Character mistake: When Ethan Thomas objects to Dr. Adanie's testimony, he does so on the grounds of "silliness." Silliness does not fall under the federal rules of evidence, and any lawyer worth their salt would know this.
dewinela
10th Jun 2021
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: During the Manson trial in real life, the prosecutor objected to a completely pointless question the defense asked a witness on the grounds of being ridiculous. The judge agreed and sustained the question. In his book Helter Skelter, Bugliosi even acknowledges there's no such rule, but the judge sided with him. The prosecutor in this film is grasping at straws, since nothing that would fall under the rules of evidence would apply to his objecting to her scientific testimony.
Not true, he can object on the grounds of relevance. The YouTube channel Legal Eagle, which is run by an actual lawyer, even stated so. The same logic applies to the Manson trial. If a lawyer feels that a question is ridiculous, they can object on the grounds of relevance.
In a case involving demonic possession as a central aspect of the defense, there's no way relevance could be grounds to object to her testimony. Her testimony dealt with possession from a scientific point of view, but he objected because it was for the defense. The judge in the film even allowed her testimony stating that they'd heard a lot of scientific evidence supporting the prosecution's case and it was fair to hear from an 'exorcism expert'.
As for the Manson case, try reading the book written by the prosecutor. It even states in the transcripts that he objected on the grounds of a question being ridiculous (even if, in the end, it would actually be relevance).
Just because a lawyer in real life was able to successfully object on the grounds of ridiculousness doesn't mean it would suddenly become a good practice. That would be like saying basketball players should just wantonly heave half court shots, because sometimes they go in. The premise of your suggested correction was also that the lawyer had no legal grounds to object on, and that is objectively false. As I mentioned, the lawyer behind the LegalEagle YouTube channel even said otherwise.
6th Sep 2010
Piranha 3D (2010)
Corrected entry: The guy on the boat with Jake and the others (the one with sunscreen on his nose for the entire movie) gets shoved to the side when the "director" decides that he will better be able to steer the boat. You see him hit the side and recover but there is no shot of him after that. He completely disappears.
Correction: When the boat hits the rocks, you can see the camera man fall over the side of the boat. It's assumed that he is eaten when he is in the water.
He does disappear for the rest of the movie. There is an unfinished deleted scene where he was supposed to be attacked and killed after falling into the water. However, he appears in the sequel so in the end he survives.
26th Nov 2002
Piranha (1978)
Continuity mistake: The dressing that is on the evil Dr Leticia Baines's forehead keeps changing. When she is first placed on Grogan's raft, the dressing is soaked with blood. In the next few scenes it just has a small patch of blood in the centre. After she swims to rescue the boy from his canoe, she gets on the raft and the dressing is dry. In the next two close-up shots the dressing is wet (with water) and then it is dry again.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While the description of the events and the mistake is accurate, it wasn't Dr. Baines that swims out to save the boy. It was Dr. Hoak. You're thinking of the 1995 remake of the film.
21st Feb 2003
The Warriors (1979)
Corrected entry: Just before the fight in the subway toilet, Swan and Mercy are being watched from a distance by the rival gang. The rest of the Warriors come down the steps and Swan gestures so that they too can see the rival gang. Why are the rival gang oblivious to the Warriors' presence? Surely this is just line-of-sight.
Correction: When Mercy told Swan that the three guys were after him he said that he already knew it. He was playing it cool. It's probable that the gang members were doing the same with the other members of the Warriors, as a slew of other gang members came out of nowhere after the Warriors went into the toilet to wait for the other gang to come in and fight.
Correction: It was a line of sight, alongside perspective. That gang was the Punks. Mercy told Swan they were looking for him. And we could see that their focus was on him, even when the other Warriors showed up. The Punks may or may not have noticed the others, due the poles or station wall (line of sight) as Swan was gesturing to them. When he and Mercy start walking behind them toward the men's room, The Punks follow, and they never take their eyes off Swan.
Let's not forget the other Punks that were in hiding until after the Warriors start making their way to the bathroom. The three members that they see definitely know they're there and are being just like Swan in playing it cool. They're not concerned because they have backup from the other members that are in hiding.
24th Jul 2012
Halloween (2007)
Stupidity: When Michael goes to Judith's room, all she says is, "Michael, what are you doing in here?" She doesn't even ask why he's all bloody.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's Halloween, and she most likely thinks he's got into the spirit. Let's also not forget how she treated him earlier when she blew off taking him trick or treating. It's obvious she doesn't care about him at all and is beyond self centered so it's not surprising she wouldn't comment on it.
7th Sep 2009
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Corrected entry: When the Sanderson Sisters first return to the house, Sister Sarah reaches up and finds her lucky rat tail just where she left it. It's been 300 years; the rat tail would have decomposed in that amount of time. It has been suggested that since she is a witch, she could have put a resistant spell on it. But we did not see her do that in the movie, and if we do not see it, we cannot use it to explain away the mistake. That "logic" could be used to explain away many of the mistakes caught by the audience.
Correction: You state, "if we do not see it, we cannot use it to explain away the mistake." That's rubbish. In *certain* circumstances that's precisely what we the viewers must do - not everything must be seen onscreen. Sarah says, "My lucky rat tail! Just where I left it!" The fact is, in this particular instance, it actually makes perfect sense that the witch would have used a protective charm/spell on what she claims to be her lucky rat tail, so no harm would come to it.
Correction: Super Grover is right. Just because we don't see them do it isn't an excuse. In fact, we never saw her put the rat tail there (nor did she even mention it), and by that logic it would be a movie mistake for her just to have reached up and taken it. Watching any movie requires viewers to use a bit of their imagination or suspend disbelief but even more so in fantasy based films like this one.
1st Nov 2013
Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985)
Corrected entry: Everyone knows that Jason has a hockey mask with red underneath the eyes. So if Roy really wanted everyone to think that he was Jason, why did he make sure every aspect of his outfit was correct, even the fake skin underneath the mask and his machete, but wore a mask with blue underneath the eyes?
Correction: Roy went insane after losing his son. He wasn't thinking. Many people also would think that Jason changed his mask after his first mask was damaged by Chris in Part III.
Correction: It may also be that he simply had not been aware of that detail. Another possibility is he couldn't find a mask that looked like Jason's so he used whatever he was able to get his hands on.
30th Nov 2016
Halloween II (1981)
Plot hole: In the first scene Alice hears on the radio that three teenagers had been murdered in Haddonfield just down the street from where they live. Yet a few scenes later, the sheriff finds out from his deputy that 3 bodies have been found. Wouldn't the police department know that before it made its way onto the radio news?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Alice is on the phone, she tells her friend she can hear the sirens so the police knew about the bodies. As for the sheriff, he'd been busy with Loomis all night. He might have heard about the bodies in the house but figured the other policemen could handle it and that way he could continue helping Loomis. The main reason the deputy came to talk to him, however, was to tell him that his daughter was one of the victims found.
Halloween II was a troubled production, and the scene with Alice was added during re-shoots. Note that the previous scene with Mrs. Elrod also includes a news report about the discovery of the bodies. I've seen no concrete evidence of this, but I've wondered if the scene with Mrs. Elrod was shifted closer to the start of the film, and was originally meant to take place after the scene with the sheriff.
Good theory, but the deputy runs up to the sheriff and informs him for the first time of all three bodies.
18th May 2006
Revenge of the Ninja (1983)
Plot hole: To murder Chifano's informant, Braden uses a throwing star. But there is one thing which makes this scene illogical: Braden is evidently not in his civilian suit, but in his ninja costume (the ninja suit's armsleeve is definetly on his arm). But since Chifano and the informant are looking in the same direction when the throwing star hits, and since a ninja costume would make Braden stick out like a sore thumb, it is VERY impropable that he'd escape the scene just like that.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Throughout the movie Braden (as a ninja) has many instances where someone close up was distracted for only a second, only to look back and see he'd disappeared. This is especially true in the final rooftop fight with Cho. So it would be possible for him to be undetected from a distance in the scene where you're talking about. I also just watched this scene, and Cifano and his men are NOT looking in the direction of the informant but about to enter a vehicle when the star hits. They turn around and see him fall into the fountain. It makes sense that they wouldn't see Braden.
7th Nov 2014
Dante's Peak (1997)
Corrected entry: When inside the boat going across the lake turned to acid, they are moving at a high speed. But all a sudden when they lose the prop, the boat is at a complete stop and actually turning. 2 problems with that scene. The momentum of the boat at a high speed would have continued moving it forward for quite some time. It would not stop all a sudden. And when he is using his shirt to row the boat, the boat would have turned, because he was only paddling on one side.
Correction: Long before the motor stopped they noticed that the acid was eating through the boat. By the time the motor stopped, the damage already done would have been enough to stop the boat's momentum. It also took a long time to dissolve the propeller, so their momentum would have also been affected as it was dissolving. In addition, you mentioned the boat was turning once they stopped but then said that the boat should have turned because of his paddling. It's possible that the paddling only kept the boat from continuing to turn while drifting.
12th Dec 2018
The Golden Girls (1985)
Revealing mistake: When Mr Ha Ha is talking to Dorothy, the little boy is in the background waiting for his cue to smash the cake in Mr Ha Ha's face.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In the context of the story, perhaps he was simply waiting for the conversation between Dorothy and Mr Ha Ha to end before he addressed anyone. Some people do that.
A correction for this was already attempted. In certain instances, it's obvious that an actor (especially a child actor) is waiting for a cue, mouthing the lines, or suppose to be off-camera. Sometimes their actions can be explained as normal for the given scene, but evidence for their actions need to be based on viewing the scene, not just guessing. Bobby is making a movement to get up, and starts to lean forward waiting for his cue because he's not even looking at Dorothy and Mr. Ha Ha. And he stands up while Dorothy is talking, so he's not waiting for their conversation to end.
Considering that I was watching this scene when I replied, I stand by it. Mr Ha Ha was acting arrogantly towards Dorothy and the kid was close enough to overhear the conversation. Proof is when he gets up as Dorothy is talking, because that was the moment she said she couldn't do it. As soon as she said it, that's when he committed himself to do it because since Mr Ha Ha mentioned a lawyer to Dorothy he'd never have the nerve to threaten a child, and the kid knew it.
18th Nov 2004
The Golden Girls (1985)
Corrected entry: Sophia decides to move in with her son Phil and his wife, but later decides not to and she feels bad for Phil's wife. But in the episode "Ebbtide's Revenge" we learn that Sophia hates Phil's widow Angela and hasn't been to see him for 20 years.
Correction: Sophia doesn't decide to move in with Phil AND his wife. She is going to move in with Phil only because his wife, whom she hates, left Phil. She left two kids behind with Phil because they can't cross state lines, and Sophia is going to help him raise the kids.
Correction: Also, there is an episode (the one where Rose dates the short doctor) where she goes to her grandson's graduation from dog grooming school, where she said "the big dope failed." That episode aired before the two mentioned in the original mistake listed, so she saw her son and daughter in law within the last 20 years.
21st Sep 2018
The Golden Girls (1985)
Character mistake: In her first appearance, Kirsten liked Dorothy, Sophia and Blanche and said that after her visit she now understands why Rose loves living with them. In her second appearance, she heavily dislikes the three women and states that she never understood why Rose preferred living with them over moving in with her.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In her second appearance, Kirsten walks in while the women are laughing about something unrelated in the waiting room and her mother is in the hospital after a Heart Attack. Could it be possible that she's a bit upset, not thinking, and forgetting about what she said in her previous visit? In her first visit, she sees the positive, but subsequently she saw things she found questionable (she mentions things she sees like all of them getting into a car dressed strangely (it was for a play but she didn't know that)), and eventually her mother has a Heart Attack. She may have simply put two and two together and got five. It's a human characteristic, not a character mistake.
However, in her first appearance she specifically said at first she didn't get why Rose lives with other women but after having met the three she now understands why she's living with them. In the other episode she states she never got it in the first place.
15th Sep 2013
The Golden Girls (1985)
Corrected entry: In the scene with Rose, Dorothy and Blanche, their "heads" are on the table with ice around them. You can see it's just clear jello. Another clue being it doesn't melt at all. (02:17:05)
Correction: This is a dream sequence while Rose is under anesthetic during heart surgery. While it's true that it doesn't look anything like ice, who's to say what should or shouldn't look real in a drug induced dream?
6th Oct 2013
The Golden Girls (1985)
Plot hole: At the end of this episode, the lady who was on the TV show with Blanche and Dorothy as "partners", shows up to ask Dorothy out because her and Blanche broke up. She says "I heard about you and Blanche". How could she have heard it? They just did it at the house.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We have no idea how long it was between their 'break up' and this scene. In fact, the scene where the woman asks Dorothy out occurs during the final credits. Dorothy is wearing the same clothes she had on during the 'split', so yes, it wasn't long after. Maybe she saw Blanche out on her date with the guy that broke them up and asked her about it.
18th Jun 2018
The Karate Kid (1984)
Corrected entry: When Daniel enters Mr. Miyagi's house for the first time, the door knocks into wind chimes hanging from the ceiling. When Daniel's mother finds Daniel at Mr. Miyagi's house and enters, the chimes are gone.
Correction: Given the time that passes, he easily could have taken them down.
Nothing confirms that he was removing them.
Nothing confirms that they ate every day during the film's time frame either. Does that mean they didn't eat other than what we saw?
Nothing confirms he didn't remove them either.
Nothing confirms he wasn't either.
There are at least 3 scenes where the chimes are present. 1. When Daniel first goes to Myagi's room-he opens the door and hits the chimes. 2. When he goes to Myagi's room to say thank you for fixing his bike-the chimes seem a little further away from the door and he seems to have to exaggerate the door opening to actually hit them. 3. When Daniels mother enters Myagi's room the chimes are there (possibly slightly repositioned) but she doesn't open the door wide enough to make contact with them.
Correction: No they aren't. She just opens the door enough to not bump it.
19th Apr 2004
The Shining (1980)
Corrected entry: When Jack is at the bar and asks for bourbon, Lloyd pours him what is obviously Jack Daniels. Although a whiskey, Jack Daniels is not bourbon.
Correction: Federal regulators and bartenders (and presumably a layperson like Jack) do classify it as bourbon. Although JD is not produced in Bourbon County, Kentucky and therefore not authentic bourbon (it is technically Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey), it is otherwise identical.
Federal regulations define what bourbon is. According to these regulations, bourbon must be made a certain way. Such as containing a minimum of 51% corn. Geography is not a factor. Currently there is one distillery in Bourbon County, Kentucky. Most bourbon is made in other parts of Kentucky and some is made in other states, as long as it conforms to the Federal regulations, it is bourbon.
Correction: The previous correction is correct, so I'm just adding to it. I am a bourbon drinker, but a lot of people (myself included), only distinguish whisky under two categories: rye (like Crown Royal) or bourbon (like Jim Beam). While there are other types (like sour mash), the two most recognizable are the two I just mentioned. So to say bourbon wouldn't be unusual for Jack since he most likely just wanted whiskey and would call it by the name he felt most comfortable with one the bartender would be more likely to recognize.
1st Nov 2013
Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)
Corrected entry: If Tommy was locked up in a mental institution, how exactly did he know where Jason was buried? (00:04:00)
Correction: Crystal Lake is a small town, there's probably only one cemetery.
15th Mar 2019
The Omen (1976)
Stupidity: The babies could have simply been swapped at the start. There was no reason Father Spiletto needed to inform Robert Thorn of his son's death and then convince him to take a different child instead.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps, but then again the Satanists were trying to cover all bases. If they simply swapped them, the parents may start questioning things when Damien grew up and they might have noticed that he didn't look or behave like either of them. For insurance they could have brought Robert Thorn into the plot (without his knowledge of the full story), so that if she asks any questions he could simply stick to the story, offering a cover to the Satanists. During the conversation, he mentioned that the baby dying would be devastating to his wife (which is why he agreed to the switch) so his intentions were pure, even though it ends badly and tragically for both him and his wife.
19th Apr 2012
Friday the 13th Part 3: 3D (1982)
Other mistake: There's no way for Shelly to fit his masks, a speargun and other items in the small box.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, but we don't know exactly what he might have brought. The first time we see him they're picking up Vera, so it's most likely he brought another bag that could contain the items. He only said to Vera that the small bag was his whole world, but he just met her (Andy mentioned he got him a date for the trip) and he's trying to get her to warm up to him.
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.