Plot hole: When Bryan is shuffled in at "The Baywatch" as one of the dancing extras, wouldn't the director of the film notice that one of his beach dancers (Bryan) is actually dressed for cold weather rather than a day at the beach? He's wearing sweats and a hooded sweatshirt, and he stands out like a sore thumb with all those girls in bikinis around him.
Plot hole: After Cher is robbed, and calls Josh to get a ride home, she does not tell him where to pick her up. She just says she's in Sun Valley.
Suggested correction: Well it cut to when she was in the car with him. Maybe she called him again later offscreen to tell him where exactly she was or maybe he guessed where she was (maybe she had told him another time where she usually goes in Sun Valley).
Plot hole: When Fogg convinces the cargo ship captain to take him to Shanghai, he pays for the passage of himself and two of his colleagues. One of these colleagues is Aouda, but as Passpartout is not there, the other one must be Fix. Why, then, does Fix have to pay for his own passage? If you notice, Fogg seems surprised to see Fix on board.
Suggested correction: At no point do they travel to Shanghai. They travel from India to Hong Kong to Yokohama. There is no scene where he negotiates with the cargo ship Captain. And he is definitely not surprised to see Fix. Are you sure you were watching the 1956 version?
Suggested correction: Just in case Passpartout does show up at the last minute? Also, knowing Phineas Fogg, he has probably already hired Passpartout's replacement and it is for him.
Plot hole: At the end of the movie, when the water drains away, there would be no way for a) the amount of water to drain away that did and b) for the mammoths that came through to be completely dry. (01:16:20)
Plot hole: At the beginning of the film Lustig suddenly emerges from the water right in front of Finn. It's not possible that he could have been hiding in the shallow water without Finn noticing him. (00:03:40)
Plot hole: When Melanie goes to meet Jake at the beach, it is pouring rain. Her hair is soaked and her dress is wet and muddy at the bottom. When they arrive at the wedding reception, her hair is much drier and her dress is perfectly dry and clean. (01:38:25 - 01:41:40)
Plot hole: When Jack The Ripper checks his watch before confronting H.G. Wells and demanding the key, the hands point to 8:50, the ensuing chase to the museum and demise of the Ripper may have used up a half hour or so, yet the time on the wall clock indicates that it is midnight.
Suggested correction: Movie time and real time don't match, so 3 hours has passed without all 3 hours being shown. The fact that the clock now shows midnight is meant to explain this fact without the need for subtitles to reveal the time.
Plot hole: When Carl is helping Molly out after Sam dies, he manages to find Sam's address book in a box, which he needs to launder the money at the bank. So why does he need to convince Molly to take a walk outside so Willie can break in the apartment and steal it? Carl knows which box the address book is in, and could have easily stolen it earlier when Molly was not in the apartment.
Suggested correction: Carl couldn't have stolen the address book earlier; it's possible he didn't know where it was, and he had to use the visit as an excuse, or it's possible he knew where it was but was thwarted because Molly wouldn't ever give him a chance to steal it, since she wasn't leaving the apartment. And he couldn't steal it later, because Molly wasn't leaving the apartment. His only chance was to lure Molly away so that Willy could come in and get it.
Since he worked at the bank with Sam, he could, without raising any red flags, simply ask to copy a few numbers from the book. Also, while he was walking with Molly, how did he contact Willie and tell him to go in? They didn't have texting back then. And how did he not know Molly had come back, if she had been walking with him? Other than the obvious, fourth-wall-breaking excuse that he didn't want us to know he was the villain yet.
Plot hole: It is highly unlikely that the murderer knew Phil was going to put his ear to the stall when he heard the babbling. It is even more unlikely that the murderer is going to get him on the first stab through the stall. (Which also requires a lot of strength). We also have to assume that he spent time hanging out in the bathroom knowing Phil would go there to begin with, and that other two men with weak bladders were doing the same simultaneously forcing the victim to go to the stall to begin with. (00:07:45)
Suggested correction: The killer is incoherently whispering in a strange way in the adjacent stall to lure Phil to press his ear up against it. After stabbing him through it, the killer inspects the knife inquisitively, as if checking to see if he actually got him. While it's still not a terribly plausible scene, the killer's demeanor suggests that he encountered Phil in the restroom by coincidence and improvised the kill, rather than anticipating all of Phil's actions as part of a perfectly executed plan.
The general logistics and planning of the murder are a separate issue - because no, the murder was planned. The entry just says that it's "highly unlikely", putting it mildly, that the killer could guess the exact position Phil would pick to listen to the noise. Just a few inches up or down, left or right, make a huge difference. The killer looks at the knife admiring the results, because if he had any doubts that he got his victim, he'd be trapped in a bathroom with a screaming, wounded, angry Phil and plenty people who could come and help.
To be more clear, the correction here is that Phil had heard strange talking/whispering rather than music, which makes it at least a little more plausible the killer would think he might put his head up against the wall at a certain spot. Unlikely for sure, but unlikely isn't a mistake, it's just what movies do. Phil's death was planned yes, though it stands to reason the plan was more "surveil and strike when vulnerable" and less "wait for him in this particular stall we know he'll be next to."
Plot hole: Despite being whipped and needing to go to the hospice afterwards to have her wounds seen to, when we see Madeleine later in the film she doesn't act as though she had whiplashes across her shoulders - she lies on her back that very night in bed, and gets up without a wince, she holds her shawl close when she is wandering around the asylum, she leans back against chairs, and in all the later scenes she is still wearing her tight bodice, despite the fact that such wounds would have been very painful for ages afterwards.
Plot hole: About two thirds of the way into the film, Gina comes running into Montebello's to talk to Joe, while Joe bursts into Prestolani's to confront Gina. Of course, in typical romantic comedy fashion, they just miss each other. However, the two pizzerias are directly next to each other, and both characters were using the front doors. Therefore, there is no way that they could possibly have missed each other.
Plot hole: The scene takes place in Julia Roberts' father's stable. Mel Gibson explains to Julia Roberts that he was supposed to kill her father, a judge, because he was going to reopen a certain case. Gibson says that he couldn't kill him and they became friends. He further explains that he was the one to talk her father into reopening the case in the first place. The problem is, they didn't meet until after he decided to reopen it, since that was why Gibson was supposed to kill him in the first place.
Plot hole: The movie takes place before and around 1938 and, supposedly ends in that year, following the entrance in Shanghai of the Japanese, with the exodus by many Chinese and foreign residents. Ralph Fiennes' character, as an American ex-diplomat and businessman, would have resided, have bank accounts, his car, etcetera, in the foreign concessions. The Japanese did not occupy the concessions until after Pearl Harbor, so there was no need for him to flee the city, as a refugee without a passport and with little or no money, sailing towards Macao in a fragile Chinese junk. He could just have driven or walked a few blocks to any of the "Western" concessions, from where he could have married Natasha Richardson's character, obtained U.S. passports (White Russians had none, as the rest of her family in the movie until assisted by an official in the French Consulate) for her and her daughter, purchased a ticket in a safer vessel, sold his assets (regardless of the damage to his club, he still had a house, furniture, a car, presumably bank accounts, etc.).
Plot hole: When Hugh is walking near the park gate, he should have seen Marcus. Marcus was on the same side of the post as Will was.
Plot hole: Bridget is wearing a shirt from Mrs. Darcy (the line about Mark's mother's taste in shirts, which is said while showing BOTH shirts, definitely suggests that - her idea of cuteness for a couple, I guess), which doesn't make sense because the first movie ended on New Year's Eve (we know that because Shazzer and the rest of the gang were taking Bridget to Paris that night to celebrate the New Year, but Bridget ended up with Mark - unless the movie take place a year later, which it doesn't, it takes place the next day). Consequently, there is no way Mrs. Darcy would have known about Bridget and Mark in time to get her a shirt too and offer it to her. Mark couldn't have brought it to Bridget, because she arrives alone at her mother's New Year's Day turkey curry buffet; Mark is already there, wearing the shirt his mother gave him, which suggests they split ways that morning, after their first night together.
Plot hole: About half way through the movie, the basketball coach is in his office and you can see a dry-erase board behind him, and a couple of dates such as 3-15-99... however earlier in the movie when they are announcing the basketball game they say that it is the 2000 season. They obviously changed the voice over to 2000 after the release date was changed, however the dates on the board are still referring to the scheduled '99 release.