Question: When Brian is about to be crucified, soldiers arrive with news of his release. The soldiers ask for Brian, and everybody shouts "I'm Brian." Is this a parody of the "I'm Spartacus" episode in the Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick film of "Spartacus"? If so, would this support my feeling that Life Of Brian is primarily a parody of classical/biblical 'epic' films?
Bishop73
9th Aug 2018
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Answer: The scene is a parody of the scene in "Spartacus" (although they are saying "I am Brian" for completely different reasons.) However, the film is meant to be a satire on religion itself and not a parody of epic films. The Pythons did a lot of research to try and accurately portray 1st century Judea, which is why it may look like a biblical epic, but I can't recall any biblical epics they parodied. At the time it was considered blasphemous, and not a parody, and banned in several areas in the UK and some countries. Although the Pythons argued it's not blasphemy but heresy.
Answer: You are indeed correct. It is a parody of the "Spartacus" scene but mostly of religion.
Perhaps not so much a parody of "Spartacus" as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick. Monty Python writer Terry Gilliam was very much a fan of Kubrick films and became friends with Kubrick in the 1980s. Gilliam claimed that Kubrick had even spoken with him about making a sequel to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (with Gilliam as director). Chances are, the "Spartacus" allusion was part of Gilliam's contribution to the "Life of Brian" screenplay, a tip-o-the-hat to Stanley Kubrick.
9th Aug 2018
Twilight (2008)
2nd Jun 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Question: Could somebody tell me once and for all why every mutant in these films have nicknames?
Chosen answer: Because just like in the comic books, all super heroes and villains have names that are a representation of either the abilities they possess, paraphernalia they use, their personalities, and/or the circumstances of their origin. Magneto is a much more compelling and memorable name for a character than simply calling him Erik. Presumably it also avoids confusion if there are several mutants with the same "regular" name, to have a unique nickname for each one.
Answer: In addition to what was said, the nicknames also provide the individual mutant a way to identity more closely with the fact that they are mutants. As Mystique said in "X-Men: The Last Stand" when addressed as Raven, "I don't answer to my slave name." Many mutants are rejected by their parents when they find out they're mutants, so the "nickname" serves as a way to distance themselves from those that rejected them. In addition, at times their nicknames are called "code names." In this case, it would be a way to address a mutant without using their real identity, in essence a secret identity that's common in almost all superheroes and super villains.
7th May 2018
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Do we know the human casualties by the end of the war?
Answer: No such numbers are ever discussed in the novel or in the subsequent radio and movie treatments. What we may surmise, however, is that the human casualties were comparatively minor. Once the Martians were exposed to earthly microbes, they were wiped out pretty quickly.
Voiceover by Morgan Freeman at the end of the movie: by the toll of a billion lives.
Morgan Freeman says "By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms." He is saying that Mankind evolved with microorganisms for countless generations on Earth, making Mankind immune to most of those microorganisms. Perhaps a billion humans or more died of bacterial and viral plagues throughout human history; but, as a species, we gained immunity. Freeman's quote has nothing to do with the number of Martians that died because they had no immunity.
Answer: The ending dialog states a death of 1 billion.
The billion deaths spoken of don't refer to those that died in the alien attack but the billion deaths from the microorganisms that killed the aliens. "By a billion deaths man earned his immunity."
I feel that he meant that the organisms that killed the aliens killed a billion humans first before we got our immunity from them.
They are saying that.
Exactly.
13th Oct 2014
The Departed (2006)
Question: Who did Frank execute in the beginning of the film? Was it the shop owner or just someone we don't know?
Answer: They were "Guineas from the North End" who tried to tell Frank what to do. (Guinea being a racial slur for Italian-Americans). It's most likely just two unknown people because they are credited in the film as "Executed Woman" and "Executed Man."
Answer: It was Leonardo's father and girlfriend killed out by the airport.
No way.
Italian mob boss and wife?
Answer: It was Matt Damon's parents.
2nd Aug 2018
The Jackal (1997)
Question: I'm asking this as a question, cause I'm unable to determine if this is actually a mistake with the weird writing... or if I'm just missing something. Right after The Jackal kills Lemont, it cuts to the FBI in a room trying to piece things together. Witherspoon walks in and says "Here we go, sir. Eleven days ago, Charles C. Murdock bought himself a brand new Dodge mini van. Now, that was a big surprise to Mr. Murdock, whose passport and wallet were stolen 16 days ago at the Helsinki Airport." He says this to Preston and the rest as if this is brand new news, a new lead they have to go on and a break they've needed. But then Preston just looks at him contemplating this and immediately responds. "Anything from the border? We sent a description of the van to every crossing from here to Manitoba." Him saying this as if they had this information long ago and already had people searching for it. To me this doesn't make any sense with how either of those characters said their lines. Witherspoon has been with Preston and the others almost this entire time in on the investigation and would have known if they already knew about the van. And if the van was actually a new lead Witherspoon just found and was telling them. Then what Preston said makes no sense. So where is the error in this or am I just missing something? (01:01:35)
Answer: It seemed to me that they had a description of the van, but had not yet identified the owner. Witherspoon is saying the van was purchased with a stolen identity and therefore they still don't know who really bought the van.
But how did they even have a description of the van then? Up to that point it seemed they didn't know anything about a van. This is why i'm confused.
The film makers may have cut out some scenes that would explain it in better detail, but as it is, there's no mention when the FBI knew about the van. However, they did know the Jackal was using James' passport and flew into Montreal so they have been able to follow him, although they're always a step behind. I don't think it's a plot hole or bad writing though, but it certainly up for debate.
In the movie the Jackal (Willis) often changed the colour of the van, white, blue, red etc. So for a proper BOLO of a van especially in 1997 there are many (including currently) many colours of a minivan (family van) so the color it was sold as was changed and it showed him practising washing away one color over another and the last being red.
31st Jul 2018
Zodiac (2007)
30th Jul 2018
The Jackal (1997)
Question: I know that nowadays, the F.B.I. does have operations abroad. However when this film was made 20 years ago showing the F.B.I. operating in Moscow... did the F.B.I. conduct operations outside of the country as depicted? I was under the impression that was the CIA's job.
Answer: It is stated that the FBI is working with their Russian equivalent, the MVD on a joint operation. The FBI primarily focuses on domestic issues but does on occasion engage in operations outside of the United States with the assistance and in the aid of foreign governments. The CIA would not be the appropriate government agency to handle the operation in the movie because that mission is a law enforcement operation. The CIA is strictly an intelligence gathering organization with no law enforcement authority.
Answer: Since 1940 (prior to the CIA being established), the FBI have been stationed in various foreign countries. Usually agent don't have the authority to make arrests, however, they can if Congress has granted the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction and the host country agrees. The FBI establishes attaché offices, commonly known as legats, in foreign cities. In 1993 there were 21 of these offices and the new FBI director, Louis Freeh, wanted more and by 1997 there were 32. So, yes, 20 years ago the FBI conducted operations in foreign countries. I know currently there's a legat in Moscow, although I don't know when it was established. However, given the nature of the film, it's not unreasonable to think the FBI could quickly set up operations in Moscow, if they were not already established there, with no explanations needed since it's already something the FBI does.
Answer: It is the C.I.A's job to conduct foreign investigations. You're right in that respect. Why the FBI is involved is either unexplained or not mentioned.
7th Sep 2017
Octopussy (1983)
Question: How did Bond win the game of backgammon, with Kamal Khan, when he didn't get all his chips off the board? Even the two sixes he rolled wouldn't have done it.
Answer: Bond (taking over for the Major) had 1 piece on point 2, 1 piece on point 3, and 2 pieces on point 6. Rolling doubles in Backgammon means you get to make 4 moves instead of just 2, so he was able to remove all 4 pieces. If you have a piece on point 2, you don't have to roll a 2 to remove it. Anything higher than a 2 can be used to remove the piece. Kahn even says Bond has to roll a double 6 in order to win, which he does.
Answer: Not knowing anything about backgammon so this is perhaps wrong. But I thought that Bond didn't win. And the fact that he produced the Faberge egg is what ended the game. (I'm more than likely wrong tho).
27th Jan 2018
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Question: Have the filmmakers offered any explanation as to why they used CGI for Wolverine's claws in the bathroom scene? As has been pointed out numerous times, the CGI is very poor. Given that the previous three X-Men films used practical claws that looked just fine, this seemed like a very impractical thing to do, especially considering the extra time and money going with CGI would require.
Chosen answer: While it's not a definitive answer, the practical claws were still dangerous and several stunt people, and Hugh Jackman himself, have been injured during filming of the X-Men films. I don't know if they simply wanted to try to be safer or if there was a request made. Plus, the other films still used CGI claws for certain scenes, so perhaps they thought they could pull it off. It should be noted that Hugh Jackman went back to practical claws during filming of The Wolverine.
25th Jul 2018
That '70s Show (1998)
Question: Wisconsin has no land border with Canada. The nearest crossings from a fictional town near Sheboygan would be Sault Ste Marie, MI or Grand Portage, MN, both of which would take well over a day round trip, so just exactly where did the boys go to Canada from?
Answer: The show's universe actually has Point Place as a suburb of Green Bay, which is further north than Sheboygan. Still, quite a drive, roughly eight hours, to the nearest Canadian land border (as you rightly say, it would be in Grand Portage). Obviously the show's creators were hoping no one would check...the border crossing the boys use is left deliberately vague, and is just a plot device rather than a faithful depiction of Wisconsin geography.
I live in Sault Ste Marie, MI it about 5 hours to Green Bay, one way. Totally doable in half a day round trip.
Answer: It should be noted that while a trip across the Canadian border from Wisconsin would take a while, it certainly wouldn't take more than 12 hours to get there. From Green Bay to Sault Ste Marie, one is less than 300 miles away and would take less than 6 hours to get there. However, as stated, where in Canada they are is never said and very vague. In fact, when you see them at the border, there's a sign behind them with different cities and their distances (Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, and Sault Ste Marie). However, the distances don't seem to match any border crossing and Sault Ste Marie is 780 km away, which would put them at a Saskatchewan/Montana border crossing.
23rd Jul 2018
General questions
I've been quoting a movie for years now. When I stop to think about it... I can't remember what movie the quote is even from! So I'm trying to find out of anybody can name the film that this quote is from. But someone is in a public bathroom of some sorts, possibly a truck stop and is hiding in one of the stalls. I think they may have been on the phone, but I'm not sure. An old man comes in and does his business then gets up and whips and you just hear him speaking through the wall. "Corn? Why is it always corn? I didn't even eat corn!" I've quoted that line as a joke many times now over the years but I can not remember what movie, TV show, or possibly YouTube video that was from. Google search doesn't help me it seems.
Answer: You're probably thinking of Mike Myers as "Fat Bastard" in the 2002 comedy "Austin Powers in Goldmember." We see the silhouette of Fat Bastard against the paper wall of a geisha house, peering into the toilet and exclaiming, "Oy, I dinna have any corn!"
I looked up the quote. And while it is similar, I don't think that's exactly the one I'm thinking of. I remember the movie saying the quote that I remember being almost word for word how I mentioned it. I almost want to say it was in a Jackass movie or similar. I just can't remember for sure.
This is the Mike Myers "Fat Bastard" scene. Look familiar? https://youtu.be/f71VqFgwPy4.
Answer: There is a scene in Senseless (1998) where Darryl (played by Marlon Wayans) is listening in on the two girls in the bathroom and Tonya (I think) says the line "Corn? I don't remember eating no corn." Although, it's obvious that the corn-in-poop joke is common toilet humor, so I'm sure a dozen other movies have had the joke and similar lines.
22nd Jul 2018
The Tuxedo (2002)
Question: Exactly what is Banning's plan?
Answer: If you're talking about his evil plan with the Banning Corporation, he wants to take over the world's drinking water supply (so that anyone who wants drinking water will have to buy it from Banning). He is trying to contaminate the U.S. drinking water with a deadly bacteria.
4th Jan 2007
Casino Royale (2006)
Question: I don't fully understand how Le Chiffre lost all his money when the bomb failed to blow up the prototype aircraft at Miami airport. If the bomb had exploded, the shares in the airliner would have crumbled, but because it didn't, wouldn't think mean that Le Chiffre missed out on the opportunity to make a load of money, but would still be left with the money he had in the first place?
Answer: Le Chiffre was essentially betting that airline stock would fall, so he bought futures contracts assuming the price would fall, when the bomb did not go off, airline stock did not fall, so he lost his money, as the contract he'd bought still had to be fulfilled.
Answer: Lachiffre had bought Puts on the Airline stock which have a definite drop dead date, expiration date, usually the 3rd Friday of any month. So the bomb is a dud, the Airline rollout is a success, stock goes up, puts expire worthless.
Answer: Its not realistic IMO, but a successful roll-out of the new airliner would have led to an increase in the stock's price which would have cost anyone shorting it. Just not 100% of their investment.
Shorting stocks can cost an investor more than 100% of their investment. For example if you borrowed 1 stock for $50 hoping the stocks drop to $20, you make $30. But it the stocks jump to $150, you lose $100 (twice your investment).
21st Jul 2018
Shallow Grave (1994)
Question: Is removing hands, feet and teeth really sufficient to prevent the corpses being identified? What about DNA?
Answer: Even with head, hands and feet removed, a lot about a person's identity can be determined from body scars, tattoos, body tissue and blood samples, etc. Sex, age, height, weight, body-fat content, race, hair color, and pre-death physical health can all be determined rather easily through traditional means, even given only a torso for examination. Once investigators have a general idea of identity, they can compare their findings to a missing persons database and narrow it down further to likely matches. Then they can request DNA samples from the families of likely missing persons and compare it to the DNA of the corpse. Of course, if the corpse was never reported as missing, that would bring the investigation to a dead-end.
Answer: Identifying a body (or anyone for that matter) through DNA would only work if that person's DNA is already on file and you had something to compare it to (and getting a DNA match is an extensive process that doesn't happen over night despite what some TV shows suggest). I don't know about the UK, but in the US, federal DNA databases didn't really start until 1994. And only a few states started a felon DNA database in the 90's, so it's unlikely Hugo's DNA was on file. It's much more likely that a person's fingerprints or dental records were on file since they were much more common and not exclusive to felons. Again though, those records would have to be on file in order to compare to a body. I don't know if the feet removal was more for the dark comedy aspect or if they thought his feet print were on file and would be viable (i.e. prints taken when he was born in the hospital).
18th Jul 2018
Elementary (2012)
The Rat Race - S1-E4
Question: I don't see her listed on the credits in beginning or any other website inquiries, but is that Tyne Daly playing the character Peter's secretary?
Answer: I'm the same person who asked this question. I discovered it was Molly Price whom I recognized from Third Watch.
It should be noted Donna was Jim Fowkes‘ secretary. Donna killed Peter.
17th Jul 2018
The Twilight Zone (1959)
Question: During the black and white TV days I watched an episode, the name of which I can't remberer. People were going about their lives. In the last scene the lid of a box is lifted. People are looking down into the box. The people in the box look up at the people who open the lid. What is the name of this episode?
Answer: There's an episode called "Five Characters in Search of an Exit" (s03e14). The 5 people aren't in a box but in what turns out to be a toy collection barrel. People outside the barrel are out and about town doing their errands. The 5 people are just dolls and a girl from the outside puts one of the escaped dolls back in the barrel. I think there's a shot of her looking down into it.
16th Jul 2018
Unstoppable (2010)
Question: Couldn't Dewey have just stopped the train, backed it up, and then changed the switch instead of hopping out of the cab?
Answer: He would have been able to, although he would have lost a considerable amount of time in doing so. However, the film was based on a true story where the engineer of CSX 888 noticed a misaligned switch and saw he wouldn't be able to stop in time, so he decided to get out of the cab to align the switch. He thought he set the locomotive up properly to make it safe to get out and back in, thus avoiding the need fully to stop and then back up. So it's not really a matter of what Dewy could have done differently since they were just following events has they had already occurred.
14th Jul 2018
Mamma Mia! (2008)
11th Jul 2018
Scrubs (2001)
Question: Does anyone know if the reason most of the main cast didn't return for season 9 is due to the actors' decision or was it a show makers' choice?
Answer: A lot had to do with the direction Season 9 went, and some of ABC's influence. Show creator, Bill Lawrence, was approached by ABC to continue the show and he wanted to more or less do a spin off and call it "Med School" since he felt Season 8 was the last season for "Scrubs" (even Zach Braff thought that and joked about it on Twitter a few times). However, ABC rejected the idea of a spinoff, and I think ABC felt the actors didn't need to be brought back because they would be working on other projects. It should be noted, while only John McGinley and Donald Faison signed on to be regulars for Season 9, Judy Reyes was the only regular not to return. She wanted to sign on as a regular, but her character did not fit in with the show's new direction and wasn't offered a contract. When she was offered a guest spot, she turned it down. The other regulars only returned to help transition the show into something new, which because of ABC was still considered to be "Scrubs." Most of the writers also did not return.
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: Actually, no, the primary goal of "Life of Brian" was not to parody biblical films. Terry Gilliam has stated that the "important" objective of the movie was "to offend a lot of people," particularly "Jews and Christians, because they're easy to push around." Gilliam further said that, at the same time, they were "very cautious not to offend Muslims, because they're the dangerous ones." Both Gilliam and John Cleese have also said that, while the Pythons took care to avoid blasphemy (not directly mocking Jesus of Nazareth, with whom the Pythons had no quarrel), they fully intended that the film be heretical (in defiance of Catholic Church doctrine and dogma). Make no mistake, "Life of Brian" is not supposed to be a lighthearted parody of biblical films; it's supposed to be a sharp stick in the eye to the Roman Catholic Church.
Charles Austin Miller