Corrected entry: When the girl and guy are in the drive-through and the guy in front of them won't move up, the truck hits their car and the engine come flying out and kills the guy in the front seat. It doesn't matter how fast you're going, an engine is ALWAYS supposed to drop vertical so neither the people in the car or outside the car would get hit by it.
pierpp
12th Feb 2006
Final Destination 3 (2006)
27th Mar 2005
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)
Corrected entry: Bridget is with Mark at a ski resort somewhere in Europe and visits a pharmacy to buy a pregnancy testing kit. In an attempt to make the situation humorous the shop assistants speak no English and can't understand what she is asking for. At a European ski resort populated with tourists, it is virtually inconceivable that not one of the shop assistants in a pharmacy spoke at least some limited English.
Correction: True, but if they were skiing in an Eastern European country such as Romania or Bulgaria it is quite common for people there not to speak any English, as I found out when I was there. Also, not many tourists request pregnancy testing kits either on holiday, so the English for that may not be recognised.
6th Aug 2004
Final Destination (2000)
Corrected entry: In Final Destination part 2 the girl has to die and then come back to life in the end in order to stop death and the plan that death has to kill them all, so she drowns herself and then they reanimate her and it ends. But in Final Destination 1 Alex dies in the end of the movie because he grabs the cable of Clears car and gets shocked and when he's lying on the ground the officer checks his pulse and says he's not breathing so that means he's dead and they reanimated him because you see him in France later in the movie and death still hasn't stop killing..
Correction: There is a lot of confusion and comments about the concept in BOTH films about a new life stopping death. What is meant in both films is that if a new life that was not part of death's original plan is created, then that will stop the chain of events. Alex 'dying' in the first movie and the girl in the second movie 'dying' do not count in this theory. The reason be is that they are already involved in the chain of events from the very start. Neither one of them actually died, they both just had accidents that caused them to be rendered unconcious and revived. That is NOT a new life. A new life is the example in the second film where the pregnant lady was involved in the accident pile up, but survived and gave birth to a baby. But as she was not due to die in that crash, the birth of her baby failed to prevent the chain of events happening. If she was due to die in that pile up, and she survived to to the premonition, then the birth of her baby, a NEW life would have stopped deaths design.
13th Sep 2003
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Corrected entry: Klaatu states that he traveled 250 million miles. Yet, the nearest stars are trillions of miles away. Scientist at the time knew that Mars and Venus were unlikely to harbor life. (00:13:27)
Correction: While not strictly accurate, this was expected terminology for films at that time.
Correction: He was probably from Ceres, the dwarf planet in the asteroid belt.
13th Sep 2003
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Corrected entry: Klaatu neutralizes the electricity all over the world for 30 minutes at high noon Washington DC time. The Sun however was shining brightly in England and Russia at that same moment in the film. (01:02:20)
Correction: This is possible, if the scene relates to the middle of summer then noon Washington DC time is 5pm in the UK and 8pm USSR time so it's quite possible to be bright and sunny - sunset in late June is around 9pm in London and 10pm in Moscow.
27th Aug 2001
Final Destination (2000)
Corrected entry: The whole premise of the teacher's death scene is very unbelievable. Along with the other mistakes noted above about this scene there are a couple more. Instead of vodka she must have been drinking nothing short of gasoline noting the height and intensity of the flames. Also, when the house was on fire, what made it explode with such violence. A gas stove would not even come close to creating such an explosion.
Correction: A gas stove on its own would not cause such a huge explosion, but you have to bear in mind that the stove is connected to the main gas supply, so when the stove explodes it sets off a chain reaction throught the main gas supply, igniting that and there you go, a massive fireball. Its been known of entire blocks of appartments to explode because of a gas leak.
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: Not always so. Modern cars are designed that the engine drops down if impacted from the front, so the engine doesnt land on the drivers lap. However, in the film the car is hit from the rear by a another car and the force of that impact was so great that it ripped the engine off its mountings and into the rear of the Triumph Spitfire. Car design is good, but under extreme circumstances, it won't break the laws of physics. Also, this was a truck engine and the design is completely different.
pierpp