Question: It's been stated that Elsa and Donovan knew how to get through the path to the Grail because Henry was talking about the way as he lay dying. But I'm still confused about when they get across the cliff. Indy threw some sand and stones across the path he 'believed' was there, but would they still be sitting there, basically in mid air for the bad guys to get across? Did they truly believe in the Grail as much as Indy and Henry did and so could walk across the non-existant path?
jenn_s_h85
29th Sep 2010
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Chosen answer: The way I see it, the bridge is there, but is invisible. The true test is to step out into mid-air when you don't know there's a bridge there, trusting in God to rescue you. Indy passed this test, then threw the stones to see whether it really was a bridge there all along, or if it was a matter of faith in the moment you step out (or just to mark his way back). The pebbles stayed, proving the bridge was physical and real, only invisible. When Ilsa and Donovan came along, they could see the pebbles in mid-air, and figured out this as well. Originally, you would have to believe and trust in God to step on to the bridge, but Indy effectively "disarms" this trap by proving that there is a way to cross safely for anyone.
As stated previously, the bridge is not invisible. It is simply camouflaged so that it's not visible from the position Indy had to stand. This is demonstrated in the film when the camera angle changes and shows that the reason Indy can't see it is the marbling of the stone lines up perfectly from one angle. He throws the pebbles onto it once he's across to make it easier for him to see when he returns.
But the camouflage is only going to work from one direction (the approach). Going in the opposite direction (the retreat), the bridge would stand out like a sore thumb, pebbles or not.
However, in the film, Indy turns around and throws the pebbles on the bridge, which is not visible until the pebbles are there.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the original builders altered the vertical stone walls in the "coming back" direction so that the bridge blended from this reverse perspective as well.
Okay, he didn't actually mean invisible, more like "invisible from a certain perspective"
20th Sep 2010
Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Trivia: The location in which Honora is murdered was the actual place the real murder happened. Apparently, when the crew went to the exact spot where the murder happened, the atmosphere felt really eerie and birds stop singing. They felt it wouldn't be right to film there so moved a little further down the path.
3rd Sep 2010
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Towards the end, before the confrontation with Kimble and Nicholls, the guy who was tracing Kimble's phone records tells the Marshalls that Kimble telephoned Sykes on the night of his wife's murder. But obviously it wasn't Kimble calling Sykes, it was Sykes using Kimble's phone. But why would Sykes be calling himself?
Chosen answer: He didn't. A key plot point is that Nichols borrowed Kimble's car on the night of the murder. The call to Sykes, which is expressly stated by the marshals as being on Kimble's car phone, was from Nichols, presumably arranging to meet so that he could give Sykes Kimble's keys to get into his house to lie in wait for him.
Thank you for explaining it. I've seen it several times and never realised how it went down.
And Tommy Lee Jones tells Kimble that they knew Nichols called Skyes from his car, but how? Wouldn't the more logical answer have been that the US Marshals thought that Kimble called Sykes from his car to tell the killer his wife was home alone? There is no way the US Marshalls would have known that the Kimble let Nichols borrow his call - that's the mistake in the movie! It actually should have made the Marshalls suspicious of Kimble, not exonerate him.
The Marshals know Kimble let Nichols borrow his car because Kimble told the police when he was initially interviewed following the murder. He gave a detailed account of his actions and whereabouts that night and mentioned that Nichols had borrowed his car. It didn't seem suspicious to the police at the time because Richard claimed he fought with a one armed man he didn't recognize; a story the police did not believe because there was no evidence of this and Kimble's wife "identified" her attacker as Richard. Gerard puts everything together when he realises that Nichols lied about knowing Lentz.
How did Sam figure out that Nichols borrowed the vehicle and made the call to Sykes and gave him keys, etc? I know in the laundry he reveals that he knew this but when/how did he figure it out?
Answer: This is more of a question really. What kind of defense attorney did this high dollar, Dr. Kimble hire who do not show their defendant pictures of the one-armed men the police question? How do his attorneys not ask him "OK, which of these one-armed men did you fight with in your house?"
The prosecution is not required to inform the defense of every person the police interview or question. They are only required to give the defense whatever evidence they have against the accused. Simply questioning someone in a perceived dead only counts as evidence against the accused if the prosecutor mentions it in court. If the prosecutor were to say "We interviewed a one-armed man named Sykes and he says he doesn't know you", then Kimble's defense would be required to be given access to Sykes. We can assume this never happened.
The Chicago police DID question Sykes after the Kimble murder. Review the scene where Sykes returns to his apartment after Kimble has been there. Girard starts asking Sykes questions, at first Sykes says he doesn't know anything about Kimble but then "remembers" that he had been interviewed by the police right after the Kimble murder. However, Sykes says that he gave the police an alibi, with 15 people supposedly confirming that Sykes was on a business trip and not in Chicago. The movie then implies that Sykes had been a Chicago cop and lost his arm "in the line of duty." Remember that the Chicago police focused on Kimble pretty quickly. Their investigators may have interviewed Sykes, but they likely didn't even come close to considering him as a potential murderer. Even with Sykes likely matching Kimble's description of the one-armed man, the police likely saw Sykes as a former cop... A former cop who had an alibi confirmed by 15 people. As I understand it, prosecutors don't have to tell defense attorneys about everyone that the cops question. They only have to tell the defense about potential witnesses that might be called in connection to the criminal trial. In this scenario, Sykes wouldn't have been part of the criminal trial (Again, supposedly on a business trip confirmed by 15 people on the night of the murder) and thus Kimble and his lawyers would never have known about his existence.
14th Nov 2009
Hostel: Part II (2007)
Question: When the blonde woman is showing clients a photograph of Whitney and asking if anyone wants to kill her for a cheap price, she shows it to a cannibal guy who is eating a man tied to a table. I just wanted to know if this man being eaten is the same man that Whitney danced with at the festival and then Beth stops her from sleeping with him because she was too drunk. It looks a lot like him, but I wasn't sure because I originally thought he was helping the bad guys get the girls to the factory.
Chosen answer: Yes it was. The actor, Stanislav Lanevski, also plays Viktor Krum in the Harry Potter Movies.
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.
Answer: The bridge was actually camouflaged into rock looking as if it was invisible (you can see this in movie).
Of course, any "camouflage" would only work from one perspective (from the doorway at one end of the bridge). As soon as Indy took a step out onto the bridge, the "camouflage" would be revealed, as it would no longer be aligned to the background from his new perspective. Viewed from the opposite end of the bridge, the "camouflage" wouldn't work at all and the bridge would be perfectly visible.
Charles Austin Miller
Not necessarily. They could have fashioned the stonework so it rendered the bridge invisible from both directions.
The sand and pebbles broke the camouflage of the bridge so when Donovan and Elsa came they would see through the illusion and just see a bridge.
lionhead