Best drama movie character mistakes of 2005

Please vote as you browse around to help the best rise to the top.

The Amityville Horror picture

Character mistake: When Lisa is taken to the hospital, she tells Kathy that she saw the ghost of Jodie DeFeo. The name of both of the DeFeo's daughters wasn't Jodie. Their names were Dawn and Allison. Jodie was the name of a demonic pig that the Lutz's daughter Missy had befriended.

More The Amityville Horror character mistakes
Ice Princess picture

Character mistake: When Casey is using her knowledge of physics to advise a figure skater, she states, "Pull your arms in real tight. That increases your moment of inertia". In fact, this is the exact opposite of how it really works. Reducing her overall radius makes her rotational inertia smaller. (00:21:05)

More Ice Princess character mistakes
Lord of War picture

Character mistake: Nic Cage says "At 4 and a half months, the human fetus has a reptile's tail". This is totally incorrect. A human fetus has a tail-like structure between 4 and 7 weeks, not months, and it is little more than a mass of flesh which helps the muscular structure of the backbone develop before being absorbed for use in the formation of the legs and hips. (01:28:50)

More Lord of War character mistakes
Thank You for Smoking picture

Character mistake: Nick and the film director talk about cigarettes blowing up in the all-oxygen environment of a space station. Spacecraft don't have an all-oxygen environment- this would kill the astronauts inside it. Oxygen exhibits toxic effects above a certain partial pressure under most circumstances.

More Thank You for Smoking character mistakes
Coach Carter picture

Character mistake: When Channing Tatum is rapping in the school hall when Damon shows up lost for his first day at Richmond he says "Kenyon is mine tonight" but it should be Kyra.

More Coach Carter character mistakes
The Exorcism of Emily Rose picture

Character mistake: When Ethan Thomas objects to Dr. Adanie's testimony, he does so on the grounds of "silliness." Silliness does not fall under the federal rules of evidence, and any lawyer worth their salt would know this.

Phaneron Premium member

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: During the Manson trial in real life, the prosecutor objected to a completely pointless question the defense asked a witness on the grounds of being ridiculous. The judge agreed and sustained the question. In his book Helter Skelter, Bugliosi even acknowledges there's no such rule, but the judge sided with him. The prosecutor in this film is grasping at straws, since nothing that would fall under the rules of evidence would apply to his objecting to her scientific testimony.


Not true, he can object on the grounds of relevance. The YouTube channel Legal Eagle, which is run by an actual lawyer, even stated so. The same logic applies to the Manson trial. If a lawyer feels that a question is ridiculous, they can object on the grounds of relevance.

Phaneron Premium member

In a case involving demonic possession as a central aspect of the defense, there's no way relevance could be grounds to object to her testimony. Her testimony dealt with possession from a scientific point of view, but he objected because it was for the defense. The judge in the film even allowed her testimony stating that they'd heard a lot of scientific evidence supporting the prosecution's case and it was fair to hear from an 'exorcism expert'.


As for the Manson case, try reading the book written by the prosecutor. It even states in the transcripts that he objected on the grounds of a question being ridiculous (even if, in the end, it would actually be relevance).


Just because a lawyer in real life was able to successfully object on the grounds of ridiculousness doesn't mean it would suddenly become a good practice. That would be like saying basketball players should just wantonly heave half court shots, because sometimes they go in. The premise of your suggested correction was also that the lawyer had no legal grounds to object on, and that is objectively false. As I mentioned, the lawyer behind the LegalEagle YouTube channel even said otherwise.

Phaneron Premium member

More The Exorcism of Emily Rose character mistakes
Green Street Hooligans picture

Character mistake: At the beginning of the film, Matt arrives at Paddington station in West London. He needs to meet his sister who lives in Chelsea - also in West London. However, for some bizarre reason he gets to her via meeting at Bank station - in east London. It makes no sense why he would make such a convoluted journey. Even if as a tourist he simply doesn't know London well enough to make a more efficient journey, his sister - who lives there - would correct him when arranging a meeting point.


More Green Street Hooligans character mistakes
Twitches picture

Character mistake: In the beginning when Karsh and Ileana take the twins Karsh says he'll take Apolla and Ileana says she will take Aretmis but Karsh has the twin with the moon amulet which is Alex, who is supposed to be Artemis and Ileana has the twin who has the sun amulet which is Camryn, who is supposed to be Apolla. (00:00:50)

More Twitches character mistakes

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.