Corrected entry: There is no way any of the characters couldn't tell the magician's assistant isn't a woman but a guy in disguise.
TonyPH
4th Dec 2019
Terror Train (1980)
Correction: Who's to say many of them didn't? So the magician's assistant is in drag. It's a costume party, after all.
30th Mar 2023
Scream VI (2023)
Corrected entry: **MAJOR SPOILERS** It makes no sense that Detective Bailey would be allowed to work on a case involving Samantha. His superiors would quickly see that she was involved in the death of his son Richie and would never allow him to work on the case.
Correction: It seems evident that Richie had assumed a whole new identity in order to seduce Sam and start his killing spree, and that Detective Bailey subsequently used his connections in law enforcement to further ensure their familial link wasn't discovered. Bailey also mentions that the previous detective assigned to the case offered it to him specifically because it involved his daughter. This all may strain credulity but it isn't a plot hole that's simply overlooked or ignored.
Correction: Bailey and his children are all serial killing psychopaths that have lied about being related to each other, lied about killing anyone, lied about starting horrible rumors about Samantha online, and lied about Kirby being the killer. Nothing Bailey says to the main cast before the reveal should be taken at face value by the audience, and it's clear the family comes from some other high amount of wealth outside of the NYPD. Also by definition the film itself provides and explanation for why he is on the case (whether it be credible or not is irrelevant) and that alone by definition does not make this a plot hole.
2nd Oct 2012
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Plot hole: In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy tells Marcus he doesn't believe in magic or superstition. However, in this movie, which is set a year before Raiders, Indy not only witnesses supernatural acts, but takes advantage of them to win the day (by using the incantation to ignite the stones at the end). Therefore, by Raiders Indy would not only believe in magic and superstition but would know they exist. Listed for this movie as it was made after Raiders.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Just because Indy saw magic and supernatural powers in India doesn't mean he should believe the stories revolving around the ark of the covenant. Stories can still just be stories and not believed even by witnesses of unexplained phenomena.
Suggested correction: Indy saw some very surreal things and understands why people would form cultures and superstitions around them, but that doesn't mean he's concluded that it's necessarily "magic" or extrapolated that into a belief in superstition in general. You can read the end of Raiders, in which Indy suddenly orders Marion to shut her eyes when the Ark is opened, as being informed by the events in Temple of Doom and him knowing it's better to be safe than sorry regarding matters like this.
18th Feb 2007
The Monster Squad (1987)
Plot hole: The army showing up at the end of the movie is wrong on numerous levels. 1) Eugene wrote and sent out the letter that day. I find it hard to believe the mailed letter got to the army in just a few hours time. 2) How did the army know to show up at time square? When Eugene wrote the letter, nowhere did it say where to meet. Plus the boys didn't decide to go to time square until the last minute. 3) since when is the army deployed to battle monsters based on a letter that was written by a child?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The army's arrival being unrealistic is a very deliberate joke, like the armadillo-rats from earlier in the movie.
I submitted a category change to "Factual Error" to help cover this. It is indeed too deliberate to be a true plothole, but it is nonetheless amusing to point out all the ridiculous ways this humorous scene defies believability.
2nd Nov 2017
Halloween II (1981)
Stupidity: When Dr Loomis and Sheriff Bracket are chasing who they think to be Michael Myers, you can tell that it isn't him. Michael Myers is supposed to be 6'2 - Ben Tramer is maybe 5'4. If Michael was shot 6 times there would be blood on his overalls. And the mask that the kid is wearing has blonde hair, whereas the mask Michael wears is brown.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Remember that Loomis has only seen Michael Myers in his mask once, for a few seconds, in darkness. Loomis' reaction is still pretty hysterical and arguably stupid, but not necessarily for that reason.
Suggested correction: Michael in the original was 5'10", and in Halloween II the actor playing him was 5'9." Ben Tramer was a high schooler and could have easily been 5'10." Loomis was also extremely paranoid and almost hysterical at finding Michael, and could have not noticed the hair or non-bloody coveralls in his frantic search for Michael.
8th Oct 2022
Brainstorm (1983)
Corrected entry: A device that works by reading the human brain wouldn't record the afterlife as that by definition transcends human bodily experience and occurs in another plane of existence. The movie could clear this if at any point the characters acknowledged they'd accidentally created a supernatural device that doesn't actually work the way they thought it did at all, but as is the story seems to confuse the human mind (which is dependent on the physical brain) with the human soul.
Correction: The device actually does cease to record anything once the user has died and all brain activity has ended: it's not that the device itself can suddenly see into "the other side" somehow, but rather it's picking up the brain's experience in the midst of death, whether induced by spiritual means or simply a dream-like interpretation by the mind.
Correction: This is a fictional device that operates exactly as the filmmakers say it does. Whether it works as you think it should is irrelevant.
This is 100% true, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a plot hole, it just means the audience doesn't mind that it doesn't strictly make sense.
29th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: When they discover that the Genesis device has been activated, Kirk volunteers to beam over to stop it. Even though he is told it can't be stopped, that would indicate the transporters are still working. Why does nobody suggest beaming the device itself off of the Reliant and out into space with the widest possible dispersion, like they did in "Wolf in the Fold" to Redjac?
Correction: The Genesis wave forming was interfering with transporter lock, making this solution impossible.
Correction: If they can't even get a lousy phaser lock or a clear picture on the view screen inside the nebula I have an extremely hard time buying that the transporter would've worked out for them in any capacity. Seems likely to me that in his haste and desperation Kirk simply blurted out the first thing that came to mind. For all we know David's "You can't" was actually him reminding Kirk that they can't just beam aboard the Reliant in their situation.
Correction: The source would be "Star Trek." Anytime the crew needs something to get out of danger, it's inexplicably unavailable. ST: TNG Season 5 Episode 18, Cause and Effect, the Enterprise tries to back from the anomaly, the maneuvering thrusters are suddenly non responsive, with no explanation.
29th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: Doesn't it strain credulity that the Enterprise is (once again) "the only ship in the quadrant"? In Star Trek terminology (all series), a quadrant covers one fourth of the galaxy (smaller regions are "sectors" and the boundary runs just about right down the middle of the Federation, right by Earth to be exact. Are we to believe that there is no other starship in that entire half of the Federation?
Correction: Before ST:TNG, "quadrant" was a term used somewhat loosely. In the Wrath of Khan, quadrant does not refer to one quarter of the galaxy.
Look up the term "quadrant." In every single applicable variation it is some form of "one quarter of a circle."
According to memory alpha, the star trek wiki, a quadrant is a major region of space encompassing a portion of a galaxy. There are apparently major and minor quadrants. The major quadrants are the 4 quadrants dividing up the milky way. Minor quadrants of course encompass a smaller part of said major quadrants. How large is seemingly quite inconsistent though. I think it has been settled upon that a minor quadrant is a couple of sectors (4) large.
Sulu also mentions that Reliant (which is in visual range, approaching at half impulse power) is in the same quadrant, which going by the post-1987 definition would be like saying the car approaching down the street is on the same continent. It's pretty clear that when they mention a "quadrant" in this movie, they are not referring to a quarter of the entire galaxy.
19th May 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Factual error: Spoiler: I saw this with two nurses who pointed this out, so I know this is correct. The final sequence takes place in a hospital room in ICU. Jill pulled out IVs and electrodes that were attached to her, then proceeded to Sydney's room. She pulled the call button, then tossed Sydney around the room. Glass shatters. She knocked Dewey out with a bedpan, fired a couple of shots from a gun, and yelled at Sydney, Gail, and the deputy. Sydney even fired the gun at one point. All of this goes on for quite some time, making a hell of a racket in ICU. The problem? The medical staff and security. Any nurse at the nurses' station would have been alerted automatically when Jill pulled the electrodes off herself, and also when the call button was pulled from the wall in Sydney's room. Within seconds there should have been someone come to the rooms to see why they were alerted, but the only time you see a nurse was when Jill hid just inside a door while making her way to Sydney's room. One walked past on her way somewhere as if nothing unusual was occurring. The subsequent fight occurs and you still don't see any hospital staff. So where were they?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The answer to "Where were they", is; "to the mandatory meeting for all non-emergency personnel in the basement conference room." No, I am not joking, it's a message that you can faintly hear in the background (and the subtitles make sure to include it) from the hospital IP speakers. It's ludicrous and I am not saying that it corrects the entry, especially since it does not cover the fact that there should be automatic alerts and some personnel is on duty at their stations as precisely described, but just saying that the script somehow wanted to set up / justify it.
I'm changing the type to "Factual Error" to cover this. It's not a plot hole, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, REALLY badly run hospital as far as security is concerned. And if the hospital seen in the following 'Scream (2022) ' is the same one, it's just further evidence that it's simply a really crummy hospital.
22nd Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Character mistake: Sidney asks on the porch why Cotton couldn't prove that he was having an affair with her mom. Tatum's answer is "Well, you can't prove a rumor. That's why it's a rumor." That's quite the preposterous answer, especially since the point she wants to make is that it was not in fact 'just' a rumor.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tatum isn't trying to argue with Sidney. Tatum agrees that she doesn't know the truth about her mother's infidelity and certainly can't prove anything. Rather, what Tatum is trying to tell her - gently and somewhat indirectly - is that she believes the rumors, which is distinct from knowing the facts.
6th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Character mistake: Sid deduces that Billy could be the killer because he could have used his phone call from jail to make the threatening call. However, the deduction has to be incorrect, since if it was really Billy, he could have never used the voice-changing device.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This will sound pedantic (hey, it's MovieMistakes.com, we're entitled), but I don't think this is what is meant by a character mistake. Sidney isn't presenting an erroneous fact that goes uncorrected, she's explaining an idea that had crossed her mind. Billy immediately gives a plausible response and by the end of the film it's evident who'd called her. The takeaway isn't that Billy could still be the killer but that Sidney can't help but suspect him despite their reconciliation.
3rd Feb 2022
Scream (2022)
Corrected entry: It's said that Sidney appeared in every "Stab" movie except Stab 8 - but in Scream 4, Jenny says that Sid only appeared in the first three.
Correction: That isn't what Jenny says. Marnie says: "That has nothing to do with Woodsboro. I-I thought you said "Stab" was based on true stories." Jenny Randall: "The first three, The original trilogy is based off Sidney Prescott, but then she threatened to sue them if they used her stories. So they just started making stuff up. Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst." She never said the movies didn't have Sidney in them after the first three, just they aren't based on true stories.
I don't think there is a leap in logic in the original post; she threatened to sue the production if they used her story, I can't see how they would avoid a lawsuit by exploiting her character further by putting her in more movies? If it's not a retcon, it's at best a rather problematic line.
Once a film has put a character name into existence and been released, the studio owns the copyright to that name. Sidney Prescott as a character could still be used in Stab films.
For that matter, you can always argue that a person does not own the story of her own life to begin with, that's not the point. The point is that since it was stated that they were afraid of the legal action Sidney Prescott threatened, and changed course to the saga for that reason, they would -not - put Sidney Prescott in other, even more outrageous and exploitative, material.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I can tell that you do not know anything at all about copyright law. The above user was correct. You don't know in what context Sidney was used in the following Stab films. The only thing we know about those later films is the very brief description of time travel in Stab 5, and the two fake outs from Stab 6&7.
No offense taken at all, it's true! I am no lawyer and I wasn't trying to get in the intricacies of copyright law and rights of publicity. I am just saying that the movie (previous movie, from 10 years before, in an obscure line of dialogue easily retconned or forgotten...) mentions that Sidney threatened them with a lawsuit, there's no reason why they'd stir her putting her even in cameos multiple times in their every third rate following schlocky flicks. It's simple as that. Would they win a lawsuit, on the grounds of what you (or the other poster) mentioned? Sure, but they never said she did sue them, the point was for the studio to avoid that sort of legal trouble entirely.
I think we're looking at the difference between a mistake and a criticism with this one. I agree that in Scream 4 the most reasonable interpretation is that Sidney successfully got (at the least) her name removed from Stab 4 onward (especially since without any further "true" events to draw from they would've had to start making things up anyhow). But the line can be taken other ways, and even if it's a stretch or goes against the spirit the line was written in, it's different from a mistake.
It still leaves a plot hole of why Sidney threatened to sue. If not for likeness / appearance, then for what?
1st Jun 2006
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Corrected entry: The character of C.W. Moss's father is referred to by name only once - just before the final ambush, when Bonnie recognizes him and says, "Isn't that Malcolm?". But in the credits his name is Ivan Moss.
Correction: She is asking if that is Malcolm, not stating that it is. The answer is no, it isn't Malcolm, but that is not a movie mistake.
This is an odd one. Going by the script the character's name was indeed Malcolm at least at that point, so either the credits got it wrong or they changed the name after filming but neglected to adjust the line. Even then I'd still be willing to let it slide, but considering how few people Bonnie and Clyde know due to their lifestyle there really isn't anyone else "Malcolm" could be referring to.
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
7th Nov 2002
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: When the Enterprise first encounters the Reliant, we see several screen shots of the Reliant on the Enterprise viewscreen, and several shots of the Enterprise on Reliant's viewscreen. The puzzling thing is, if you watch very closely to the shots of the Enterprise on the Reliant's viewscreen, you will notice that the stars are actually moving BACKWARD, as if the Reliant were in a slow reverse. Obviously this is an editing blooper since Khan just ordered that the ship slow to one half impulse power, which still moves the ship forward.
Correction: Trek canon has shown the viewscreens are not the same as windows, and that the screens can show us views from vantage points where no camera exists. These vantage points also do not need to be stationary. As such, the views of Enterprise on Reliant's screen are taking Enterprise's speed into account, and the 'vantage point' is backing up to keep her 'in the shot' while Reliant is still moving forward.
This would work except the stars continue moving when the film cuts to exterior shots where the Enterprise and Reliant are both in view, even when they are nearly parallel with each other.
14th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Character mistake: While Khan is "interviewing" Chekhov and Terrell, he stated, "On Earth, two hundred years ago, I was a prince, with power over millions." The official date for this movie is 2285. That would place Khan on earth around 2085 by this statement. However, it is made clear in the episode "Space Seed" that Khan and his followers escaped earth in the year 1996: nearly one hundred years earlier. Quite a way off to be a rounding error. (00:21:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't believe the earth year had been established when this movie was made and it was something the franchise applied to itself retroactively later on.
3rd Aug 2019
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: Khan has the ultimate weapon on his ship. Certainly Kirk must have known he would use it. Why not destroy the Reliant before Khan got the chance to destroy both ships?
Correction: Far too much speculation on this. Kirk was under stress of the situation and they also just inflicted heavy damage to the Reliant's bridge. As you saw, Khan was almost dead from that, and moments after activating the Genesis he in fact did die from his wounds before it detonated. Kirk didn't know that Khan survived the attack. And not guessing that Khan might use the device is just an error in human judgment. Not a mistake, and not really stupidity either.
Well, they had to have a way of killing off and bringing back Spock, and as plots go, coming back by the use of the Genesis planet, was not a bad idea. But given Khan's homicidal tendencies from the Original Series, and how other enemies, such as the Romulans would blow up their ships, it would seem prudent to put as much space as possible between ships, and being unable to do so, remove the threat altogether.
Which is exactly what they did. The Enterprise was badly damaged, and Khan was out for blood. The reason they didn't jump to warp speed sooner was the system was damaged with Scotty working to try and fix it. They went into the cloud to level the playing field between the two ships and for Kirk to be able to outsmart Khan and get the upper hand. Khan was not going to stop until he saw Kirk and his ship destroyed, and the Enterprise had no way of escape before they would be destroyed. Once they were able to get the literal drop on the reliant in that nebula, Kirk himself had a moment of pride staying there to show off to Khan that he won, that he had best him. That and to survey if they did actually defeat the Reliant or would it start going after them again. By this time, Scotty was then close to finishing the repairs on the warp drive, and they then detected that Khan activated the device. Kirk was full of adrenaline and rivalry with Khan. How they handled the situation and only turning to run when their sensors picked up the Genesis being activated, was human. Was natural. And lucky for them, Scotty was then able to get the warp drive fixed. But before that point, it wasn't fixed, so they had no reason to even try to put distance between them and a ship that could easily overtake and destroy them.
Correction: Kirk underestimated how nuts Khan had become and didn't anticipate that he would destroy himself and what's left of his own people out of spite. Kirk arrogantly thought he still understood Khan's motivations. Note he dismissively cuts off Terrell with "I know what he blames me for" when he tries to explain, but Kirk doesn't even know what happened to Ceti Alpha V and what Khan had been through, and because of this he leaves himself wide open for Khan's final move.
26th Aug 2003
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Plot hole: Why doesn't Reliant know that Khan is exiled here? The Federation is so terrified and opposed to genetic engineering that it's still illegal 300 years after Khan. So why is there no warning along with the data on the Ceti Alpha system? Kirk logged what happened with Khan and his solution of marooning him. Starships use nav data to navigate star systems. Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, yet the helmsman or computer never noticed that there is one less planet than there was when Kirk was there? There is no debris from the explosion? Ceti Alpha 5 is the exact same size and was conveniently blown into the exact same orbit as Ceti Alpha 6 used to have? So there is nothing whatsoever to make the crew even suspect that it's not 6? Enterprise would have to have scanned the planets in the system to know that one was habitable for Khan. Did Ceti Alpha 6's destruction somehow magically turn Ceti Alpha 5 into its exact duplicate? If Starfleet ships have been there to map after Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, none of them bothered to check on the exiles? Pretty callous for Starfleet, don't you think? With the technology and amounts of information available to Starfleet vessels, there is NO logical reason for the Reliant to think that this planet is Ceti Alpha 6. Finally, would the Federation be willing to test a device whose exact effects will be unknown on a planet so close to another inhabited one? (00:21:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The answer is yes: against all known laws of science, the inexplicable explosion of Ceti Alpha VI led to Ceti Alpha V conveniently taking its orbit and making it easy to mistake for its former sister planet. A mistake would've been to give an explanation that can be debunked. By leaving it to "somehow" the movie leaves it open to a million possible rationalizations. You can even make a whole other story about the crazy circumstances that led to this incredible result.
12th May 2004
Scream 2 (1997)
Plot hole: It is highly unlikely that the murderer knew Phil was going to put his ear to the stall when he heard the babbling. It is even more unlikely that the murderer is going to get him on the first stab through the stall. (Which also requires a lot of strength). We also have to assume that he spent time hanging out in the bathroom knowing Phil would go there to begin with, and that other two men with weak bladders were doing the same simultaneously forcing the victim to go to the stall to begin with. (00:07:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The killer is incoherently whispering in a strange way in the adjacent stall to lure Phil to press his ear up against it. After stabbing him through it, the killer inspects the knife inquisitively, as if checking to see if he actually got him. While it's still not a terribly plausible scene, the killer's demeanor suggests that he encountered Phil in the restroom by coincidence and improvised the kill, rather than anticipating all of Phil's actions as part of a perfectly executed plan.
The general logistics and planning of the murder are a separate issue - because no, the murder was planned. The entry just says that it's "highly unlikely", putting it mildly, that the killer could guess the exact position Phil would pick to listen to the noise. Just a few inches up or down, left or right, make a huge difference. The killer looks at the knife admiring the results, because if he had any doubts that he got his victim, he'd be trapped in a bathroom with a screaming, wounded, angry Phil and plenty people who could come and help.
To be more clear, the correction here is that Phil had heard strange talking/whispering rather than music, which makes it at least a little more plausible the killer would think he might put his head up against the wall at a certain spot. Unlikely for sure, but unlikely isn't a mistake, it's just what movies do. Phil's death was planned yes, though it stands to reason the plan was more "surveil and strike when vulnerable" and less "wait for him in this particular stall we know he'll be next to."
29th May 2007
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Sidney is talking with Stu and Tatum at the lockers when someone runs by wearing the Ghostface mask. She runs down the hall, bumping into Billy, then goes into the bathroom and meets the killer. We know it isn't Billy because we just saw him, but how would Stu get into the bathroom without passing by Billy and Sidney?
Correction: It was made pretty clear that it was two other kids that ran through the hall. There is a scene with Henry Winkler (principal) who is expelling the two students due to the prank.
Yes, and that scene happens before the killer shows up in the bathroom, so it can't be them. Sidney also says that she knew it was really "him", the real killer, and not a prankster, and there's no indication that the movie wants her to be wrong at that time.
The "tell" is that the shot of Sidney running out of the restroom has a voiceover from a news reporter talking about pranksters dressed as the killer. Sidney is far from infallible (she even misidentified her mother's killer) and is vulnerable and being psychologically manipulated by Billy and Stu.
The biggest tell would be that he has no knife, but there's nothing prankster-like in that assault, if he tackled her like that he would have hurt her (and he's in the girls' bathroom too?). The newscast about the pranksters establishes that it's the authorities' version, but the dialogue I mentioned happens later, addresses exactly that, and she negates it. I agree that Sidney is not infallible, but the fact that she was wrong (by deliberate misdirection from the real culprit) about Cotton is a specific plot point, she was supposed to be wrong and Gale even picks up on the fact that she deep inside isn't sure about it anymore. Overall the bathroom scene is one of those scenes that don't quite add up but people enjoy making theories about them ("it was all in Sidney's mind", "it was Roman", etc).
I agree this is one of the film's weaker moments, but I don't think it's just an accident. The high school section was rearranged from the script and a couple moments dropped, and I believe it was decided during editing to make the restroom scene more ambiguous (adding the "killer's" grunts that sound younger than any of the characters; moving the reporter's monologue to the end of this scene) to make up for an unfilmed scene where Sidney encountered two more masked impostors in the school.
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: Honestly, I was fooled when I first watched the movie (Derek MacKinnon is a drag performer in real life). Also, the assistant keeps her distance from the passengers during the train ride. Until the climax, she's only seen onstage, or alone with the magician (who presumably knows). She even walks away when the conductor briefly speaks to the magician. And she disappears for long stretches of the movie, because Kenny is moving around the train, wearing other disguises, to commit the murders.