys read from the diary and get rid of the monsters?
Correction: First: 4 out of 5 definitions listed for "virgin" refer to females. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/virgin Second: In all of mythology and folklore, virgin always refers to females. The gods asked for a virgin to be sacrificed, the women/girls were gathered not the people that have never had sex. When some bit of folklore needs to be read aloud by a virgin, odds are they are asking for a girl.
You would be correct in the correction, however that doesn't explain how Scary German Guy can summons the vortex. And yes I will say that because when Dracula was going after Phoebe, Scary German Guy was still reciting the text yet Phoebe wasn't repeating it, just whimpering. Yet the vortex still showed up.
But Phoebe repeated the exact phrase the peasant girl did in the opening scene, those seem to be the key words that unlock the vortex.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'd disagree. Looked up a couple clips of the scene on YouTube, and they make a point of showing Phoebe repeating most of the words near-perfectly (at least as close to perfectly as a small child under distress could do) between whimpers. And I think you could make a compelling argument that even if she doesn't say them all 100% perfectly - say she's just barely whimpering some of them out between cries - it'd still count for the spell.
I disagree. I've watched this movie hundreds of times. All we hear is her whimpering because she's scared. No indication is given that she's still talking.
I just looked up the scene again. They show her repeating the words perfectly and completing the spell after Frankenstein throws Dracula away from her. There's really only a few seconds in the entire scene when we hear her whimpering instead of saying the words perfectly. I still think it's within reason to argue that she did enough for the spell to work, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
12th Jan 2023
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
Factual error: Anne Frank received her diary on her birthday, and started writing on it 1 month before she went into hiding. In the movie however, she is presented with the diary on the first she arrives at the hiding place.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Since this movie is based on actual events and not considered a documentary, then the film-makers are allowed to change things to their liking.
While I feel like this sort-of correction could apply to certain elements of movies based on true stories like dramatized scenes (since there has to be some condensation of time and some elements boosted for drama, which can be chalked up to filmmakers changing things), I think a film based on a true story contradicting a known hard fact like this should 100% count as a mistake. Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that any factual error in any film is invalid because the filmmakers are "allowed to change it."
18th Jul 2022
Supergirl (1984)
Deliberate mistake: When Supergirl flies out of the lake upon her arrival to Earth she's wet. When she lands on the shore she's suddenly dry.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Incorrect. She's not wet when she comes out of the water. She emerges from the water dry in an (incredibly wonky) effects shot. Why she's dry coming out of the water is unclear, but it presumably has something to do with the teleportation process for how she got to Earth considering her costume also suddenly appears on her as well.
19th Jul 2022
Wonder Woman (2017)
Corrected entry: Ares as the God of War always wanted people fighting as he revelled in this. This change up of him wanting all people dead makes no sense.
Correction: (1) The writers are allowed to alter characters and motivations. They don't have to stick with the rules of the original mythological figure. (2) Ares also explicitly states that he wants to eradicate humanity through war (which is kind of his thing, anyways) because it will help earth return to the "paradise" it was before them, so he has a clear motivation. He hates humans and wants the world to return to what it once was before they arrived, and as the god of war, he wants to use war to destroy them. It makes perfect sense in the context of this story even if it doesn't fit in with the classic mythological figure.
9th Aug 2022
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: Never once in the entire movie do the three villains get called by their comic book names of Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Venom.
Correction: Sandman is referred to as "Sandman" during the newscast right before the final battle and Spider-Man refers to Harry as "Goblin" while taunting him. (Albeit, something like "Goblin Jr, " but he refers to him as Goblin nonetheless).
12th Jan 2023
Bridesmaids (2011)
Revealing mistake: Despite her claiming to be topless you can see what looks like a tube top on Kristen Wiig during her attempts to get the state cop to notice her.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, she's not wearing a tube-top. Looked up the scene on online. She has her hands covering her nipples, and her passenger Helen has her arm up in a gesturing manner partially covering her breasts, but there's absolutely no tube-top in sight. (I think you may be seeing part of Helen or Wiig's arm and think it's part of a tube-top).
26th Aug 2022
Game Night (2018)
Deliberate mistake: When Michelle brings up the photo of "Fake Denzel" on her phone, she says she put it into a hidden folder. Problem? She only presses on her phone once (based on the sound you hear), and has the photo up and filling the screen within about one second. Totally preposterous. Obviously, it was done that way to keep the scene moving quickly... but there's no way a single button press and a timespan of about one second is going to bring up and maximize a photo from a hidden folder on her phone.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The very faint click you hear could be her phone unlocking, so we don't know how often she taps the screen. That said, yes, it's unlikely she'd be able to access the photo that fast.
I don't understand this correction, because it literally just seems to reinforce the original mistake. Unlocking her phone wouldn't instantly bring up a photo in a hidden folder.
11th Aug 2003
Little Nicky (2000)
Revealing mistake: When Nicky shoots goodness at a group of demons, one of them bites off a part of one of the rabbits. In the last shot of that demon, it is extremely obvious that the bunny that he is holding is a stuffed animal. (01:08:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Gonna be honest - I genuinely think the fact the rabbit is replaced by a ludicrously OBVIOUS stuffed animal is kind of an intentional joke in itself. The rest of the effects in the film are very solid for the time, whereas it's laughably blatant that the rabbit is a stuffed toy. The fact that the movie lingers on several shots of it with its button-eyes, unrealistic "cartoon" dimensions, etc. kinda tells me you weren't meant to take it seriously. At best, it could maybe be reclassified as a "deliberate" mistake, but even then, I don't think I'd classify it as such.
22nd Dec 2022
Die Hard (1988)
Factual error: Would pulling the alarm call the fire and police departments if the phone lines were disabled?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While I'm not sure how the alarms contact the fire department, it's also important to note that when Karl cuts the phone lines, his brother is re-routing some of the lines. I believe the implication is that he was bypassing certain lines so that way emergency services and the phone company wouldn't get alerts that their phones lines were down at the plaza and send people to check it out. So it would makes sense to me that a fire alarm could still get a signal through the phone lines in that case. (I'm also presuming that the way the fire alarm sends its signal is different from how a phone call is made, since one is automated and not call-based).
27th Nov 2018
Darkman (1990)
Revealing mistake: When Peyton's hands are about to be burnt, they are a replaced by a very obvious prop.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I personally see nothing wrong with the effect. While it is indeed a stop-motion effect, it certainly doesn't look cheap, the animation of the skin burning and curling is pretty smooth, and nothing inherently gives it away outside of the fact you know they wouldn't actually burn up the actor's hands.
6th Oct 2008
Gremlins (1984)
Corrected entry: At the very end of the film, just before the credits start rolling, the clouds in the sky can be seen to move behind the moon - this is impossible.
Correction: Actually, the clouds are moving *in front* of the moon (if you look carefully, you can see mostly transparent wisps). The moon is so bright and the cloud layer so thin that the light shines through them.
I believe most people will see it as in front of the clouds if they are even paying attention.
Most people would be wrong, then. You can see faint shadows over the moon as the clouds move past it. They're passing over the front of it while moon illuminates through them as the correction states. It's not the greatest effect in the world (it all appears to be layers of matte paintings), but nothing about it is a mistake per se.
6th Nov 2022
Halloween (1978)
Visible crew/equipment: When Laurie tries to escape Michael from the kitchen, she breaks the glass. You can see a second hand break the glass in front of Laurie's.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are incorrect, but it's an understandable mistake to make because the scene is very dark. It's hard to see, but Laurie actually uses both hands to break the glass... she puts them together and then slaps them through the window in a quick, fluid motion. (If you go through frame-by-frame or in slow motion, it's much, much easier to see.) That's why you're seeing two hands. It's not a crew member's hand... it's Jamie Lee Curtis' other hand.
7th Jan 2003
Ginger Snaps (2000)
Continuity mistake: When Ginger and Bee are buying tampons, Ginger takes the box from Bee twice without once giving it back.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The problem is, they are offscreen between the two shots and at least a little time has passed given they're walking around a large store. And given Ginger is in a lot of pain and keeps grabbing herself, it's entirely possible she handed the box back to Brigitte offscreen. We also don't know how far they walked or if they did more shopping before they checked out. (Which is when Ginger grabs the box a second time.) It's not like she grabs the box twice back-to-back instantly.
14th May 2006
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
Revealing mistake: When Julia first emerges from the mattress and is scrabbling on the floor, you can see the body double is actually wearing a thong. (00:30:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's actually just groin/buttocks muscle and tissue. If you compare it to medical images, while some features are exaggerated, it matches up reasonably well. The fat/muscle/tissue does almost form a thong-like shape in that area. Furthermore, what purpose would there be to having the actress wear a thong when she's already covered in head-to-toe prosthetics that hide everything? That makes no sense.
14th May 2006
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
Plot hole: The mover shouldn't have been pulled into the mattress because he didn't bleed onto it, which is what was required before, for Julia to come back.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Something entirely else is happening at the end of the film, as evidenced by the fact the Pillar of Souls then rises from it... something which has never happened before. Therefore, the standard rules don't necessarily apply. Additionally, even if you want to argue that they do, the mattress is still totally covered in blood from earlier, when the mentally ill man cut himself on it... so one could argue that there was enough blood on it still for something to cross through.
9th Apr 2007
The Mummy (1999)
Corrected entry: When the Magi is set on fire, both he and Johnathan lunge for the key. If you look closely, you can see that it is actually the Magi who picks it up from the angle and condition of the hand/arm that grabs it. Yet, later on, Johnathan mysteriously has it.
Correction: We are told in the beginning that Jonathan is a thief therefore he just pick-pocketed the magi to get it back.
Correction: Honestly, the way the scene is cut is a little wonky, but I always just took it as the Magi dropped the key while he was being shot and spinning/writhing around and Jonathan quickly grabbed it off-screen. Right after the Magi is shot and falls off the boat, Jonathan (who wasn't holding the key prior) says "Bloody good show, chaps... and did I panic? I think not!" and then holds up the key, which as I said, he wasn't holding before. I wouldn't say he pickpocketed it since the guy was on fire and Jonathan was actively fleeing him. I'm only speculating... but I also have to imagine that there was some footage cut of Jonathan getting it back that was simply eliminated for time/pace reasons.
Correction: When one of the Americans shoots that magi later while trying to attack Jonathan, Jonathan shows us that he pick pocketed the key, and says "this is mine" or something like that.
24th Sep 2022
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Other mistake: In the opening fight, right before the title card, Blade fights five vampires. He kicks one, who falls onto the ground and starts to crawl away. He then kills the other four vampires with his weapon (sort-of a blade that's on a line he can whip around). After those four vampires "dust," you see the fifth vampire (the one Blade had kicked earlier) on the ground... and he spontaneously "dusts" for no reason whatsoever. Blade did nothing to him... he just dies for no reason.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He gets hit by the silver knife on a string (whatever it is called) like the others in 1 swing (there are 5 in total BTW). A small touch seems to be enough to dust them.
You are correct there are five (typo), but the last vampire does not get hit by the knife in any way that I can see. Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LkxaihdyRE Blade swings the knife-line above his head (you can see the line in the entire shot), and there's never any point that I can identify where it hits the vampire on the ground. Blade swings it in an upward motion, and you can see the line goes slack after it hits the last vampire on the left side of screen, implying that it stopped and fell to the ground in that direction.
The blade goes around his head at least twice before it hits the last 2 vampires. I admit that it's unlikely but you can't really see where the blade goes unless you go into slowmotion (if that even shows anything as it's all CGI). It could have hit him at any point.
It does go around his head twice and is quite fast, but it is definitely visible throughout the shot (slow mo is not required), and at no point does it go low enough to hit the vampire on the ground. It would need to completely defy all laws of physics to do that.
20th Sep 2022
Morbius (2022)
Character mistake: Doctor Bancroft mispronounces "Nobel" when reading the headlines to Michael. She pronounces as "noble." It's a famous award, especially in the field of science and someone as smart as she is suppose up be would know how to say the name.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Honestly, I just rewatched the scene in question, and I really wouldn't consider that a character mistake. It's not a super egregious mispronunciation to begin with (the difference between the sound of the words is quite minor), and based on the way she speaks and the fact she has a bit of an accent, it just seems like more of a personal affectation than a character mistake.
18th Jul 2014
The Mist (2007)
Continuity mistake: Near the end of the film when the five of them are in the car, they stop to watch a giant monster walk past, shaking the car. When we see the monster again it is walking away from them, but the telephone cables are still erect - it is clear that these would have been knocked down by the monster. (01:48:20 - 01:48:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It actually does knock down some of the poles and cables. It just doesn't knock them all down. The ones you see still standing as it walked away are a fair distance away from where it was walking... hence, they still stand.
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: Cats though domesticated are still wild animals. I know from experience that a cat can fend for himself when it is needed. Plus there are people who leave food out for stray animals.
Sol Parker