MikeH

Answer: This was likely meant as an appreciation to the city and its people for their support and assistance during the film's production, and was not a jokey reference to how Mexico City was portrayed in the movie. It's typical for movies to express gratitude to a city, state, the citizens, etc. for their cooperation.

raywest ★

Answer: It could also be sarcasm cause I read that the crew was robbed at gunpoint several times during filming.

Answer: They did recognize each other (at one point he goes to her house without asking her address). After the divorce, Howard said that he wished they were strangers again. They literally behaved as if they never met each other before (even though Madeline is gently pushing to move past being strangers - for example, by guessing he's divorced).

Answer: Well, for starters, I think Jimmy, despite being a complete sociopath cared a bit about Henry's mental state and well-being and just wanted him to calm down, enjoy his night and we can see it worked. Second, Jimmy might, just might at that moment feel like it wasn't the right night to kill Maurie since he was more of an annoying nuisance than a real threat, he was without being asked given the Chance to just forget the money and let it go, symbolizing Jimmy's murderous greed. Third...WHY should he tell Henry Hill that he will kill him? He benefits nothing, it puts him in a vulnerable position and Jimmy, more than likely has noticed Henry's tics, excessive sweat and bug eyes, pretty sure the guy is hooked on coke, meaning as Tommy jokingly but in nice foreshadow says "You may fold under questioning." Telling Henry he will spare Morrie becomes his Teflon armor at this point cause Henry at this point would never even suspect a good fella like Jimmy to lie to him "of all people" about something like that...That is my take on it anyway.

Answer: It wasn't so much that Jimmy decided to kill Morrie after all. Tommy was annoyed by Morrie and decided on the spot to kill him himself. It was Tommy who wanted Morrie dead at that moment.

Answer: They made a deal with Darby. Darby testified saying Ames was the one who killed the wife and daughter in order to get a reduced sentence. Since Shelton's testimony was inadmissible because he blacked out it was Darby's word again Ames'.

scaryterri ★

Answer: He was a participant in a felony during which someone died. That means the felony murder rule applies. Felony murder is a capital crime.

Greg Dwyer

Answer: Held captive by the Capitol until the capitol was liberated. They were then released.

Ssiscool ★

Answer: Nick also points out that the crime scenes are always contaminated. The evidence was probably contaminated by the cops.

Answer: The reason the DNA was inadmissible was not elaborated on. We're only told it was inadmissible because of the "exclusionary rule." Therefore, the judge in the case must have deemed the way the DNA was collected from the suspects was in violation of their constitutional rights. The why was not explained and anything would be a guess (something like when they were arrested and there was no probable cause to take a DNA sample). But it's seems more of plot convenience to move the story forward quickly. Clyde passing out had nothing to do with the DNA being inadmissible, it only meant his eyewitness testimony may be considered unreliable. Therefore the DA's Office was not willing to try both men using Clyde as a witness, but go with the plea deal.

Bishop73

Answer: It is illegal. That's why everyone in charge gets arrested at the end. It only lasted as long as it did because they were in the middle of nowhere with little to no oversight and no on knew what was really going on until Stanley's release.

Phixius ★

Answer: The conviction, and his subsequent lying about it, bring his credibility seriously in doubt.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: Walt does use Lilly of the Valley berries to poison Brock. Vince Gilligan said he and the writers imagined Walt went to Brock's school with a poisoned juice box (there's subtle clues to confirm Walt knew what school Brock went to). But, when Jesse went to Saul's office, Saul's bodyguard, Huell, does a cigarette pack swap on Jesse when he pats Jesse down. Now the cigarette pack Jesse has no longer has the vial of ricin in it and Walt tries to convince Jesse that Gus stole the ricin and used it on Brock.

Bishop73

Answer: As you stated, it was in a fit of rage, he regretted it right afterwards.

Answer: Aro also makes the argument that for the first time in our history humans pose a threat to our kind with their weapons that can destroy us. Theoretically any weapons that can tear apart and/or burn the vampires would work. So, yes, things other than vampires and werewolves can kill the vampires and werewolves.

Answer: Sure. The problem is that these films portray vampires and werewolves as having super-human abilities, so it'd be significantly harder for a regular person to kill one. But nothing about the films seems to indicate it's overtly impossible.

Answer: The most likely scenario is that a ghost at the school told him.

Answer: Near the end, it is revealed that Cole has seen the ghosts of teachers that died in the fire at the school when "Stuttering Stanley" was a student, so it would make sense that one of them told him.

Answer: In short, diplomatic immunity would prevent a host country (such as the United States) from charging a diplomatic agent or diplomatic staff member with any crime (if they've been granted immunity). However, the agent's home country may waive immunity if the crime is deemed serious enough or the home country can prosecute the agent themselves. However, the host country can still expel a person with diplomatic immunity from the country and ban them from returning. And while diplomatically immuned people have committed serious crimes in the past, diplomats are usually seasoned and respected civil servants in their countries and can damage their careers if they cause any embarrassment while visiting a host county and tend to comply with local laws and customs out of respect.

Bishop73

Answer: It's something which some more formal / conservative couples do, possibly just as a byproduct of having kids and using a consistent reference.

Answer: In the D-Day scene at the beginning of the battle, when the Germans surrender after a brief trench battle, one gets shot. I think this is because one soldier was still very tense and shot the German because he didn't see his hands up in the fight or flight response he was having.

Answer: Upham was not a hardened war vet like the men in his squad. He seen Steam boat Willie shoot Miller which made him furious because of how desperately he tried to save Willies life at the Radar tower so he felt betrayed and guilty for not listening to his squad so he finished the job he didn't have the heart to do before by killing Willie. He let the others go because he didn't have a problem with them. The surrendering Germans knew the Americans were inbound after tank was destroyed so they gave up immediately.

Chosen answer: He was alone and probably couldn't have shot them all before being shot himself. However, he was in a perfect position to make them surrender as none of them wanted to be the one to get shot for aiming their rifle at him. He didn't let them go, he told them to start walking in one direction as his prisoners.

lionhead

Chosen answer: Rules of war are when someone surrenders you take him prisoner and are not allowed to kill him, they followed the rules of war. They are all very emotional from the battle and losing a friend and fellow soldier though and they wanted a scapegoat. They were behind enemy lines so nobody could come to pick up the prisoner, as the lieutenant explained, and helicopters weren't really around in WW2.

lionhead

Chosen answer: He means that, as a salesman, he's always traveling, rather than being based out of one particular city. There's a darker implication however: he's a widower and doesn't feel like he really has a home since he lost his wife.

Brian Katcher

Chosen answer: This has already been asked and answered on this site, in the past few weeks in fact. But again: It doesn't affect the movie, but it affects the character of Han Solo and how he is meant to be perceived by the audience. If he shoots first, he's an outlaw, a rogue, and, in the classic Western tradition, quicker on the draw than Greedo. If Greedo shoots first, Han is just killing in self-defense, which does nothing for his character and makes the whole scene superfluous, other than establish that people want to kill him.

Answer: Also, Han shooting first places doubts about his motives in the viewer's mind early on. It establishes Han as ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes to survive. Might he turn Luke and Ben over to the Empire if he decides it's in his best interests? But having Greedo shoot first turns Han in to just another generic good guy.

Answer: I mostly agree with the other answers about Han, but his shooting first is integral to the plot and not about showing any ruthlessness. Greedo cornered Han and intended to turn him over to Jabba the Hut to collect the bounty on Han's head. Greedo told Han, while holding him at gun point, that he wanted the money Obi Wan was paying Han, then implied he was going to kill Han before turning his body over to Jabba for the reward. Han's only option was to kill Greedo right then and there. He basically is shooting Greedo in self-defense (or for self-preservation). As well as establishing what his character is like, the scene also serves as exposition that shows Jabba had put a price on Han's head, Greedo was a deadly adversary, that Han leads a dangerous and illegal life, and he was desperate to resolve his dilemma of living under a death sentence.

raywest ★