Question: Is Matt LeBlanc one of the dancing football players at the costume party?
Question: When Peter pauses the world, the dwarf is easily seen making an expression. How come?
Chosen answer: This is nothing more than a lame "breaking the fourth wall" gag. Basically, by making the expression the dwarf is showing that all of the actors are just standing still, as opposed to being really frozen.
Question: When Jake, Amber, and Jonesy are eating barbecue (Kimberly's leg), a burnt-out corpse can be seen sitting in the driver's seat of a car near the trio. Who is it? It appears the three contestants didn't see it even if it is near them.
Answer: It's just a prop to make the game more realistic.
Question: Why wasn't Patrick arrested for killing the child molester?
Chosen answer: Even though he executes an unarmed man, it is doubtful given the circumstances that he would be investigated with much fervor for his actions. One police officer has just been shot and killed so Patrick's actions could easily be described as self-defense in the eyes of an investigator. Anyone making a claim to the contrary would risk having to stand up for a child murdering cop killer.
Answer: Many/most people think child molesters are evil, disgusting, utterly loathsome, and irredeemable - they don't deserve to live - so a dead child molester is one less child molester. Even worse, Corwin Earle was also a child killer (although he claimed "it was an accident"). Many people, including police, would believe he deserved to die and Patrick did the right thing. Others, of course, would assert that "street justice" is not justice at all, but there would be little, if any, evidence that Patrick's shooting was not a justifiable homicide. IF Patrick were charged, his attorney would raise a defense that would most likely result in a "not guilty" verdict. Besides, this was a movie, and the audience needs to feel that justice has been served.
Question: I have to admit that I don't know if this can be called a 'mistake', so I just post is as a question also to gauge the response from others who may have seen the movie. The 'trick' the movie's second act is based on, with Jude Law showing back at the novelist's house posing as an investigator... Would ANYONE be fooled by this? I don't pinpoint an obvious flaw in the make-up that maybe would be a Character or Continuity mistake, but seriously; is there ANYONE who wouldn't see through that silly disguise, especially considering that it's the only other visitor the guy had in days, that he is obsessed with him, Law comes to see Caine about his 'own' disappearance, which as opposed to the audience Caine knows is fake and left him open to at least a prank or revenge. I mean, they are up close for so long during this, both times, it is such a wild stretch of the suspension of disbelief. I was truly convinced Caine had seen through him right away and was playing with him, but shockingly, that was not the case. (00:02:30 - 00:39:40)
Answer: Sleuth was originally produced as a stage play written by Anthony Shaeffer. In that medium, the surprise reveal was more plausible. The 1972 movie, starring Michael Caine in the younger role, was relatively more successful in deceiving the audience, though, it too, was fairly obvious. The 2007 version, directed by Kenneth Branagh, seemed to assume that most of the audience already knew about the plot twist and, as it comes midway through the story, it appears the movie instead focused on the psychological aspects of the cat-and-mouse relationship between the two characters.
Answer: No. He was not.
Paul Brannon