Stupidity: The eco-terrorists leave the Orca completely unattended allowing Madison to take it without anyone realizing until she is long gone. In addition, they don't post any guards at the exit of the bunker and Madison simply walks away without anyone noticing her at all.
BaconIsMyBFF
20th Jun 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They leave the Orca in their empty command room within a bunker filled with loyal men. There is no way anyone could have broken in and stolen it. Madison had the advantage of already being in the bunker and even then had to navigate through the air ducts in order to steal the Orca and escape. They wouldn't have armed men visible immediately outside because they didn't want anyone to notice that they were there.
Either one of these issues by themselves wouldn't be particularly stupid but the combination of them both would indeed allow someone to just walk in and take the Orca. You don't need to post a visible guard at the exit, but nobody is watching the exit at all.
19th Jun 2019
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Question: When Mola Ram is smiling, what is he looking at? Is he looking at the Maharajah or is he looking up at Willie, Indy and Short Round? (01:01:45)
Answer: It doesn't look as if Mola Ram is smiling at the trio, because they're standing to Mola Ram's upper right. The Little Maharaja is seated in front of the Thuggee high priest, but I don't think he's specifically looking downward, directly at the boy either. To me, it seems as if Mola Ram is smiling because while he's confident in his control of the Little Maharaja, it's the fact that he knows another human sacrifice is being brought out for the Kali sacrificial dark ritual.
The question gives the exact second.
Great, but I don't currently have a DVD player or have a copy or access to every movie someone asks a question about. If someone is asking a question, they shouldn't expect anyone to actually take the time to set up and watch the film in order to answer a question for them. Just give a brief description of the scene.
That's what the time stamp feature is used for. The question is asking what exactly Mola Ram is looking at in a specific second of time in the movie. Explaining the scene wouldn't help anyone answer the question. To answer, you will have to look at the movie and pay specific attention to that time stamp. If you can't do that then you can't answer the question and should just ignore.
I get what you're saying, but I've been able to answer many questions without having to re-watch a movie because the question contained enough specific information so that I knew which scene they were referring to. Based on the information given in the question, I can check movie clips on YouTube or get the answer by reading online movie synopsis. Every little bit of info helps.
Tough luck I guess?
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did time not end when Thanos destroyed the stones, and what happens in now there aren't any? The Ancient One stated that the stones control the flow of time, and removing even one of these opens up the world to unimaginable horror. Well why did nothing happen after Thanos destroyed them all? And now that our timeline has no stones, how would Dr. Strange be able to stop Dormammu from coming back?
Answer: The way I understood it, removing the stones from one timeline into another timeline is what The Ancient One was talking about. The "new branched reality" is what would be overrun by the forces of darkness. But, even if she meant this reality, the reality where Thanos destroyed the stones, The Ancient One said it was their chief weapon, not their only weapon. Bruce then tells her Doctor Strange gave the time stone to Thanos and The Ancient One says maybe she made a mistake. However, since Thanos eliminates half the population of the universe, including the forces of darkness, whatever forces she was talking about may not have been around to try and attack Earth. Or in the 5 years that we don't see, there was an attempt and other weapons were sufficient.
Answer: In the comics the stones will be replaced by something else equally powerful to compensate for their loss. I suppose the same applies to the MCU. These powers need to have a physical presence in the universe, in one way or another.
The only problem is the films never insinuate this at all. The Ancient One flat out states that not having the stones would be bad for the universe, and yet Thanos destroys the stones with absolutely no adverse affects to the universe whatsoever. This movie played very fast and loose with the rules they established regarding the stones and time travel and I feel like things like this were massive flaws.
The universe is a pretty big place, though. There could very well be bad things in another part of the universe that have yet to affect our galaxy. Additionally, the forces of darkness that could potentially threaten the universe may be curbed by a cosmic entity such as the Living Tribunal, whose existence in the MCU was acknowledged in "Doctor Strange" and could very well appear in "The Eternals" or "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."
I just believe the ancient one didn't even know. The ancient one isn't always correct, as Bruce proved. And the bad thing was taking the stones away from their timeline, creating timelines where they are not supposed to be, it says nothing about destroying them.
That to me is still bad writing. You have a character whose entire purpose in the movie is to give exposition, and the exposition she gives is apparently incorrect. That's all well and good but that still needs to be addressed at some point. Some character should have brought up the fact that the stones were destroyed (and incidentally, remain destroyed in the main timeline) and the Ancient One should have addressed that fact. Otherwise, like the original question points out, it leaves a bit of a gap in the film's logic.
Answer: I believe the filmmakers have said that the energy of the stones was dissipated into the universe when their crystal vessels were destroyed. So that while they didn't have a physical form anymore, their essence remained and continued to regulate the flow of existence of the Universe. Presumably the energy can't then be reconstituted into the stones without some sort of profoundly intricate magic/science, the kind of power only possessed by gods and/or ancient elemental beings. Also, the Ancient One says that Hulk taking the time stone would be good for his timeline, but would leave hers without their weapon, which I presume means they wouldn't have the time stone to help the Sanctum's usual efforts in holding dark magic at bay. The actual effect of removing the essence of a stone from its timeline is still open to speculation.
If the ancient one was only talking about the time stone then Cap wouldn't have to bother bringing all stones back. No, she was talking about all infinity gems. Remove a stone and that universe is doomed.
Answer: The sorcerers may have other ways to stop Dormmamu from returning (even if those ways are currently unbeknownst to them). This could be addressed in the sequel. Additionally, since Dormmamu would have to know that the Time Stone was destroyed in the first place, he may well just stay away rather than falsely believing that he can be trapped in a time loop again.
Answer: She said the world not the universe. She said "without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness our world will be overrun." Theory: since Thanos used the stones to destroy the stones and Hulk heard what the Ancient One said, he could have used the stones to bring back their stones along with everyone else. He couldn't have know who all died in the universe, he could have just undid everything from 5 years ago.
5th May 2003
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: In the German version the Americans are translated, so they speak German... but the Germans also speak German, yet they don't understand each other.
Correction: This is not a mistake, but an extremely common technique used to make viewing the film easier for speakers of a particular language and avoid the need for extensive subtitles. German viewers are expected to take it as a given that the American characters are actually speaking English to one another and that Upham is the only character that can actually speak and understand fluent German.
Makes me wonder how they explain "fubar" though.
I'm always curious how slang terms that are that specific are translated into other languages. Take it to the forums and see if anyone who speaks German can watch that version. I'd be curious to see the answer myself.
2nd Mar 2018
Darkman (1990)
Plot hole: Whatever happened to the one legged henchman? He was one of the villain's lead goons in the first half of the film, but he simply disappears after the scene in Chinatown. The previous correction that "Peyton didn't have time to track him down" is complete nonsense. He literally vanishes from the film. (Due to a deleted scene, but that's no excuse either way.) There's absolutely no reason he still wouldn't be in Durant's gang and in the remainder of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You may not agree with the filmmaker's choice, but that doesn't make it a plot hole. It's an unresolved character thread, nothing more.
It's not the filmmakers' choice, though. He was meant to be in more of the movie, but his death scene got cut by the studio to shorten the runtime. So yes, it is a plot-hole, given he was one of the main goons and simply vanishes.
This still isn't a plot hole. In the reality of the film, that character does not partake in any of the gang's activities after the last time he's seen. His presence is not integral to the plot and the story still works without his arc being resolved, so this isn't a plot hole by definition. A plot hole is a gap in the film's logic that cannot be explained, and a side character not having their story resolved on screen does not fall under that definition.
15th May 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Given that the entire McFly family's circumstances have changed at the end of the movie due to Marty altering the past, shouldn't Marty's whole life have gone down a completely different path from childhood on? What are the odds that he even still knows Doc and Jennifer in the revised 1985 (let alone has the exact same date planned with Jennifer for the very same evening), given that everything else has changed?
Answer: It's definitely a paradox. Marty actually goes back to the life of 2nd Marty, but if that's the case then original Marty should have still faded away since he created a new timeline when he gave George confidence. Original Marty shouldn't exist anymore at all, he should have faded completely away on the stage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: time travel movies are a mess.
The new Marty isn't a different person entirely; he's just the same guy who was raised in a slightly different environment to the original timeline. Marty's actions in 1955 have ensured that his parents will have three children, and he will be one of them. His existence is completely secured in the timeline.
Answer: The suggestion is given that he was the only "normal" person in the family and when he changed the past his parents and siblings became more "normal" people as well whilst he stayed as he was, despitegrowingup with different parents and siblings, since he was "normal" anyway. This totally ignores the linear timeline idea given during the entire movie, but it's obvious that was the idea.
You're absolutely right about Marty being the only "normal" one in the family, but that doesn't ignore the linear timeline idea. There are two different Marty McFly's by the end of this movie. There's the one we follow, who grew up with unhappy parents, and then there's the other Marty McFly who grew up with cool parents. We see the 2nd Marty go back to 1955 when Marty gets back to the Twin Pines mall. The idea isn't to ignore the linear timeline idea, but rather to imply that unhappy parents or not Marty will still always be Marty.
Except for the fact Marty kept being in danger of disappearing if his parents wouldn't get together. If his old self would disappear from his parents not getting together then so he should if his entire life is different and he would be a different Marty just like his siblings. Even if it's only memories rather than an entire personality.
22nd May 2017
Fast Five (2011)
Corrected entry: Reyes is the only one able to open his vault in the police station as shown in the movie. All the cash from the cash houses are taken to the vault and we see Reyes arrive to check the money is in the vault. How did the money get in the vault if only Reyes himself can open it? To assume the vault is kept open would be ludicrous as it would defy the whole point of the vault. (00:52:30)
Correction: Reyes has all of his money taken from the safe houses to the police station, all at the same time. Yes, the vault is kept open until all the money gets there and then it is closed. There is no other way to do what Reyes wants without leaving the vault open. Bear in mind that under normal circumstances the money itself has very little actual security, because nobody else would be crazy enough to attack one of Reyes' safe houses.
While your correction is good in respect of the money being taken to the vault, my mistake was referring to the point before the heists. Reyes orders the money to be taken to the vault after the one safe house is hit. And when all the cash is being brought it, yes the vault would be kept open. But what about before the first hit on the safe house? It is extremely unlikely that the vault would have been open prior to this. So how was the vault opened to allow all the money to be brought in in the first place? If only Reyes can open it.
We don't know anything at all about the safe or its contents prior to the money being consolidated. It very well could have been completely empty and unlocked. Reyes could have unlocked the safe, left the building, and only returned once all his money was there. There just isn't enough information for this to be a plot hole. Remember, Reyes is only doing all of this because Dom burned his money. He fully trusts the cops to keep his money safe and it is fairly well established that nobody else in Rio would even attempt to steal from him.
27th Nov 2004
The Thing (1982)
Question: So what happen to the two guys at the end of the movie? Are there any stories about them in the PC game or an alternate ending or something like that?
Answer: The Game shows Child's frozen body where we last saw him in the movie (Whether he is a thing lying dormant or not, we never find out) There is a comic book series that continues where the movie left off, where MacCready and child's are rescued by another research team on a ship. And it is discovered that Childs was in fact a Thing, spawning a whole new generation of things among the team.
Can you tell me what comic book series that is? I'd like to read it.
The comic series is called The Thing From Another World, just like the original movie from the 50's. It was published by Dark Horse comics. Besides some decent artwork, especially on the covers, the series isn't very good and actually contradicts the movie in a few areas.
Thanks! I read it, it's not bad.
Answer: No one knows what happened. They had no transport and couldn't make radio contact, so very likely they froze to death. If one or both are Things, then they just went dormant until rescue shows up. There is nothing in the game or on the DVD that answers this for sure. BTW It's very hotly debated amongst Thing fans, that Childs is a thing because you cannot see his breath in the cold. (It's very difficult to tell if you can or not because of the scene's lighting).
Answer: Just to add to the other answers, I actually saw an interview with Keith David recently where he explained that it was purposely shot to be ambiguous. They shot two different versions of the scene - one where they played the scene as though neither was the thing... and another where they acted more suspicious of one another. And they built the scene out of the footage they had. He also debunked the popular fan theory about how you couldn't see Childs' breath being a hint... he explained that the way the scene was blocked, the air around him was slightly warmer than it was around Kurt Russell due to the fire and the debris around them - hence you just couldn't see his breath while you could see Russell's, who was about 5 or so feet away. (Not to mention you can actually see a little bit of his breath once or twice.) It wasn't a conscious decision to try to hint that Childs might be the thing. The scene really is just meant to be super ambiguous and unexplained.
18th Feb 2013
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Corrected entry: Sojef states that his people came from a Solar System on the brink of war. This would technically be the Sol System, which is where Earth resides. Star Trek traditionally would refer to other systems properly as a generic "star system". (00:38:20)
Correction: He can say it however he wants to. Just because something is normally said one way, doesn't mean others can't say it another way.
That doesn't address the mistake. The mistake is that he calls it a "solar system." The term "solar system" does not refer to a system of a star, it refers specifically to the system that contains Earth. The star our system orbits is called "sol", hence "solar system." This can't be explained by saying a character simply chose to refer to another star system as a solar system, because solar system is a proper name. It would be like saying "China is a country on the Africa of Asia", when you mean to say "China is a country on the continent of Asia." This is a common mistake in many science fiction films, but is one that Star Trek rarely makes.
22nd Feb 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Corrected entry: So the Indoraptor is engineered in such a way that you take a laser pointer, aim it at the object you want to have destroyed and push a button. At the auction, people are willing to pay tens of millions for such a "killing machine." but in terms of practicability, if you need to point at your target and push a button, resorting to a rifle and a 50-cent-bullet seems more logical.
Correction: Additionally, there's more cost than just a bullet to kill a target. First, you have to find someone willing to kill for you, train them, and even then it's not a guarantee they could kill their target. Plus, you can use airplanes, helicopters, or drones to pinpoint targets and the Indoraptor can attack several targets, including fleeing targets that a sniper might not be able to target once the targets start to flee or hide.
That would make sense if the indoraptor wasn't portrayed as being hilariously inept at killing small, unarmed children.
That's a completely different topic regarding plot convenience. We saw the I-Rex kill 8 people and even more dinosaurs.
Correction: It might be more practical, but people are bidding for the Indoraptor on the basis that people are going to be more afraid and terrified by this unique killing machine. If you've got a man with a rifle, several men could fire at him and kill him. If that man has got the Indoraptor with him, they will more likely run from the target. Making the attacker safer for lack of a better word.
The movie demonstrates quite ironically that the indoraptor is practically useless in a combat situation. It can't seem to kill an unarmed 8 year old girl. The idea that a trained soldier would be so terrified of the dinosaur they wouldn't shoot at it seems ludicrous. People hunt deadly creatures that could easily kill a man all over the world for fun.
Correction: Remember from Jurassic World, one of the points made about using raptors was drones can't clear caves, hard to safely do with a gun. Pitch dark, unknown layout, unknown enemy. But marking a bad guy who ran in there and sending in vicious monster that can see thermal and has a superb sense of smell (part T-rex), plus marking a specific target in a crowded area could lessen collateral damage. Theoretically if the indoraptor doesn't try to kill everyone in sight after killing the target. But we have to remember the auction wasn't exactly US Army R&D, it was warlords, weapons dealers, and terrorists. People who may just use it to intimidate others or use it as an execution device for propaganda (Like ISIS beheading people and filming it).
28th Sep 2003
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When we first met Nedry in San Jose Dodgson informs Nedry that he will receive a total of "One-point-five million dollars if he gets all 15 species off the island." Take a closer look at that test tube receptacle. If you look when he is closing the test tube receptacle after he steals the the DNA you can see that there is only enough room for ten species.
Correction: The money Nedry receives at the start of the movie is for the five embryos he had supposedly already gotten off the island. He is now getting the remaining ten.
Nedry most certainly did not get five embryos off the island prior to the start of the film. Nedry and Dodson set up a fairly intricate plan in order to get the 15 embryos off the island, it is unfathomable they would need to do this if Nedry had already successfully smuggled 5 viable embryos previously without anyone ever noticing. The mistake is valid and this explanation is completely wrong.
Correction: Also, if Nedry had already gotten some OFF, why show him the smuggling device NOW, he could just use whatever method he'd already used, and or just need a replacement shaving cream can with no need to be briefed as to its abilities.
15th Mar 2019
The Green Mile (1999)
Question: Paul lived to be an old old man because John touched him. Did Melinda live to be an old women since John healed her of cancer? Nothing was ever said about her but Mr. Jingles lived to be an old mouse.
Answer: John Coffey only transferred "a piece of myself [himself]" to Paul, intentionally and Mr. Jingles, unintentionally. Paul didn't have that power after John cured his UTI and Mr. Jingles didn't have it after John cured him from the attack by Percy. The movie is very clear about that.
Answer: Actually, Paul does mention Melinda as one of the people he has lost along the way. No mention is made of how long she lived, but I would assume that John simply cured her tumor, and she lived the rest of her life as a normal woman.
Answer: Yes she lived for very long and ailment free. But you gotta know Elaine was already much older than Paul was, so even though she lived very long, Paul outlived her. He specifically mentioned her, saying something in the lines of "eventually I even outlived Elaine."
I think you are confusing Melinda and Elaine. Elaine is the woman Paul is recounting his story to, she is considerably younger than him and yet he outlives her. Melinda is the wife of the warden who John Coffey heals. It is not said how long she lives but since Paul specifically mentions his long life being a curse for his role in John's execution, we can assume she was not particularly long lived as he was.
Yes, of course. Melinda. I got the idea that the people who John Coffey heals have long life without ailments. Paul and the mouse are the living proof of that, so why not Melinda? I meant to say Melinda was I think already older than Paul when she was healed by Coffey (although the actress was 40 when this film was made) and thus her life was extended, but less so. She may have died even after Paul's wife, even though he mentions her first. It's still probably been a while though.
Melinda's fate after John heals her is never mentioned. Paul believes he has been cursed with long life as punishment for his role in John's execution. That to me indicates that Melinda didn't live a particularly long life. If she had Paul would have no reason to believe he was being punished.
Besides Mr. Jingles.
Paul mentions Melinda by name when recounting the people that he lost along the way. "Hal and Melinda" are the first names he mentions.
Answer: It would appear, based on what Paul says, that only he and Mr. Jingles were gifted (cursed?) with long life. Paul specifically mentions outliving his family and friends and is shown outliving Elaine as well. Paul speculates that his long life is punishment for his role in executing John, but he says nothing of why Mr. Jingles lives for so long.
Paul says that he believed that what happened to Mr. Jingles was an accident. Meaning he was never supposed to have a long life but, during Del's execution, a small bit of John's healing power accidentally went into Mr. Jingles.
20th Feb 2018
The Thing (1982)
Corrected entry: The big burly guy with the sweater has a heart attack. When his chest is opened it is soon discovered that he has been assimilated, meaning he was no longer human at that point and would not have had a heart attack.
Correction: The alien entity imitating Vance Norris is faking a heart attack. Vance Norris was replaced by the alien a long time ago.
He definitely isn't faking. He winces from chest pains while he is in a room all by himself, just after he looks out the window and yells "Hey you guys! Come here!" The implication is, like Blair said, when the thing takes over someone it copies them perfectly and also copied Norris' bad heart. It also wouldn't make any sense for him to fake a heart attack at that moment because it caused him to reveal himself to everyone all at once and be killed.
It doesn't take over their bad traits, no need to do that, every single cell of the organism has its own sense of survival, a heart attack wouldn't threaten it. It did fake a heart attack, it's not human, it doesn't use a heart. MacReady was becoming a threat to its survival with the dynamite - the thing wanted to create chaos, and in that way kill them all and eliminate the threat. It lured people close, like the doctor, so he could attack. Besides, it had already copied itself, it was also Palmer.
The chest pains started before Macready came into the building. He definitely wasn't faking a heart attack, he was actually having one. The creature makes a perfect copy of the organism it takes over and because Norris had a bad heart, it also had a bad heart. The creature only reveals itself when it's alone or it has to defend itself. Because the doctor was hurting it with the defibrillator, it was forced to reveal itself.
So you are saying that if the creature had a heart attack alone in a room it would actually die? Why would an actual heart attack threaten a thing that is made up of individual cells that have their own survival instincts? This fact was only revealed after the incident. No, the heart attack wasn't real, it isn't human.
No, I'm not saying the creature would or even could die of a heart attack. I'm saying that the heart attack wasn't faked because the creature made a perfect copy of Norris, including his bad heart. This is all explained after the dog-thing is examined. It has internal organs that look and work just like the creatures it copies. It wouldn't need to fake a heart attack to get people to come closer to it anyway. It can just walk up to anybody it wants to attack. For the entire movie, the creature lies in wait, attacking one person at a time unless it absolutely has no other choice but to defend itself.
I know it's the official explanation given, but I just don't buy it the creature would fail its hidden state so utterly by going into cardiac arrest and drawing attention to itself like that even though every single cell has it own survival instincts. I still say it was the threat of the dynamite, to create confusion. They do think individually or else the dynamite would have worked in it's favor even. It just panicked and did it on purpose.
I think what the movie is saying is that even though each individual cell wants to protect itself, it's still beholden to what particular type of cell it is. So if it's a copy of an eye cell of someone who has bad eyesight, the thing will still have bad eyesight. It didn't know anything about the dynamite when it started having chest pains, that was before Macready even came in.
25th Feb 2019
X-Men 3 (2006)
Question: When Kitty and Bobby were walking down to the fountain where are her shoes? She wouldn't wear skates obviously but I couldn't see her shoes on the bench when they were skating. I also knew she couldn't be wearing skates on her way down cause we see her putting them on her feet when she was sitting on the bench.
Answer: Bobby is carrying them (visible as they're walking to where they skate). Remember, he doesn't need skates because he makes ice blades on his shoes, so the pair he's carrying are for her.
Are you saying he's carrying her skates or shoes?
He's carrying her skates. Her shoes are never seen. You never actually see the entire bench so her shoes could be underneath. You also never see her feet before she puts the skates on so it isn't clear she ever actually wore shoes down to the fountain anyway. People walk around without shoes all the time.
2nd Sep 2011
Tremors (1990)
Corrected entry: When the station wagon is found buried, not only is the radio on but the headlights are as well. Given the attack occurred at night and it is now mid-morning and the fact that the car can't run underground, even the best car batteries can't last more than an hour.
Correction: The best car batteries will last a lot more than an hour. I've left my lights on accidentally when I parked for work and found them still on 8 hours later. Car started up just fine too.
In modern cars I would agree with you - but this car is almost 20 years old and the battery would not last more than an hour or so with both the radio and the headlights running.
Doesn't mean the battery is 20 years old.
The sound of the radio is not coming from the car. It's a small portable radio the Dr. Has in his car. You see it get turned on by accident when the Dr.'s wife kicks the radio during the attack.
The car radio wasn't on. It was the transistor radio she knocked over in the back of the car when she climbed through.
Correction: It wasn't the car radio, it was a portable radio.
Correction: Battery power and battery life depend on the battery and not on the car it's in.
29th Jun 2018
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Plot hole: After McClane, agent Johnson, and Ferrell leave in the police car, Agent Johnson radios another agent to have DC police clear a path for them. Then on Gabriel's screen it says they have a voice match to Farrell. The problem is Farrell never said a word, so how would they have a voice match to him? Without the voice match they never should have found them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The agent says "Ferrell" over the radio which in turn gets picked up as a name match on Gabriel's screen as they were scanning for anyone using that key word. Not Ferrell's actual voice but anyone mentioning his name over the radio.
If it was just looking for anyone saying the word Farrell it would have been a "voice" match. A voice match implies but they got a match to Farrell's voice.
In this context it is a match on the name "Farrell" that was spoken, hence it is a "voice match." It's clunky but still works grammatically.
15th Sep 2008
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Plot hole: Since they took down the telephone network, it would have been impossible for Justin Long to even be speaking to the emergency response woman for the car, much less send a signal to start the car up.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is it possible this is a satellite phone call akin to Onstar?
No, the BMW system requires a cell signal to work, which was taken down earlier in the movie.
3rd Apr 2010
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Corrected entry: When McClane is driving the semi chasing the Haz-Mat van, he radios Warlock to patch him through to the FBI. After getting patched through he tells the FBI agent that he is chasing the van onto 695. 695 is the Baltimore beltway. There are noelevated highway sections over the Baltimore beltway the way the movie depicts.
Correction: These elevated over-passes were added to the sequence to set up the later chase scenes and for dramatic purposes. Therefore, no mistake here.
That's still a mistake since the overpasses don't actually exist. It's supposed to be 695 and looks absolutely nothing like it.
27th Aug 2001
Commando (1985)
Corrected entry: The point about Arnie using claymore mines to blow up the buildings was a very valid one, but even if he was using high explosives the bombs he placed were clearly outside the buildings, but the massive explosions are even more clearly coming from inside the buildings! (01:11:00)
Correction: The buildings are weapons warehouses. They might contain explosives which were ignited by the initial explosion.
The movie never says the buildings are weapons warehouses stored with explosives. The implication is that the mines Matrix set blew up the buildings. There isn't even a hint that the mines set off explosives inside the buildings because we are never shown it.
27th Aug 2001
Commando (1985)
Corrected entry: Arnold blows up many buildings using what appear to be Claymore mines. Claymore mines are deadly anti-personnel mines that shoot out hundred of little steel balls. While the mines may account for the number of soldiers he kills, they certainly could not cause the massive explosions seen. (01:09:53)
Correction: The mines ignited some powerful military explosives stored inside the buildings, which are weapons warehouses.
Where does it say in the movie the buildings are weapon warehouses and there are explosives stored there?