I once read about a film about an immortal woman that the townsfolk thought was a witch, so they sealed her in a barrel and threw it on the ocean. The ending showed her coming back to life, drowning and coming back to life. Does anyone know what this movie is called?
The_Iceman
6th May 2021
General questions
9th Jul 2021
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: When Marty arrives back in the alternate 1985, he's attacked by a black man when he unknowingly breaks into what he thought to be his home. Could this man be former mayor Goldie Wilson?
Answer: No, it's a different character and a different actor. Goldie Wilson is played by Donald Fullilove. The dad with the bat who chases Marty out of the house is played by Al White.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it's two different characters; George McFly, for example, was portrayed by both Crispin Glover using archived footage from the first film and Jeffrey Weissman in newly filmed footage. While the character played by Al White is credited simply as "Dad", there's no confirmation either way whether this was an alternate version of Goldie Wilson.
The answer is correct, the Dad is not meant to be Goldie Wilson. In the novelization of the film, he's given the name "Lewis." And while some characters were recast, Donald Fullilove (the actor that played Goldie) himself already appears in "Back to the Future Part II", so it's not like they recast him.
Unless there's any indication it's the same charector, or at least a clue to point in that direction, then there's no reason at all to assume it "might" be.
While there was no clear-cut answer on whether this was Goldie, I think it is safe to assume it is not him. This franchise has shown to make recurring characters very noticeable, even minor ones, such as the homeless man that Marty recognizes in 2 different timelines. Yes, sometimes actors get recast, as they did with George McFly and Jennifer Parker, but they made it quite clear they were playing the same character. I see absolutely nothing that would even suggest this was Goldie Wilson.
Jeffrey Weissman is credited as "George McFly", Crispin Glover is credited as "George McFly (archive footage) ", Donald Fullilove is uncredited but listed as "Goldie Wilson II" (on imdb). Al White being credited as "Dad" actually confirms to a T that he is not "Goldie Wilson" and nothing in that scene even remotely suggests that the family father portrayed by Al White might be Goldie Wilson from 1985-A (other than a viewer seeing a person of color and drawing conclusions). There also is no cause to question whether or not the "Dad" was supposed to be any other person of color seen in any of the 1985 timelines. (Not that another POC in that timeline would come to mind).
Glover is not credited the same way as Fullilove is since he's credited only as "archive footage" and Fullilove is uncredited. Glover doesn't physically appear in part 2 as Fullilove did.
I stand corrected and have edited my post. Thank you.
Answer: Also, the 1985 Goldie Wilson's picture was shown on a moving vehicle in part 1, and he looked very different from the father with the bat in part 2.
Answer: It could not be Goldie Wilson. In 1955, Goldie Wilson looks to be around in his early 20s in the cafe. This would put him to be early 50s in 1985. The father only looks to be in his 30s.
11th Dec 2017
Saw V (2008)
Question: The second trap, they had to break jars open that were on the ceiling and get into the safety chambers, but there were "only three" for four people... Those were some pretty long, tall chambers. Couldn't the two smallest people share a single chamber, and all four survive? Especially since they look tall enough for two people to lie down right on top of each other.
Answer: That was the entire point of the trap. Each trap in the overall game was meant for them to all work together. The tape for this trap asks "Who will be the odd man out?" They took this to mean that one person had to remain outside the chambers, but what it really meant was two people would each share a chamber (assuming all five survived the first trap) and one person would occupy the third chamber all by themselves. Charles realised this and tried to tell everyone, but was unfortunately killed by the explosion before he could.
Nope actually he said who of you 4 has to die...how he knew was 4 survivors?
He does not say that at all. The exact wording is "With only three points of safety, which of you will be the odd man out?" At no point does the tape say that one of them has to die. That would be completely contradictory to the point that the five of them were supposed to work together to safely get through every trap.
Not what he meant. He knows human nature is survival at the expense of someone else. He set the trap so all could survive, but he knows the panic and self-preservation will lead the group to sacrifice someone.
25th Feb 2020
General questions
I saw a movie years ago that had two main characters and there were background plots of someone stealing from (I think) the mafia and a serial killer on the loose. I think they ended up at a motel together and the twist at the end was that the one you thought was the killer was the thief and vice versa. I was sure it was called hatchet man but I can't seem to find anything about it.
Answer: Sounds like NATURE OF THE BEAST Starring Eric Roberts and Lance Hendrickson.
That's the one! Thank you.
Glad I could help. That's actually one of my favorite movies.
6th Mar 2020
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Veracity Elasticity - S10-E7
Answer: She wanted room for her own things. The apartment was cluttered with so many collectables that Leonard never looked at, that he never noticed when she put some in storage.
Well if they're a couple why not talk to him about it? After all couples are supposed to compromise on things, imagine if he'd done this to her.
2nd Mar 2014
The Brittas Empire (1991)
Safety First - S2-E6
Factual error: When Helen tells Laura she's trying to quit all the pills that she takes to deal with Gordon, she starts listing them off. "The Valium, the Diazepam, the Librium..." Valium and Diazepam are the same thing. (Valium's the brand, Diazepam's the generic). (00:08:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Anyone on those pills knows exactly what they are.
Usually true in real life but this show exaggerates things for comedy. The writers probably genuinely made the mistake but it is still plausible that Helen is that messed up.
If you're on these meds, you know this stuff. Like how people on Percocet know that its generic is Oxycodone.
27th Aug 2001
Black Dog (1998)
Corrected entry: When Swayze first starts the truck, he turns on all of the switches for his lights. When he pulls away, they aren't on. (00:20:40)
Correction: He could have been doing his pre-trip walk around to make sure everything is working and in proper order to be on the roadway. Standard operating procedure for any commercial driver. When done he'd turn them off.
I'm a truck driver and before I take one out on the road it's my responsibility to check all the lights work. One of the first things I do is check them, but I turn them all off again once I know they work.
18th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Unless the character is being portrayed as a bumbling oaf then their car is always spotlessly clean inside and out. No empty sweet wrappers, drinks cans, receipts, window streaks etc.
Correction: How is this a mistake? Clean people do exist and it is not a mistake to want to film them. Cleanliness is a virtue, and the films might want to deliberately exploit the fact. Women with hourglass-shaped bodies? Now, that's a mistake.
Every single person? I've never, in my life, been inside a spotlessly clean car.
Bear in mind the vast majority of the time we aren't shown the entirety of the car. My car's pretty clean but has bits of leaves, etc. in the footwell because I never clean there - no movie ever shows the footwells! I don't throw random garbage around the inside either, it gets put in the side pockets, again, not somewhere that tends to be of great focus in movies.
Films are intended to bend reality. Wanting to have clean cars in the film is not automatically a mistake. It is at best a cliche or trope. Sometimes, it is advocacy.
1st Mar 2019
Blue Streak (1999)
Plot hole: When Miles tries to hand the pizza to Carlson, he steals the ID card off him. Carlson would have realised that he had lost the card the next time he came to open a security door and would have reported it as lost. This means that his original card would have been blocked, meaning that Miles wouldn't have been able to use it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Unless he didn't report it lost due to the fear of being reprimanded for losing the card.
Miles is a strictly by the book cop. No way he wouldn't report his ID card as lost. The original posting is correct. Correcting an entry by guessing what may have been going through a character's mind only works if it fits the characters usual mindset or attitude, which this correction doesn't.
So without a card how would he be getting through the security doors? Are you saying he would just stand there and wait for someone to swipe their card and just piggyback behind them? And how long is that supposed to last?
No, I'd say the original entry for a plot hole is correct and that the card shouldn't have worked.
Well to be completely honest this whole movie doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be more rational to try to sneak in the backdoor disguised as a janitor instead of impersonating a detective? Most people would not question a man wearing a janitorial outfit, examining the vents. Yeah its still a risky move but not nearly as risky or time consuming as impersonating a cop. It is hard to believe someone as clever as Miles would not at least consider the idea.
6th Aug 2018
Breaking Bad (2008)
Question: When Saul buys Jesse's house from his parents, he said that he showed their lawyer, Mr. Gardner, "all the pertinent financials", meaning $875,000 in cash available to buy the house. Jesse only had $450,000 and that money was not in any account. How did Saul show Mr. Gardner that he had $875,000 in cash?
Answer: Saul is a criminal himself. It's not past his capabilities to forge some documents to show the 857k is available.
Forged documents by Saul is most likely the correct answer.
Answer: In all likelihood, he sold some more meth.
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Despite being a lawyer, architect or whatever, the male character will have a garage filled with high end, spotlessly clean tools.
Correction: Several issues with this entry being a mistake: - first, how often do we actually see this? If this has happened in some shows, perhaps it would be better expressed as a mistake in those specific shows, instead of 'common'. - second, why a male character? Can't female characters have tools in a garage? - third, the writers may have given the character shiny tools for a reason: the character is wealthy but still handy; they feel they needed to buy the tools to project an image even if they don't use them; they like buying shiny toys (the character does the same with the kitchen or home cinema); somebody else in the family uses them; the character has a hobby or a long term DIY project, etc.
To me, it's a mistake because it almost always feels out of place for the character, their life, lifestyle etc.
Again, do you have an example?
A garage full of top of the range, specific, expensive and spotlessly clean tools? How many lawyers, office executives etc do you know who perform sophisticated diy projects on a regular basis to need a whole garage full of tools like that?
My brother is a CFO and he built a treehouse for his kids by himself. He has a garage full of nice tools which are kept clean. Clean tools are long lasting tools.
Can you give an example?
9th Oct 2018
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Corrected entry: It makes no sense why the Gecko brothers took the bank teller hostage at the beginning. Their plan was to get across the border into Mexico and to the rendezvous using the Fuller family, and their RV was perfect. But what was their original plan? Were they gonna have the hostage drive their car while they hid in the trunk? She would have given them up immediately. Also let's not forget that her face was on TV news programs which makes her a liability at the border gate. Basically there is no logical reason and all they would have done (if Richie didn't kill her) was create unneeded collateral.
Correction: Criminals behaving illogically don't constitute a plot hole. The fact that Ritchie raped the bank teller may have been his motive for kidnapping her, rather than just killing her right away.
Also, Seth states at some point he does not take hostages (either on leaving Benny's world of liquor or after discovering the teller is dead, I can't remember where he said it) which suggests it was all Ritchie's idea to kidnap her and Seth didn't want, far less plan, to take a hostage, and that he felt it was unnecessary to do so.
Correction: They had Gloria hostage in case they had a run in with the police.
18th Apr 2006
Teen Wolf (1985)
Corrected entry: Isn't it rather strange that nobody outside the Howard family's small town expresses any interest in the confirmed discovery of a new human sub-species, the only one on the planet? Wouldn't it be more likely that their little backwater town would be inundated with every press and scientific organisation on earth, and that the Howard family would be the centre of the greatest publicity carnival of all time?
Correction: I don't see this as a plot hole but as the comedic core of the movie. I mean, one of the funniest bits in the film is when Mr. Howard rather nonchalantly "comes out" for a father-and-son chat about maturing as a werewolf. This is a gag throughout the film, with locals oddly accepting werewolves in the community. It's reminiscent of the surreal humor of "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters," in which actual monsters and ghoulish psychopaths somehow fit into society.
Correction: Probably not, because this same case is most likely to have happened to other people before - as seen in Teen Wolf Too, there are plenty of other 'werewolf' people. So it is most likely that a case like Scott's has been exposed and reported before in other locations. Also, such a small town would probably want to prevent such a thing from happening, and everyone seems a certain bit frightened of Scott as a werewolf.
Scott doesn't even know that he is a werewolf until it "hits him in the face." It is a very closely guarded secret until Scott goes public. That would bring every biologist, anthropologist, zoologist - name the scientific discipline - running, as well as every reporter on the planet. The posting is absolutely correct.
I agree with the original posting. The entire town is shocked about Scott and certainly not familiar with other cases of werewolves.
I'm going to agree. Not only is everybody surprised at the discovery that Scott is a werewolf but, the same thing happens in Teen Wolf Too. Todd believes he's just an ordinary guy until he turns into a werewolf while dancing which again, surprises everybody.
21st Jul 2018
Creepshow 2 (1987)
Stupidity: After the Slick devours Laverne, Randy jumps into the water and swims for shore with the Slick following. Even though Randy made it to shore, he stops and turns to confront the Slick, screaming that he beat it. When Randy turns around, the Slick immediately envelopes him. If Randy had just got up and started running instead of facing the Slick, he would have lived.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a deliberate movie making technique to make the audience think the character has escaped but at the last second a surprise is thrown in. It's the same as hanging over the body of the killer. It doesn't come under stupidity.
Yes, it does. In any movie where someone comes face to face with either a supernatural enemy or even a regular one, confronting it is extremely stupid because the character could have simply walked away and made it to safety. The character confronting the killer is stupid because they'll always be killed. Better to do the smart thing and run as far and as fast as possible.
A example of a valid stupidity entry is an astronaut taking his helmet off when in space because he's an expert and knows better. A stupid person doing something stupid is considered a stupidity entry (which is essentially a plot hole writers use to move the story in a particular direction it wouldn't have gone otherwise). A character making the wrong choice because they underestimate the situation isn't a minor plot hole, in real life people underestimate opponents all the time, and movies exploit that all the time in their plot development (i.e. Apollo underestimating Rocky).
Suggested correction: Randy's decision isn't what constitutes a "stupidity" mistake. Stupidity mistakes are minor plot holes, which means characters can act stupid. Plus, when Randy gets to shore he's worn out so he tries to catch his breath. He then says he's won because he under estimated the Slick's ability to get him (which would fall under the category of "celebrating too early").
Put yourself in Randy's place. If you're friends were eaten by a huge slick like monster and you were swimming to shore with it chasing you, after making it safely to shore, would you want to turn around to confront it. No. That would be stupid because confronting it will certainly get you killed the moment your back is turned. The smart thing to do would be to keep running. Randy facing it was very stupid. Had he done the smart thing and kept going after he made it to shore, he would have survived. Stupidity killed him. Pure and simple.
First off, you said it would certainly kill you once your back is turned, which means if you're running away, your back is turned and if you confront it, your back isn't turned. But, he never tried to confront it. He just celebrates beating it. However, Randy thought he was safe once on land because he thought the creature couldn't attack him or reach him, so in Randy's mind he wasn't doing anything stupid. He thought he was safe, he thought he won. He was tired and sat to rest. But that's part of his character and his character traits. But, acting stupid isn't a "stupidity" mistake. Otherwise movies like "Dumb and Dumber" would just be thousands of stupidity mistakes because stupid characters are acting stupid. Now, if Randy knew the creature could kill him in water and he turns to celebrate his victory, or stops to rest, in the water, that could be a "stupidity" mistake since his character was already shown to know he can't stop in the water and the writers ignored what was already established as his character. Stupidity mistakes just are minor plot holes that go against already establish character traits or established facts/statements in the film.
Not only that, but, Randy was acting stupid since he chose to face it rather then run.
If you re choosing to say its a stupidity because they choose to fight rather than run then that's a moot point because you wouldn't have a movie in the first place! Movies get a degree of latitude when it comes to reality (people can be shot 7 times and still walk away as the credits roll) so rather than stupidity, this is under slightly suspended reality of how an actual person would behave. In this segment, we're talking about an oil slick with a mind of its own. 100% reality has to take a back seat where plot forwarding is concerned.
18th Aug 2018
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Other mistake: As the cop is walking towards the coffee machine, he steps on the T-1000 (disguised as the floor). The cop proceeds to the coffee machine and buys a coffee while the T-1000 turns into the cop. The T-1000 only touches his shoe, so shouldn't be able to copy his appearance. (00:51:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The impression is given that the cop walking over the T-1000 gives the T-1000 the ability to copy him. But in truth we don't actually see when the T-1000 came with the sample of the cop to be able to copy him, maybe he had already collected his DNA beforehand. Far-fetched example is that humans shed skin and hair all the time, if that falls onto the T-1000 that could be enough.
Sorry but I disagree with this correction. If we are going down this road of "but maybe..." then it opens up a whole can of worms for what is a mistake and what isn't. In an explosion, a vase still on a shelf might have been glued but its unlikely. Where does it end? I think the original entry is for mistake is correct based on A - if the t1000 already had his DNA then why disguise himself as the floor? He'd have just killed him when he first got to the hospital and B - Unless we actually see or hear any evidence that the T-1000 would actually behave in this manner then as far as we the audience can believe, it doesn't happen.
It's about plausibility. It's to see if the writers and director actually made a mistake or gave it to our imagination.
Another possibility: people do occasionally touch the sole of their shoes when taking them on and off (or if they're polishing them, or trying to clean something off them). That would leave at least a few skin cells that the T-1000 could thus use as a sample.
6th Aug 2018
White House Down (2013)
Question: I know little of complicated politics so despite seeing it as a plot hole, I'm putting it in as a question. As Walker gives the missiles targets, there is talk of starting World War III if they are allowed to hit. The attack on the White House would be world wide news, on every major channel. Wouldn't these countries know it wasn't America who bombed them but was the work of terrorists?
Answer: Knowing is not believing. They might know, but they wouldn't necessarily trust the media. After all it could have been a grand conspiracy to cover up the actual truth from the people.
I highly doubt world war 3 would start before these countries did their homework though. It wouldn't take long for them to suss out it was actually terrorists who detonated the bombs and not America.
8th May 2008
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Question: Did Chigurh shoot the accountant in Stehpen Root's office? The IMDB FAQ claims that he didn't, thinking that the accountant didn't look at Chigurh's face - However, the accountant DID look at Chigurh's face. Right after Chigurh says, "That depends - do you see me?", he turns around and looks at the accountant in the eyes. They both stare at each other. So my question is, after my explanation - Did Chigurh shoot the accountant?
Answer: That's intentionally left ambiguous - it's open to your own interpretation.
Answer: Of course he killed the accountant. When the accountant asked Chigurh if he was going to kill him and Chigurh replied by asking "Do you see me?", Chigurh might have been saying, "Of course I'm going to kill you, you're a witness," but I think he was telling the accountant that the question was as dumb as if he asked the accountant if the accountant saw him when the accountant was looking right at him.
The first answer is actually correct. It's left ambiguous. He could mean "do you see me?" meaning yes I'm going to kill you because you've seen my face. Or he could mean "do you see me?" meaning if you say no and keep your mouth shut I'll leave you alive.
He did not. Every death has a clue...blood on his feet...he checked the bottom of his shoes after he left the wife's house. The feathers in the back of the truck he took. For every death he caused they either showed the victim or showed an immediate indicator he liked them.
I can also hear some sarcasm in his question. He asks with a smile (he doesn't smile that much, does he?) and a sarcastic tone, as if he wants to emphasize that now that you have seen me, you are very dead.
Answer: Did he see him? Yes. Did he kill him because of it? Yes.
Answer: Nothing is for certain, in Anton's own words. He might have killed the accountant. He might have spared him. The answer is the toss of a coin.
Answer: I see the question "That depends - do you see me?" as one of Chigurh's proverbial coin tosses. I actually believe that if the accountant would have answered "no" then Anton would have killed him.
23rd Aug 2016
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Question: How did Anton find Llewellyn's home?
Answer: When Llewellyn returns to the site of the showdown for the second time, he leaves his truck parked in an obvious spot. Coming across the truck later, Anton prizes off a plate from Llewellyn's truck that has the VIN on it. This is likely how Anton later tracked Llewellyn down.
When Llewellyn is telling his wife she needs to go to Odessa, he says "tomorrow morning at 9am a man is going to call the courthouse about the registration of my truck. At 0930, he's going to come here looking for me" (or words to that effect).
8th Jun 2003
Last Action Hero (1993)
Corrected entry: When Jack falls in the tar pool Whitney comes in with clean clothes about 30 seconds after it happened. So how could she find out about it, drive over to their new house, get the clothes then drive over to the tar pool in 30 seconds?
Correction: That's the point the filmmakers wanted to make. They wanted us to remember that it is a movie (within the movie), so they deliberately added mistakes and illogical happenings. Besides, Whitney knows that her father needs new clothes, cars, ammo and other equipment on a regular basis. She could just pop by with stuff in case he needed it occasionally. Cheesy, yes, but not more so than shooting a closet because "there's always a guy in there" and being right.
Also, When Whitney says she has new clothes for her father Danny says "Doesn't anyone find this just a little convenient", expressing his disbelief that she should be there so quickly as it would only happen in the movies, not real life.
23rd Oct 2003
Wrong Turn (2003)
Corrected entry: By the end of the film, Chris is wounded, tired, and should be very weak. Yet he managed to hold himself under the car for many miles. A normal man would have tired out so much that he couldn't do it, let alone a man wounded and exhausted.
Correction: Yes Chris did have alot of problems, but it is quite possible that he had an adrenaline rush. Human beings can possess super-human powers when faced with life-or-death situations.
Its also worth noting that the site rules to cover a movie mistake are quite clear on suspension of belief.
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: There is an Italian fairy tale movie, "Move than a Miracle." (1967) A cinderella type story. A prince, Omar Sharif, falls in love with a peasant girl, Sophia Loren. There is no witch, but through a series of misadventures she gets stuck in a barrel, falls over a cliff and into the ocean. When it washes ashore, a group of boys find her and thinks she is a magical creature. Witch, fairy or angel.
No that's not it. This was a lot more modern.
The_Iceman