Other mistake: After the train crash the news crews and sheriff are interviewing the surviving corrections officer. He boasts how heroic he was to rescue his partner from the wreckage, claiming that he was his partner and he would do the same for him. The only problem is that they are surprised when they find that same surviving corrections officer several scenes later and rush him to the hospital. Why would they be surprised to find an officer they already knew about?
BaconIsMyBFF
8th Oct 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The first corrections officer had been exposed as a liar and made up the story that Kimble and Copeland were dead. Nobody believed he heroically saved his partner. Everyone assumed since the partner hadn't been found right away that he died in the wreck. It never occurred to anyone that Kimble would put his own life on the line to save a guard, so actually finding the guard alive was a surprise.
There is nothing formally wrong with the order of events here. The assumption is that the second officer's whereabouts are known at the time of the senior officer's story - but that is actually only an assumption. Finding the second officer would of course not be important to the main story in any way, and thus this sub-story was not explained in the movie. To word it an alternative better way, why would the senior officer make up this story of saving the second officer, if the officer had not been located yet?
The second officer's whereabouts are most certainly not known when the first officer is interviewed. The first officer is interviewed the night of the crash and the second officer is found the next morning.
24th Sep 2019
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Stupidity: When the parents knew Freddy was doing the killing then why didn't they watch him like a neighborhood watch so they could catch him trying it again, and thus avoid the legal technicality which threw out of the first case? It seems idiotic they broke the law to punish this lawbreaker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The parents believed Freddy would not face justice for his crimes. They were unwilling to allow him the opportunity to kill another child, and believing the justice system had failed them they took the law into their own hands. They completely got away with their vigilante justice. The only bad thing that happened was Freddy was brought back as a vengeful demon with superpowers. There is no way the parents could have known this would happen.
It is still a stupidity. Even if they wanted him to suffer, they would try to avoid legal problems at all costs. It is good that they wanted to prevent him from killing another child but they still shouldn't act so hastily.
Stupidity entries are not meant to be stupid acts by characters. They're for minor plot holes. Without in-film evidence why the acts would be a plot hole, there is no stupidity mistake. And assuming what characters would or would not do does not make a valid mistake (not to mention revenge killings do happen in real life and in movies a lot).
No, it's not. What else were they supposed to do when he was caught and set free? It's still not their fault what happened next.
12th Sep 2019
Rocky IV (1985)
Stupidity: Considering Rocky keeps hitting Drago after the bell sounds to end the round in their main event fight shouldn't he be disqualified?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is up to the discretion of the ref. If he deems the strikes to not be particularly egregious he can let the fight continue. Even if they are deemed illegal strikes, that doesn't mean that Rocky will be automatically disqualified. The ref can dock a point from Rocky instead, which he very well might have done at some point which we never see. Since Rocky wins by knockout having a point docked doesn't matter.
10th May 2008
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Plot hole: One of the children is a witness that saw the man that planted the bomb in Dixie's house. He is said by a policeman to have been playing 'under the porch' and was close enough to make-out the Special Forces tatoo on the bomber's arm. Problem is, Dixie's house had no porch of any kind, and any other home's porch would've placed him too far to see such a small tatoo so confidently. (00:57:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The rear of Dixie's house is never shown. The house could conceivably have a back porch the kid could have been playing under and the killer could have used the back door.
10th Oct 2016
Clear And Present Danger (1994)
Corrected entry: Given the lengths that Escobedo is willing to go deal with people who have wronged him it's pretty hard to believe he would have wasted his time imprisoning the rest of Clark's team instead of killing them, especially after they caused so much damage to his cartel.
Correction: A choice that might seem out of character on its face is not a plot hole. Escobedo could have wanted to keep part of Clark's team alive to torture them, to get information out of them, to use them as leverage, to present them to the world as proof the U.S. Government was plotting against him, etc.
3rd Oct 2016
Clear And Present Danger (1994)
Corrected entry: The plot of this film relies on the notion that Cutter and Ritter (with the backing of the President) are able to conduct this illegal war against the cartels with this small team of soldiers blowing up planes and drug bunkers while making it appear to be coming from rival cartels. OK, fine. The problem though is when you bring an aircraft carrier into the story a lot more people are going to have to know what's going on that are not in the loop. You would have admirals, navy officials, possibly even the Joint Chiefs wanting to know why planes are taking off from one of their aircraft carriers just outside of Colombian waters. It didn't take Ryan any effort to find the operations report on the "car bomb" and put two and two together, so I find it very hard to believe none of the higher ups in the Navy were questioning Cutter or the President as to what was going on.
Correction: There is nothing in the film to suggest that nobody in the Navy questioned their orders. The film focuses on Jack Ryan and his efforts to uncover the operation, but that doesn't mean that the Navy wasn't also suspicious when an air strike was requested. It is plausible that Cutter and Ritter handed the Navy a credible cover story to authorize the air strike for Clark's team. We aren't shown any of this because it isn't relevant to the plot.
2nd Sep 2019
Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
Other mistake: Deckard and Hattie were children at the same time, with Deckard appearing to be no more than 3 years older than Hattie. Although Jason Statham is presumably playing a character younger than he actually is, he is still noticeably much older than his on-screen sister. Jason Statham is in fact 21 years older than Vanessa Kirby.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And people can age faster than others depending on the stress they've been under.
Even taking things like stress and hard living into account, Jason Statham is still much older looking than the character he is supposed to be playing. Or are you saying that he's under so much stress that, while he is in otherwise outstanding shape, his face is that of a man in his late 40's to early 50's? He looks at the very least 10 years older than the character is aparently supposed to be.
27th Aug 2001
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: In the part of the film where Ripley and Gorman are inside the APC, and Ripley is trying to get the marines to get out of the bowls of the atmosphere processor before anymore get killed, she has the headset on, then in the next shot of her she doesn't, then she does, and then it gets ripped off by Gorman.
Correction: She never actually has the headset 'on' per se. She holds the ear pieces up to her one ear and speaks into the microphone. When Gorman appears to rip it off, you can see that it comes out of her one hand that she was holding it in.
That's completely false, there is a very clear moment where Ripley has the earpiece completely on her head. This mistake is correct, it is indeed a continuity error.
22nd Jun 2005
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Newt and Ripley are in the room with the face huggers, Ripley tries to escape by banging a chair against the glass window full force. However, it merely bounces off. But, when one of the marines dives at the window, it smashes. How is this possible?
3rd Aug 2019
Robocop 2 (1990)
Corrected entry: The Old Man in this sequel is the same sort of remorseless bastard as Dick Jones was in the first film. That's a huge character change since he was focused on doing what is right in the original, with seemingly no explanation whatsoever.
Correction: The Old Man was not focused on doing what is "right" in the original film. He was the mastermind behind OCP's plan for a hostile takeover of Detroit to replace it with Delta City. Part of that plan was allowing crime to get so bad the city would be forced to allow OCP to take over the police department. He showed no remorse whatsoever at Kenney's death during the board meeting and was instead frustrated at the financial set-backs ED-209 not being ready would cause him. He also had knowledge of the questionable ethics of the Robocop program, namely that potential subjects like Murphy were re-assigned to patrol violent areas to ensure they would be killed in the line of duty.
13th Jul 2019
Jurassic World (2015)
Plot hole: What broke the gate the boys went through while driving around in the gyro-sphere? As far as map tracking of the I-Rex it couldn't have been her. So what dangerous dinosaur was hanging out in the west plains?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was the Indominous Rex. A major plot element is the fact the Indominous Rex can camouflage itself and hide its heat signature making it impossible for humans to track. The heroes then attempt to track the creature using the velociraptors.
9th Sep 2016
Eraser (1996)
Plot hole: Kruger's boss (James Caan) is in league with the bad guys. He convinces Kruger to help him protect the witness at the log cabin all in an effort to draw out Leigh from hiding and there are five bad guys at the cabin waiting for them. This of course is all a setup but what if one of those bad guys at the cabin had killed Kruger? Then Kruger's boss wouldn't know where to find Leigh and they would all be back to square one.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A "What if?" scenario that doesn't actually play out can't be considered a plot hole. DeGuerrin is counting on the skills of Kruger and his own team being much higher than a bunch of cut-rate mercenaries, and that is exactly what happens. DeGuerrin enacts a plan that carries a high level of risk, but he and his cohorts have been backed into a corner. If they don't try, they will all go to jail. In addition, when you think about it every police/military raid carries the risk that someone you don't want to die might actually be killed. Risk is part of the job but that doesn't stop people from doing what needs to be done when the time calls for it, and to trust that their skills and training will keep their team safe.
12th May 2019
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
Corrected entry: Miles gets bitten by an inter-dimensional spider, however his body never fluctuates throughout the movie, and neither does he get sucked into the portal in the final fighting scene.
Correction: The other Spider-Men were fluctuating because they were in the wrong dimension. Miles is in the proper dimension, and thus he doesn't fluctuate. The film doesn't establish that being bitten by a radioactive spider from another dimension should have the same effect as being in the wrong dimension.
14th Dec 2009
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Corrected entry: When he first gets to Del Rio, Brolin's character buys a pair of Larry Mahan boots to replace the ones he lost at the river. He later hitch-hikes to Eagle Pass, gets wounded, and crosses to a hospital in Piedras Negras. He comes back into the Del Rio store for 'everything else', but he should still be in Eagle Pass, not Del Rio.
Correction: Eagle Pass and Del Rio are only separated by 50 miles. Knowing that people are looking for him, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Moss would get a ride back to Del Rio to shop for clothes and other supplies, and return to Eagle Pass only to retrieve the satchel. The border agent tells his subordinate to "get someone to help this man, he needs to get into town", it is perfectly reasonable that Moss would ask his ride to take him to Del Rio, it's less than an hour drive.
13th Jul 2019
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Stupidity: Immediately after Unkar Plutt makes Rey a generous offer for BB-8 and she refuses, he tells someone over his communicator to follow her and bring back the droid. He should have at least waited until she was out of earshot before he said that, especially if he was trying to be covert about it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But he was out of earshot of her.
I posted this immediately after watching the scene in question, and it looked as though Plutt spoke into his communicator right after Rey turned around and went on her way; certainly too soon for her to have gotten more than a few steps away. Also, he spoke at a normal, conversational volume rather than anything that sounded like a whisper or "sotto voce", so unless he was relying on the ambient noise of other nearby activity, I still believe this "stupidity" is valid.
That depends on how sneaky you think Plutt is. Rey walks away in quick paces, so she is out of earshot. Also I don't think it bothers him that much if she heard, she is just a scavenger, what can she do about it?
Rey was definitely out of earshot. Rey walks completely out of the shot, which appears to be about 10 feet away. Unkar Plutt then angrily swipes the portions off the counter and picks up his communicator. At the pace Rey was walking she would have been a considerable distance away from him when he spoke. In addition, Unkar Plutt lowered his voice when he spoke because he was being sneaky. She might have been able to hear him speak, but it is totally reasonable that she wouldn't be close enough to make out exactly what he was saying.
8th Jul 2007
Starship Troopers (1997)
Corrected entry: In the scene when they are doing the live fire training course and the big guy gets shot in the head the bullets rip about 1/4 of his head off, but in the aerial view you can see his head is completely intact.
Correction: The bullet does not rip off 1/4 of his head. If you watch the shot in slow motion, the bullet goes into his eye and pulverizes the top left part of his skull. In the aerial shot it is clear the part of his skull that should be missing is indeed missing. At full speed the effect that shows the bullet entering his head has some unrealistic gore splatter that goes in all directions, giving the impression that the head was mostly blown apart, but it is quite easy to tell that's not what happened when viewed in slow motion.
26th Jun 2019
Coming to America (1988)
Corrected entry: When Akeem shows up at the Waldorf he is wearing a leather parka. He immediately leaves with Semmi and shows up at the McDowell house wearing a long overcoat.
Correction: They did not immediately leave, Semi was being bathed when Akeem showed up. Akeem changed into a suit with a long overcoat while Semi put on a similar outfit.
8th Jul 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Beck wants to kill Peter's friends because they know his secret. Instead of using Edith to attack them directly with a drone strike, or using his illusion technology to lead them into the path of a train like he did with Spider-Man, he instead has a henchman drive them onto a bridge and leave them in the path of his next Elemental attack. Because absolutely nothing is forcing them to stay on the bridge, they all casually walk off the bus and out of immediate danger. It is unfathomable that a man as intelligent and resourceful as Beck would take such an idiotic approach, especially considering all he had at his disposal and how desperate he was.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
20th Jun 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
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.
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.
3rd Sep 2018
The Equalizer 2 (2018)
Corrected entry: Susan Plummer is in Denzel Washington's flat when he arrives home but there is no explanation as to how she got in.
Correction: Susan is a former DIA operative. The implication is that she used her skills to get into the apartment undetected.
Also of note is that McCall is aware that someone has broken in and reacts to it as if it is a threat, until he discovers it is Susan.
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.