Corrected entry: How on earth can Bluto and his mate not know that the exam paper they are completing is different to the one they stole and studied for? They'd have to study for it - what's the point of stealing it otherwise? It is not a multiple choice exam - they are writing answers out in full. How can they not notice that the questions (and therefore the answers) are different to the ones they memorised? The day after the exam Eric Stratton announces that Bluto had stolen the wrong EXAM, not the wrong ANSWERS. Why do they have to be told later that someone 'stole the wrong exam paper'? Nobody is so stupid - or lazy - that they would not notice that they are sitting the wrong exam. In order to make such a mistake they would have to be illiterate, not just stupid. And as the closing sequence makes clear the Delta House fraternity members aren't even stupid - they are just lazy.
Charles Austin Miller
6th Sep 2007
Animal House (1978)
15th Jan 2019
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: What did Sean Connery mean by "Elsa never really believed in the Grail. She thought she found a prize"?
Answer: He means she only saw it as a valuable archeological object to be found and exploited. She did not truly understand its religious significance and magical power.
Specifically, he meant that Elsa considered the Grail a prize for The Fatherland (the German Third Reich), just as the Nazis considered the Ark of the Covenant a "prize" in the first movie.
Not quite. Elsa wasn't in it for the Nazis...it was made clear at several points that she didn't believe in Hitler's cause, but she was complicit. The first explanation is more accurate.
27th Oct 2017
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Character mistake: When Ronnie is cutting the article about Roy's encounter out of the newspaper, the title of the article begins with "UFO's...", the apostrophe making it possessive. It correctly should have been "UFOs...", with no apostrophe making it plural as intended.
Suggested correction: You are incorrect. The article is actually correct. It is used as a contraction, not a possessive. http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html.
It's not a contraction. A plural acronym is simply "s" added to the acronym. An apostrophe never indicates plurality.
Suggested correction: There is no standard on how to pluralize initialisms or acronyms and either way is acceptable, depending on a person's preference. An apostrophe does not automatically make something possessive, such as using apostrophes in contractions to replace missing letters.
Nope. In contractions joining two words, apostrophes only replace vowels (typically the letter "o," such as in "hasn't" or "wouldn't" or "isn't," and most obviously with "it's" replacing the letter "i" in "it is"). In this case, the acronym "UFOs" stands for "Unidentified Flying Objects," and there is no vowel to replace between the "t" and the "s" (in fact, an apostrophe wouldn't replace any letter at all). So, the contraction argument is invalid. Using an apostrophe for "UFO's" makes the acronym singular possessive (such as in "The UFO's movements were erratic").
It seems you missed the point of my comment. What you're stating is an opinion on how to pluralize initialisms and acronyms. While many lean towards just adding an "s", many real life publications back in the 70's did in fact use and "apostrophe s" for initialisms and acronyms. (Notice how 70's isn't possessive or a contraction. But many prefer using "70s.").
"Many publications" were wrong (especially in the late 1970s) and followed poor literary and journalistic standards. No, it's not a "matter of opinion"; throwing in apostrophes where they are not appropriate is a matter of poor education in the English language.
The question is not whether using the apostrophe is "correct" or "appropriate." It's whether it was used by publications in the '70s. It was, therefore it is not a mistake.
You should be more educated when stating opinions then, because it wasn't about being wrong. It was about no set standard. For example "The Chicago Manual of Style" would recommend UFOs while "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage" would recommend UFO's. Of course, both would recommend using the apostrophe when making single letters plural "A's" or p's and q's."
The New York Times manual of style is predictably bogus. I'm a professor of Journalism (Southwest Texas State University 1979 to 1987). I know what is proper.
22nd Mar 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: Why aren't there subwayesque service tunnels all round the island to permit the staff to travel hidden from the dinosaurs/sundry other emergencies/all the other incidental occurrences that make every other undertaking on our planet use similar tunnels? Expensive and laborious, but if you have the resources to make dinosaurs, everything else is a breeze.
Correction: Despite Hammond's catchphrase of "We spared no expense", that would have been a huge expense, as underground tunnels suitable for travel are extremely costly. Also remember that Isla Nublar is a volcanic island. The ground may simply not be suitable for that kind of construction.
Correction: Given that "Jurassic Park" was author Michael Crichton's re-imagining of his own film "Westworld" (in which a high-tech amusement park goes haywire and the guests must run for their lives), the whole point of the movie was to place humans and dinosaurs on the same deadly-dangerous playing field. Like "Westworld," this movie was a purely visual film (a graphic novel, basically) that smoothed-over lapses of logic in favor of frantic spectacle. If John Hammond had the foresight to make his Jurassic Park a hermetically-sealed, perfectly-safe environment for humans to observe and maintain dinosaurs, it would have eliminated the thrill of the movie, turning it into a National Geographic documentary.
But the point is the park was safe, without Nedry's sabotage things would have worked perfectly. Hammond spared no expense and it shows with the fancy security. Because of this Nedry's sabotage was put in.
The fact that Jurassic Park could be sabotaged by a computer geek is proof that it was not perfectly safe. A perfectly-safe facility would be foolproof and sabotage-proof.
Any place can be sabotaged, the point is that it was safe enough to receive visitors, without the sabotage the inspection would have gone smoothly. Adding tunnels or even more security wouldn't change a thing. You are just making stuff up.
Correction: They didn't think about it. They didn't need to because they felt they had the place pretty well secured. Besides it wouldn't have helped them much anyway, once the fences were down the predators could get anywhere and a lot of the predators are small enough to get inside the tunnels, the velociraptors could even open doors. Most personnel was already gone so there is no lacking in their infrastructure that would require tunnels. This could have helped Dennis Nedry escape as well. He shut the park down to create chaos and move unseen.
28th Feb 2005
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: How does old Biff know how to operate the time machine?
Answer: Old-Biff first comments on the flying DeLorean "I have not seen one of those in 30 years", then he sees what he believes to be two McFly Jr.'s and gets even more suspicious, next he spies on Doc and Marty having an argument about the almanach and how Doc is opposed to time travelling for personal gain! What else does he need to know? And lastly: We're talking about a time machine here! Old-Biff could have stolen it, kept it for how ever long it took him to figure out how it works and returned it at leisure. We don't even have any proof for the days he picked to departed from 2015 or to arrive in 1955. The only verified date is his return from Nov 12 1955 06:38 pm.
Chosen answer: He doesn't, but it's hardly difficult to work out - the date setting readout is pretty obvious. Biff presumably set the date, then just accelerated the car until the time circuits kicked in.
Answer: It's a plot hole. Biff couldn't have known or suspected the DeLorean's time-travel procedure, which necessarily included Biff setting the precise 1955 destination with no previous instruction. Biff just suddenly "knew" how to operate a time machine. He also changed the timeline by going back to 1955, so there's no way he could have returned to the "normal" 2015. But he does.
It's not totally impossible that Biff knew how to the time dial worked. He wasn't suspecting what it was, he knew it was a time travel machine and thus knew what the dial was for and possibly being technically educated knew how to use the time dial.
We know from the first movie that Biff, by age 48, was waxing cars for a living in 1985. He hardly had a "technical education" and it's doubtful he acquired a technical education by age 78 in the year 2015. It was established in the first movie that he had become a timid underachiever.
Alright I agree, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he has lived for 78 years by then, till 2015. Even though he has no clue on how the flux capacitor works, he doesn't need to, all he needs to do is work the time circuits, a simple keypad system which even shows which display shows which time. For someone from 2015, it's not so hard to figure out.
Answer: He could have taken however long he wanted to figure it out, as long as he returned it to the exact time he took it from. We don't actually see him time travel with it when he takes it, so, for all we know, he could have taken it to his house and taken the few hours/days he needed to figure out how to use it.
1st Dec 2003
A Christmas Story (1983)
Question: Why do the parents have two twin beds in their bedroom, instead of one double bed? I thought that was just a TV gimmick from the old days when they weren't allowed to show a man and woman in bed together. Did people really sleep like that, or was it just a production design decision for the film? The movie was made in the '80's after all.
Answer: It's most likely a reference to the twin-bed movie standards from the time in which the movie takes place (late '30s to early '40s).
Chosen answer: Many married couples did (and still do) sleep like this. For example, one may be a restless sleeper and not wish to disturb their partner. Or they may just prefer to sleep alone. It's all down to personal choice, I don't think there's a rule that says couples have to share a bed.
The original poster has never been married. It is seldom that husbands and wives continue sleeping in the same bed after the first couple years of marriage.
Very interesting... I know of only one couple that sleeps in different beds. That is because they are on different sleep schedules. I know many couples and we all sleep with our spouses. Don't get me wrong, if we get a hotel room that has 2 full or queen beds, we are sleeping in individual beds. But other then that, we sleep in our bed together.
"Seldom" is a bit of an overstatement - studies seem to suggest about 15-25% of couples sleep separately.
Studies? Could you provide a link to such studies? I speak from decades of knowing many, many happily-married couples, the overwhelming majority of whom sleep in separate beds and even separate rooms.
15 per cent of Britons said if cost and space were not an issue, they would sleep in a different bed to their partner: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/uk-couples-sleep-separate-beds-partner-yougov-survey-a8504716.html. A 2005 National Sleep Foundation poll found that nearly one in four American couples sleeps in separate beds or separate rooms: https://sleepfoundation.org/sites/default/files/subscription/sub003.txt. Clearly many couples do, but many don't. Certainly the vast majority of couples I know share a bed, regardless of how long they've been together. "Seldom" is I think overstating it. The majority of people you know may sleep separately, and more power to them! No right or wrong, but that doesn't appear to reflect the broader picture.
Answer: Very common, especially back in the first half of the 20th century, for couples to sleep in separate beds.
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
18th Oct 2004
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where the Terminator shoots at the police with a revolving barrelled gun from a floor of the Cyberdyne building if you look closely you would see that the ammunition strip containing the bullets does not move. This is unusual considering spent shells were raining down from the gun. At least the strip should flip about a bit.
Correction: The revolving barrelled "mini-gun" has an ammunition supplied as correctly stated by a belt but it is housed in a flexible outer casing. The belt moves at such high speed due to the weapons massive rate of fire it needs this outer case to ensure a reliable supply of the belted ammunition, as exposed ammunition moving at such high speed could pose a danger to the operator and would easily be snagged against cover or other obstacles.
Correction: One possible reason why no movement would be visible could be the framerate at which the scene was recorded. Each time a frame was taken, the bullets also had moved down. A similar effect happens with helicopters that are being filmed, the rotors appear frozen while in reality, they obviously rotate around.
The effect you describe does not occur on film, but only in video. Film uses a much slower capture rate, while video uses a much faster capture rate, producing odd optical effects in video that do not appear in film.
This is not correct. The effect is called the wagon wheel effect and can be seen in countless old westerns. A higher frame rate is actually less likely to produce the effect.
6th Apr 2017
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Stupidity: Early in the film, Peter Parker desperately wants to see Mary Jane's performance, but he is turned away at the theatre doors because he is a few minutes late. Defeated, Peter shuffles away and sulks. Seriously? Why couldn't Peter simply enter the theatre through a side door or the roof? He's Spider Man.
Suggested correction: There's two things to consider here. First, a major theme of the film is Peter struggling with keeping his Spider-Man and Peter Parker lives separate. Peter makes every attempt to get to the show on his own, as Peter by riding on his scooter. Simply breaking into the theater after he has been turned away would ruin the idea that keeping his two lives separate is a struggle. It would instead imply the opposite, that Peter can simply use his powers to solve his problems whenever it's convenient. Secondly, the usher makes it clear that no-one is to be admitted after the show has started as this would disturb the guests and possibly the performers as well. Sneaking into the theater could very well ruin the performance and Peter obviously wouldn't want that.
If there's one thing we know about Spider-Man, it's that he is incredibly stealthy, often coming and going without any detection whatsoever. He could have easily accessed the building and watched the show from a secluded vantage and even met Mary Jane backstage afterwards. Certainly in this case, using his powers would be justified, given that it was more important for Mary Jane to know Peter attended the show, rather than simply giving up.
He doesn't want to do any of that, though. He wants to go to the show as Peter, with a ticket, sit in a seat with the rest of the people, enjoy the show, and see Mary Jane afterwards. He stops the car chase as Spider-Man after his scooter is wrecked and instead of web-swinging to the theater, which would have been much faster, he chooses to change back into his regular clothes and drive the criminal's car. Sure, he certainly could have used his powers to get into the theater but the point is he doesn't want to. The fact that he chooses not to use his powers and instead deal with the consequences of hurting Mary Jane's feelings is the entire point.
And besides he'd probably get kicked out of the theater if he was caught.
4th Mar 2016
Beetlejuice (1988)
Question: When the Maitlands return to their home after it's been altered by the new owners, Juno tells the Maitlands that they should be thankful that they didn't die in Italy. What did she mean by that?
Answer: Italy is the center of the Roman Catholic Church, which includes exorcisms as a real-life ritual. Presumably, ghosts in Italy are at greater risk of encountering trouble in Italy because of this reason.
Answer: It's in reference / added on to her previous statement about being quiet/peaceful: Italy, presumably, has a louder, more raucous group of the living.
Answer: Italy, is a trendsetter. There would be constant art-deco changes that conflict with the Maitland's personal taste. In comparison, the Deets' are pretty tamed.
Chosen answer: When the Maitlands first meet their case worker, Juno, they tell her how miffed they are with the new family that has moved into their home. Juno glances around the peaceful house and remarks, "Things seem quiet here. You should thank God you didn't die in Italy." The case worker's name, "Juno," is a traditional Italian girl's name; and we see (when she smokes a cigarette) that Juno's throat has been slashed open from side to side, implying that she died a very violent and grisly death. Based on her personal experience (probably being murdered in Italy), Juno is commenting that the Maitlands could have died a far worse death under far more horrific circumstances, and that they really have little reason to complain.
I'm Italian: there's literally not a single female being, girl or woman, who has (had or have) this name in this country. Let alone being "traditional." "J" is not even in our original alphabet, go figure. I also think it's about us Italians being noisy and the place being quiet, that's all.
You may be Italian, but you're not informed. While the formal Italian alphabet (derived of Latin) does not have a "J" character, the letter "J' is used in modern Italian writing every day. "Juno," in your limited world, would be spelled "Diuno," who was a Roman goddess (queen of the heavens). As this pertains to Beetlejuice, she is a Roman goddess in charge of organizing.
Juno slashed her own throat. It says earlier in the movie that people who commit suicide become civil servants, which is what Juno is as their case worker. The beauty queen at the desk implies the same when she talks about what happens to people when they die. She says "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have had my little accident" holding up her slit wrists, implying that she wouldn't have committed suicide if she knew she'd become a civil servant (as a desk girl).
It's never stated or established that Juno committed suicide.
I really think she was supposed to have had a tracheotomy due to her smoking.
10th Jul 2018
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Other mistake: Like most Sherlock Holmes films 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' is set in Victorian England: Queen Victoria even makes an appearance. Holmes and Watson go to Loch Ness in Scotland, where they see the Loch Ness monster. (Spoiler alert) it turns out that the Loch Ness Monster is not a living creature, but an experimental submarine. Like most people who would have seen the film on its release in 1970, they are familiar with the Loch Ness monster (even if they do not necessarily believe in it). But the first documented sightings of the Loch Ness Monster were only made in 1933. Nobody ever thought there might have been a monster in Loch Ness before 1933.
Suggested correction: Sightings and lore of the Loch Ness Monster date back over 1,500 years. In fact, the indigenous people of the region carved images of the monster into stone as far back as 500 AD. The 1933 hoax was certainly not the first time the monster was sighted; however, the hoax was inspired by the centuries-old Loch Ness legend, of which Holmes, Watson and everyone else would be well aware in the Victorian era.
The only carved images from that period are Pictish symbol stones, none of which are particularly associated with Loch Ness.
On the contrary, the Pictish "Drumbuie Stone" (recovered at Drumbuie Farm on Loch Ness in the mid-19th Century) depicts a large serpentine creature, very much matching traditional descriptions of the Loch Ness monster. Https://canmore.org.uk/site/12626/drumbuie.
Suggested correction: This is somewhat incorrect. The 1933 photograph that was published in newspapers may have brought the idea of a Loch Ness Monster to a wider audience, reports of a creature in Loch Ness (or Loch River) were around long before then. And just because the term "Loch Ness Monster" may have first been printed in 1933 doesn't mean the term didn't exist before then. In a fictional story surrounding fictional events, there's no mistake in bringing up a creature already rumored to have existed.
Well observed sir! I thought somebody might well say that. Maybe I should have gone into more detail. May I make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster in a Sherlock Holmes film, since Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' was an imaginary story. (Plus the film contained some intentionally comic elements, it was a bit 'tongue in cheek', so lets not take it too seriously!) But lets look at the history of sightings of the monster. The first sighting to attract widespread attention was on 22 July 1933, when the Spicers saw a creature near (but not in) the Loch. On 12 November Hugh Gray took the photograph you allude to. In 1934 Rupert Gould published the first book about it. You say that earlier sightings may not have been widely reported. You are quite correct! One D. Mackenzie said he saw a monster in the Loch in 1872, but did not tell anybody at the time. A sixth century life of St. Columba records an encounter with a 'water beast' in the River Ness. My point was that, in the film, Holmes, Watson, and most other people, are familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. (Spoiler alert again) : The 'monster' is an experimental submarine, which Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is helping the war office to develop. To stop people realising they were experimenting with new military technology, they would develop the submarine in Loch Ness, so anybody seeing it would think it was the Monster (to add to the deception they give it an artificial neck and head). My point is that, while most people who saw the film in 1970, and most people using this website, would be quite familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. So, whether or not they believe in its existence, they would get the joke (after all, the film was not meant to be taken completely seriously). In the Victorian era the Loch Ness Monster would, at best, have been a local rumour, not something that was known worldwide so it is doubtful that even people as undoubtedly intelligent as Holmes and Watson would have known about it. If they saw a monster in Loch Ness they would not say 'Oh, that's the Loch Ness Monster'. They would ask 'Whatever is that great big thing going through the water?'.
6th Jan 2016
Man of Steel (2013)
Question: During the tornado scene, Jonathan Kent rescues the dog, Hank, and in the process injures his leg. With the tornado practically on top of him, Jonathan then waves off Clark, who is only about 50 yards away. The fact that Jonathan waves off Clark is proof that they BOTH knew Clark could rescue his dad, but Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose his super powers. Still, it was Clark's DAD in danger. Why didn't Clark simply go rescue his father at super speed? Certainly, the chaos of the tornado would easily cover Clark's actions, and there would be no reliable witnesses in the midst of such confusion.
Answer: That, AND the fact that his dad is able to stand firmly on the ground whilst the tornado engulfs him, and we still see him standing to the very end as the debris in the tornado starts to hit him. That didn't make sense to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but tornadoes can and do pick up large objects like vehicles etc. and then toss them away WITHOUT the physical funnel of the tornado actually having passed over said objects. I thought once you're in the debris field, which is a separate thing from the funnel, you're already liable to be tossed up into the air and then flung out, but here, Jonathan remains standing on the ground unaffected the whole time, while the vehicle, being heavier than a human, had begun to float up in the air earlier when he went to get the dog, and then he remains standing even while the physical funnel begins to consume him - he should've been tossed up in the air long ago when the funnel was already within hundreds of feet of proximity to Jonathan.
It's certainly unrealistic but it was obviously an artistic choice. The fact that he is peacefully consumed by the funnel rather that violently tossed through the air was meant to be a poignant moment.
Answer: While I could think of several different scenarios that Clark could have done to save his dad without his abilities/powers being seen (that don't involve him moving so fast no-one sees him), ultimately (as Clark said), he let his dad die because he trusted him. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready."
Answer: At not point in either Man of Steel or Batman v Superman do we see Superman use speed of the type people have suggested while on the ground. The movie makes a point of outlining his abilities and some of their limits. For Clark to use that ability in that instance and nowhere else in the film would be inconsistent, so the conclusion must be that this version of the character does not have the ability to move in that manner. He might be fast-er than normal people, but not, "blink and you'll miss him fast" - otherwise it would always be an option for him throughout the film and it is not presented as such.
We know from Man of Steel that Clark is entirely capable of high-speed feats: He leaps from a crabbing boat at sea and swims to a burning oil rig easily 4 nautical miles away in a matter of not minutes but moments; and, in the logging-truck scene, Clark apparently wadded up a tractor-trailer so swiftly that nobody inside the bar, just a few yards away, heard a sound or felt an impact tremor. These were certainly acts of super speed; and Jonathan Kent certainly knew Clark could save him from the tornado, which is why he waved him off.
Next to that we see the same Superman in Justice League move at the same speed as Flash whilst on the ground.
Chosen answer: There were multiple witnesses under the bridge who may not have seen Clark, but would have seen Jonathan magically vanish and suddenly appear safe and sound a distance away.
3rd Dec 2018
Ghost (1990)
Question: After the subway ghost shows Sam how to move things, he gets angry at Sam's question about his death, making him kick a cigarette dispenser. After kicking the dispenser, why does the subway ghost suddenly not recognize Sam?
Answer: The subway ghost was a paranoid schizophrenic who committed suicide by throwing himself in front of the train. As a ghost, he still has extreme mood swings that range from denial to grief to anger and even violence, and he apparently suffers short-term memory loss, as well.
The subway ghost told Sam that somebody had pushed him.
As I said, the subway ghost was a paranoid schizophrenic who is in denial. He insists that he was pushed; but his odd insistence implies that he actually committed suicide.
17th Nov 2018
Star Trek (1966)
Plot hole: 300 years is just too long for the children to be on their own. How did they keep their clothes relatively clean for 300 years? Since the kids are playing all day they aren't out in the fields planting and harvesting crops for food, how did they eat?
Suggested correction: For the clothes, it's highly unlikely that they wore the same sets for 300 years. They are in a town/city and on a world that is mostly empty of most human life now. They can easily just find more clothing their size from other houses and even stores. As far as food, children are very good scavengers.
The issue of clothing is not so much an issue as is the issue of food. Given that the children are growing at an incredibly slow rate, their metabolism is probably much, much, much slower and would require far less sustenance.
16th Nov 2017
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Corrected entry: How it is possible that, despite Loki being on Sakaar for some time, he seems to have no idea that The Hulk is also on the planet? This is given away by his reaction when he sees Hulk in the arena. Loki also has gotten close to The Grandmaster, and there are images of the Hulk carved into the sides of buildings, but he has no clue that The Hulk is the arena champion?
Correction: Loki has only been on Sakaar for a week. We do not know how often the Contest of Champions is held with its champion (Hulk), we also don't know how often Loki left the Grandmaster's home. Also we see that the building with Hulk's head is under construction, so Loki may not have seen it when it was closer to completion.
Loki does not have the best relationship with the Hulk and may be in denial of Hulk's fame on Sakaar. Loki may even be paranoid or phobic about the Hulk's presence on Sakaar. Being a consummate deceiver, first and foremost, Loki is probably lying, just to avoid the subject of the Hulk.
16th Nov 2015
The Raid: Redemption (2011)
Factual error: Throughout the film's high-energy choreographed fight sequences, Rama is repeatedly struck in the arms, legs and back with machetes. He not only suffers no wounds, but his tactical gear isn't even lacerated.
Suggested correction: Depending on what part of town his gear, the angle and strength of the blow, and how sharp the machete is, there may have only been negligible cuts. Apparently loose fitting clothes can sometimes be enough to keep a blade from cutting some of the time.
Rama's gear doesn't show even minimal lacerations or abrasions after multiple attacks.
8th Oct 2018
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Other mistake: Once Dr. Trent enters the bedroom where Mrs. Loren is lying down "dead", they begin talking. Trent says "At first I couldn't get Nora to protect herself with a gun." There is no scene in the movie where he tries to convince her to use the gun, Lance is responsible for that. (01:02:25)
Suggested correction: After Annabelle Loren is found hanging under suspicious circumstances, both Lance Schroeder and David Trent advise all the other guests to stay in their rooms with their guns and shoot any intruders.
Just before he leaves for the meeting, Lance tells Nora, "If you have to, you use it." Nora was not at the meeting to hear what was said, so ultimately, it was Lance who got Nora to protect herself with the gun.
There's an important mistake in your version of Dr. Trent's quote. What Trent actually says is, "At first I couldn't get Nora to want to protect herself with a gun." He's not saying that he personally advised her to protect herself; he's saying that he, through his various scary tricks, had failed to scare Nora into arming herself. Trent's immediate next lines are: "But after you appeared at the window, everything began to work just as we planned. You were wonderful, just the touch that finally drove her into complete hysteria." We know that David Trent and Annabelle Loren were behind a number of staged scares (such as the witch in the basement, the attack on Lance, Annabelle's hanging, etc) intended to push Nora toward hysteria, setting her up, of course, to kill Mr. Loren "by accident," thereby committing the perfect crime.
23rd Dec 2014
Constantine (2005)
Question: Who is the actor with the scarred face Constantine sees when he first enters Papa Midnight's bar?
Answer: There are numerous uncredited actors in "Constantine," filling numerous generic roles such as "nightclub patron" or "demon," et cetera. The big scar-faced guy who passes John Constantine at the doorway in the club seems to be one of these uncredited, generic characters. There is no special mention of the character's name or his significance to the story, and no listed actor in the cast resembles him. However, having re-watched this scene many times, I'm starting to think the scar-faced man was an uncredited cameo by athletic 1970s actor John Beck (who would've been about 62 when "Constantine" was made). The facial proportions and mustache are right for Beck, his profile looks like a match, and Beck is slightly taller than Keanu Reeves, as depicted in the film.
Answer: I was thinking it was Jonah Hex...a DC character with the scarred face and all that. Maybe an Easter egg?
The original post specifically inquires about the actor rather than the character in the scene. The actor appears to be John Beck, an athletic actor who gained some stardom in the 1970s and 1980s. Beck was still active in film during the early-to-mid 2000s, when "Constantine" was produced, although he is uncredited in this movie (as many "Constantine" actors were uncredited).
20th Sep 2018
Mouse Hunt (1997)
Question: What year does this movie take place?
Answer: There's not really an answer, because the film has sort-of a nebulous timeframe given its cartoon-like atmosphere. Ex. Everything is old fashioned in design, including architecture and clothing, but current technology is also present. It's not really meant to take place in the "real world" or a specific timeframe, so much as be a silly throwback to old comedies and especially old Laurel and Hardy films. So, the best answer to your question would be that it just sort of exists in its "own" time, so to speak - an amalgam of different time periods all put together for maximum comedy impact.
"Mouse Hunt" was not modeled on 1930s Laurel and Hardy films so much as it was a direct retread of 1940s "Herman and Catnip" and "Tom and Jerry" cartoons, which spawned many knock-offs over the decades, from "Coyote and Roadrunner" cartoons to live-action comedies such as "Home Alone" and others.
17th Sep 2018
I Am Legend (2007)
Question: When fixing up and preparing the house defenses, why is Neville so pressed for time? What type of preparing does he do?
Answer: He has to make sure that he's back at his home with plenty of time to lock everything down, sound proof the establishment, and make sure no lights are visible from the outside. His place of residence has to appear like any other place in New York at the time as deserted and with nobody there. If the Night Stalkers saw any evidence at all that that was where he was living, they would attack like they do later in the film. Neville is military trained, so punctuality and having a set schedule to do things is pretty well ingrained into him now. And by giving himself plenty of time and room for error, he can take care of any contingencies that arise and any repairs to make sure everything is ready before the creatures come out.
Neville also uses gallons of chemicals (possibly chlorine bleach) every afternoon to cover his scent in the immediate vicinity of his home. Apparently, the Night Stalkers and their dogs have a keen sense of smell, particularly for uninfected humans.
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.
Correction: The Deltas weren't trying to steal a copy of the exam for study; rather, they stole what they thought was a copy of answers to the exam. However, the Omegas planted a modified set of answers in the trash, which Bluto later retrieved from the dumpster. So, the exam would look exactly the same with the same questions, but the Deltas had memorized the wrong answers.
Charles Austin Miller
Correction: The answer lies in your submission. They are lazy, when they stole the exam, they looked up the answers and then memorized only the answers and not the questions. When taking the exam they did not bother to read the questions, just fill in the answers that they memorized.
ctown28 ★
As a teacher I have seen smart kids cheat off others because they too lazy to study, or studying wasn't a priority. One student was copying the answers from another student, but obviously couldn't read her writing and on a question about what what a certain group of people ate, she wrote "clouds."
Bishop73
In the case of Animal House, the Deltas had stolen what they believed were the answers to the exam, not knowing that the Omegas had planted fake answers in the trash.
Charles Austin Miller
The Deltas didn't look up the answers. They stole what they thought were the answers to the exam, not knowing that the Omegas had planted fake answers in the trash. So, the exam looked exactly the same, but the Deltas memorized the fake answers.
Charles Austin Miller