Question: What were the languages Beni was speaking when he ran into Imhotep?
lionhead
8th Jul 2020
The Mummy (1999)
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: When someone dies with their eyes open and another character can close the dead person's eyes by gently running their hand over their face. The eyes of a dead body won't stay shut that way.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is partially true. If the person is recently deceased then you can close the eyes with relative ease. If however they have been deceased long enough for rigor mortis to set in then the mistake is valid. It's a tough one to be honest.
That's not true at all. Muscles can not contract after death. Therefore, if someone tries to close the eyes of someone who is dead, the eyes will open back up to their original positions. They only way they can stay closed is if someone seals them shut, in the case after death, a wet swap may work, which is not what they commonly do in films.
This isn't correct. Medical staff or family members usually close the eyelids manually immediately after the heart stops. As rigor mortis sets in, the eyelids will stiffen in whatever position they are currently in.
Very true, although rigor mortis is only a later factor. When one moves the upper eyelids over the iris, which is a bulge, it usually prevents the eyelid from opening again. The only problem there can be is the lower eyelids not closing properly. Since they rest at the bottom, the eyelids need to be held together then. But the eyelid muscle is in a relaxed position when closed, so that is the natural state of the eyelid and won't just "pop" open. Not until the eyeball retracts into the socket.
10th Aug 2010
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Question: When the Fellowship are on the side of the mountain and arguing about which direction to take, Gandalf says "Let the ring bearer choose". Why does Gandalf say that? He knows that Frodo has enough on his plate, what with taking the ring all the way to Mordor, so why add to his problems by making Frodo decide the way to go?
Answer: Because, like it or not, he's the leader of this quest. Gandalf is only a guide; Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli are Frodo's guardians, while the other three Hobbits are simply companions. Besides, Frodo's the one carrying the increasingly burdensome ring. If he thinks one path easier than another then that's his call.
Answer: In the film, there is a flashback of Saruman discussing with Gandalf the dangers of Moria, principally, the event where the dwarves mined so far down into the mountain that they woke up the Balrog which then killed the dwarves including Balin, their leader. Gandalf knows this creature is still down there, so his decision to let Frodo make the call to continue over the mountain pass or to go under the mountain is his attempt to remove his bias from how to proceed.
30th Jan 2026
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Other mistake: Talia has connected earlobes, but the child version of her does not.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think there are a lot more differences in appearance between Marion Cotillard and Joey King besides the ear lobes. They are different people after all. It's not a mistake to have two different people play the same character at a different age. It's inevitable.
Explaining why a mistake occurred doesn't change the fact that it's still a mistake.
It's not a mistake if nothing went wrong, though. You can't expect them to find a young actress that is completely similar in appearance to the adult version of that character. That you can see it's not really the same person, only younger, is not a mistake. I think something can be said about eye colour or hair colour, maybe, but earlobes, not so much. Their mouths and noses are different too; you can make a list of mistakes then. They can only get it as close as they can get it, so it's not a mistake.
You're literally admitting they don't look alike, thus creating a continuity gaffe... which is a movie mistake... and then trying to claim it's not a mistake. Yes, it's true that finding a child actor that looks the same would be difficult, but that doesn't nullify the fact that earlobes can't change that radically from childhood to adulthood. That's a completely different thing than face/nose shape, eye colour, and hair colour, which can in fact subtly change with age.
25th Dec 2025
Home Alone (1990)
Question: I'm confused. I can understand the first time they assumed everyone was accounted for due to the neighbour's kid being patted on the head and taking Kevin's number. My issue is that during the check-in at the airport or even getting out of the taxi, they must have realised at some point Kevin wasn't there, even if you are in a rush.
Answer: I am not a parent, but I've heard that these things happen. Parents get busy and make mistakes or overlook things. The family slept too late and everyone was rushing around. Also, everyone was annoyed with Kevin because of his behaviour at dinner the previous night - even if they were mostly at fault, because of how they treated him. Everybody was sort of ignoring Kevin the next morning. Lastly, the McCallisters have four other children. They are probably in the habit of making an older sibling watch or check on Kevin. (I say this because my husband is the oldest of six.) So, even if Mum or Dad thought of him during all the rushing around, they might have assumed that he was with someone else.
I would like to add that it is important to note that they went in two cabs towards the airport, so Kevin was assumed to be in the other cab by everyone. Secondly, his ticket went missing, so they didn't have an extra ticket at hand that would mean someone was missing at check-in. I think those are the main reasons Kevin wasn't noticed.
Answer: Agree with the other answers, but the entire plot requires a complete "suspension of disbelief." The movie is filled with plot holes and implausible scenarios. In addition to no-one noticing Kevin missing at the airport, all the phone lines on the McCallisters' street are supposedly down due to a storm, but Kevin orders a pizza that same night and later calls the police. His parents just stop trying to call the house and it's claimed they cannot contact even one friend, relative, neighbour, or co-worker for help. When they call Chicago police from Paris, it's just a single doofus guy at a desk, not a 911 call centre. A cop checks the house, then leaves because no-one answers, despite a child reportedly being there alone. Kevin instantly creates many booby traps in a mere few hours. After the next-door neighbour saves Kevin from the "Wet Bandits" at the other house, he just lets him go home by himself, knowing no-one is there. The damage/mess to the house has magically been repaired/cleaned before the family returns.
You can just call the police station without it being a 911 call. I don't think 911 appreciates being called for a check-up. That's not an emergency.
A child left alone in a house for days, with no adult supervision, and his family out of the country is 100% an emergency.
Well, I disagree with you there; it's not a 911 call. Besides, like Raywest said, isn't there family that can be called? A neighbour? Anyone living in that town? Then the cops. Not 911. Also, not sure how dialing 911 from Paris would work, if at all.
Any unaccounted young child is considered an immediate emergency. The parents are in Paris, panicked, and would call the most direct emergency number, probably through an international operator who'd connect to Chicago's 911. They have no idea what Kevin's circumstances are, if he's safe, has food, is distraught, terrified, has burned the house down, etc. Even non-emergency police numbers do not have bumbling, dismissive cops responding that way. The other family members had said they couldn't reach any friends, relatives, neighbours, or co-workers to check on Kevin, only their voicemails.
3rd Nov 2014
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: Doc and Marty could not know where the 2015 Marty lives and go there to get 1985 Jenifer.
Correction: He'd been there once before taking Marty to the future. When hearing about Marty McFly. Jr, he could have done a background search on him, including age, phone number, and address.
Correction: Marty tells Doc twice to look him up when he gets to the future. Marty would have purposely left himself very locatable in the White Pages or whatever public directory was available in 2015, so he could reunite with Doc. Off camera, Doc goes to the future, finds Marty quite easily, and instantly comes back to 1985 to fetch Marty. 1985 Marty does not know where 2015 Marty lives, but Doc does.
14th May 2003
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Corrected entry: While they are in the German camp around the well of souls, Sallah is trying to blend in with the other native workers. As he passes a long table of Germans eating, a few call out in German for water (Wasser) yet he replies in English "I'll go and get you some water" a number of times. Not very undercover.
Correction: The scene is set in Egypt, and Sallah is Egyptian, so when the German soldiers want water, he is not going to reply to them in German. He would reply to them in Arabic, but for the sake of expediency with the dialogue, Sallah is speaking in English. Since he is also native to the area, he is also dressed accordingly.
It would not be conspicuous for an Egyptian digger to speak a few words in another language (here English), as they would have worked with foreign archaeologists in the past.
Or the fact that Egypt was then still a British protectorate, so natives learning that language was probably not uncommon.
3rd Aug 2019
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Question: Why did Hans Landa kill Bridget von Hammersmark if he was just going to betray the Nazis anyway?
Answer: Because she was a loose end who could have conceivably undermined his carefully-constructed lie that he was working for the Allies all along.
Answer: Because Landa planned his escape from the moment he heard about the venue change. Theater: Hammersmark -> Landa "If the shoe fits" Restaurant: Aldo -> Landa "Shoe's on the other foot." We find out Landa knew about the Basterds from the interrogations of their "Swastika-marked survivors." From the shoe, he strongly suspects Hammersmark had tried to set up the Basterds at the bar. So he killed Hammersmark to tie up that loose end to allow the plot, his bargaining chip, to survive. Fun fact: we never know if Hammersmark was a triple agent or just screwed up with the bar location.
Answer: I always took it he admired her so much and maybe even pursued a relationship with her that never came to pass. Her lying to him was a personal betrayal that drove him to strangle her. Crime of passion. Just always has been my theory.
24th Oct 2025
Fantastic Four (2005)
Question: After the cosmic storm hits the space station and affects the 5 people on board, the next scene is Ben suddenly waking up in a hospital. Ben, Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Victor are the only 5 people on the station, and they would all have been affected by the storm. Unless it's supposed to be that only Ben was knocked out. How exactly did the team get rescued and brought back to Earth? Were they all knocked out or just Ben?
Answer: When we see the rest of the team getting hit by the cosmic storm, you can see they are still awake; Sue even is shown pushing through the storm to get to Reed and Johnny. Plus, Victor was behind the shields and trying to protect himself from the sparks and rays, so we can assume he flew the ship back to Earth.
Interesting. I'm mostly asking because in the video game adaptation of this movie, for which I'm doing mistakes, after the opening mission, every one of these characters wakes up for the first time after the space station in the hospital, in bed with powers. I know the game has to play fast and loose with things, but in that version of events, it's implied that all of them were knocked out and then woke up down on Earth in the hospital. So it could be a plot hole for the game version.
Sounds like it, or at least the game designers took some liberties with it. But that does happen with games based on movies; the Spider-Man game for the 2002 movie was nothing like the film.
Can't the ship simply have an auto-return in case of emergencies? I mean, it's not your everyday space shuttle. In a lot of cases, it's controlled by AI too and, usually, Reed Richards built it.
Good point, but this is based on the 2005 film, and AI wasn't anything like it is today. Also, it was Victor Von Doom's shuttle, not Reed Richards. Von Doom was all about money, so his tech may have had shortcuts.
Well, the whole tech in the movie isn't anything like it is today. Surely Von Doom, though not Richards but also a genius, would have some AI running his ship.
Maybe so, but they were not on the shuttle. They were on the space station, so if the storm knocked them out, they still wouldn't have made it to the shuttle.
Only Ben was knocked unconscious because he was directly hit by the storm; everyone else had some level of protection from the station's shields. Sue was, in fact, alert, as we saw her eyes open when she was going to help Reed and Johnny after she was hit by the rays.
Answer: Johnny was not only awake but also the pilot; he flew the shuttle back and forth. Ben was co-pilot and did the heavy lifting only.
10th Oct 2025
The Boys (2019)
We'll Keep the Red Flag Flying Here - S4-E3
Stupidity: When Hughie is in the vents above Homelander and Sage and the others, Homelander realises he's there due to sweat dripping. He then proceeds to try and laser eye the vents in random spots, just listening to try and figure out where Hughie is. He completely forgets he has X-ray vision at this point and could just look through the vent to find him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: X-rays do not penetrate metal.
While it's true X-rays don't easily pass through thick metal, thin aluminum, like air vents, is partly transparent to them in real life, which is why aluminum filters are used in medical X-ray machines. Homelander's vision is fictional and modelled after Superman's, who can see through almost anything except lead. Since vents aren't lead and he's used this ability before, forgetting to use it here is still a valid mistake.
True, but I'd like to point out that Homelander can't look through zinc. Lead is fine for him. I'm not sure, but it might be possible the vents are made of zinc-coated steel. No idea how to find that out, though. He seems to be struggling more once Hughie leaves the vents, though, so he is further away than it appears. The second time he uses his eyes, he nearly gets Hughie too, probably sees him but misses. I dunno, the scene is dubious.
It seems pretty clear in that scene that the whole time he is just relying on his super hearing and listening to where Hughie is in the vents.
How do you know he is not looking? Like I say, the second time he fires his laser eyes, he nearly hits Hughie. He saw someone but simply misses?
5th Oct 2025
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: I actually have two questions. On the commentary for Back to the Future around when Doc breaks the clock tower ledge, Bob Gale mentions that the 4 on the clock is IV and not IIII. I just need a better understanding of how he is talking about it being a mistake. Is it really a mistake? Because I will submit it as a mistake. What kind of mistake would this fall under? Continuity, factorial error, plot hole, or other? If it's not a mistake, then I won't submit it.
Answer: Romans used both numerical styles for the number four. Romans used IIII for vertical lists, on stone columns, etc. It was supposedly easier to add the extra "I" rather than IV. For horizontal writing, the IV was used. Bob Gale is apparently referring to how old clock faces typically used the IIII instead of the more familiar IV. The clock tower in the movie was supposed to be 100 years old, so "IIII" is what should have been used in the 1800s instead of "IV," so that appears to be the mistake. As far as the type of mistake, probably "Factual Error."
Fun fact, my mom has a clock that uses Roman numerals, and the 4 is indeed IIII on it, not IV. If it is a mistake, it is one that is common and not unique to the movie. I think it is used in clocks traditionally since the Romans used to use it on their sundials.
25th Aug 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Question: Why is Claire upset with Franklin after he killed Dr. Wu?
Answer: He doesn't kill Dr. Wu, he tranquilizes him. And Zia was with him then, not Claire. Zia wasn't upset, just shocked.
My mistake. But why is Zia upset that she tranquilised him?
No problem. Like I said, she is not upset but more surprised by Franklin's actions. She squishes his face and smiles a few moments later when he frees her.
1st Jul 2002
Minority Report (2002)
Continuity mistake: In the beginning, when Anderton arrests the jealous husband, he notes that he is being arrested on April 22 - that day - for the future murder of his wife and her lover. Later, while Anderton is jogging, we see billboards advocating a "Yes" vote on pre-crime on April 22. The next day, Anderton's boss Lamar notes that the vote is in a week, which would make it April 15, making the day that the jealous husband was arrested April 14, not April 22. (00:13:05 - 00:15:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Chief John Anderton says April 22 is the birthday of the jealous husband, Howard Marks, not the date of the incident.
No, it's about the arrest itself where he says, "I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder that was to take place today, the 22nd at 0800 hours and 4 minutes."
9th May 2011
Revenge of the Nerds (1984)
Continuity mistake: Lamar's javelin that he's seen running with is flexible in the middle and not very rigid, however when the shot after he throws it, we see a solid normal javelin going through the air and visibly a different one altogether. (01:06:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is a specially designed javelin by aerodynamics master Wormser.
It's clear that it's two totally different props being used for the scene: one that Wormser desired and the other is a regular javelin that would actually work when thrown.
I don't see why it couldn't be the same javelin in the air; you still see it wobbling, but there is less curve because it's not bouncing around anymore in Lamar's arm. The javelin that touches down is the same too. It's completely the same design too.
Just rewatched the scene. The flexible section that Lamar is holding is close to a foot long where it's flexible in the middle. The airborne javelin has a grip section that's at best half the size of the one seen on the one Lamar is holding. It's two different props by that design alone.
13th Jan 2012
Beetlejuice (1988)
Other mistake: If the Maitlands cannot be seen in a reflection being ghosts, then Lydia would not have seen them in the attic window in her camera, as that uses a mirror to reflect the image through the viewfinder.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: However, when Lydia moves the camera away from her face to get a better look, she had both eyes open when using the camera (with her right eye looking through the viewfinder). This is a recommended technique to help get a perspective and keep one's focus on the subject. This means she could have seen the Maitlands with her left eye, the one that had a direct view of the window.
This is not how the scene plays out. She first supposedly spots them while looking through her camera, which then causes her to take a better look with the camera away from her face. She would have no reason to do that if she didn't see them in the camera, which, as we know, would not be possible given they do not cast a reflection for the mirror in the camera for Lydia to see.
Or, she just saw the curtain move and thought that was odd, then moved the camera from her face and realised there were 2 faces there. There is no indication at all that she saw them straight away.
A curtain moving from an open window is not odd. You're really reaching here, and her reaction indicates she saw far more than a curtain moving. She literally stops in her tracks and dramatically lowers the camera - the same camera that she had to her face she was looking through. Anyone who has used an SLR camera does not use two eyes open, as it is nearly impossible to focus and see things, given one eye would be zoomed in and the other would be unaided.
27th Jun 2025
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Does Marty end up in a loop? Since he saw himself vanish in the time machine after returning home, wouldn't that second Marty come back to 1985 and run to the mall to see himself vanish again? Thus, seeing himself vanish again only to return a week later and repeat the cycle?
Answer: From a single point in time, yes it's a loop. But no single Marty ends up in a loop. Marty goes to the past, has his adventures there, returns to the future, sees his past self go to the past, and then carries on living out the rest of his life. The "second" Marty returns, then the third, etc. Except they're all the same Marty, just seeing the same point in time over and over again.
You're right enough. Except they are not the same Martys. Each time a new parallel timeline is created. They all live a different life before going back in time. Each time a Marty returns, he sees a Marty who has lived a different life (although probably not as different as the first two) go back. In fact, the second Marty might not have succeeded. But the first Marty successfully took his place, so the timeline was not erased.
Answer: It seems that time travel in BTTF creates new timelines, rather than fitting into one single "master" timeline. However, it's hard, if not impossible, to give a definitive and satisfying answer to this and other similar questions, since the time travel rules are fairly inconsistent throughout the film and the trilogy. There are time travel films that try very hard to maintain logical rules and in which there is one single, unchangeable "overall" timeline (for example, "Time Crimes", an excellent Spanish film from 2007). BTTF and its sequels do not fit into this category; time travel is a device to explore the themes and characters, rather than a rigid and perfectly thought-out system. Since the time travel is merely a plot device, the filmmakers likely did not care about making sure it all added up in the end, so plot holes abound once you start picking it apart.
20th Jun 2025
The Thing (1982)
Corrected entry: The dogs get left alone in the cage with the new one, 'stirring' follows as it changes to the Thing, and they howl up a storm, as it cuts to Macready and keepers looking puzzled. Then heading to the dog pen to check it out, but seem too calm but concerned hearing the dog's cries as they flip on the light to see it attacking while Mcreedy stalls in firing the torch to kill it.
Correction: What exactly do you think they would be suspecting when hearing the dogs go wild and howl like that? None of the humans are suspect of the not-a-dog. They are huskies, probably not the first time they made a ruckus. When Clark goes to check on them, he is rightfully freaked out by whatever he saw and puts his own life above that of the dogs. Also, some dogs got out.
You are correct to a sense. They are huskies known for hunting/rescuing. But with the situation at hand, it just seemed poor timing in aiding the dog's obvious distress. I've been racing down that hallway in a panic that something awful had happened. And I did not see any proof that any of the dogs had escaped. The one that went chewing on the fence was killed when trying to get away, while the others either coward or got shot at or also maimed in the chaos.
I'd like to add that indeed the dogs do sound very much in distress, but when Clark comes to check it had only been a minute since they started. Adding to that the fact that Clark and the others are probably very tired and ready to go to bed, so a sense of rush probably doesn't come very quickly. But, when Clark reaches the gate of the kennel, the dogs strangely go quiet. Then, when he opens it, two dogs escape, seemingly unassimilated (however they managed that).
Correction: I don't agree with this, and the way it's written doesn't really feel like it's accurate to the movie. The dog seemed perfectly normal, and there's no way the team knew there's a "thing attacking" the other dogs. They were just barking... there could have just been an arctic hare that somehow got inside the kennel for all they knew. Clark shows up to investigate the commotion in less than 60 seconds. And the instant someone else hears it, an alarm is pulled, and things move rather quickly. At best, you could argue that Clark panicked and froze after seeing the creature, but that's not a mistake. Anyone would panic seeing that madness.
2nd Jan 2007
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Corrected entry: The centurion and the soldiers assisting with the crucifixion stress they are in a hurry because they have one hundred and forty people to crucify. They leave, and there are no more people waiting to be crucified, but there are less than twenty people crucified in the final scene.
Correction: They could well have other people to crucify in another area of the city limits. Just because they did not crucify them there does not mean they did not have more to do elsewhere.
Historically inaccurate. The Romans always reserved one area in each city they occupied for crucifixions. In Jerusalem, that was Golgotha. Crucifixions were highly public executions, and the Romans wanted to make sure they would be seen by as many people as possible, hence limiting them to one relatively small area. The posting is correct.
Golgotha (Calvary) is hardly a historical place, only referenced in the Bible as the place Jesus was crucified. But nobody really knows the location of it, let alone that it was the only or main place Romans crucified people. In a lot of places, the Romans put crucified people along roads, not in one single place, so that's not accurate either. It's a comedy anyway; a lot of things are intentionally wrong.
Watch the film again. The final shot starts wide and pulls back to show the whole scene. There are fewer than thirty crucified people, no more crosses in the ground, and the Roman guards have packed up and gone home. The posting is correct.
Correction: Again, watch the film. The last shot widens out to a huge, panoramic shot of the crucifixion site and the surrounding area. There are less than thirty people on crosses, no other crosses are seen, and there are no Romans in sight. The posting is correct.
18th Apr 2024
Fallout (2024)
Continuity mistake: This show has been widely declared as canonical with the games, by the makers of both this show and the games. The game Fallout 4 establishes the date and time that the bombs drop: Saturday, October 23, 2077, 9:47 AM East Coast Time. Which means it was 6:47 AM West Coast Time. That's a pretty weird time of day to schedule a kids' party with lots of guests and a hired celebrity cowboy.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They changed a lot of subtle things from canon for the show. Also, all games have got some inconsistencies between them as well. In the show, on the TV, there is a clock that says it's around 9:30 AM the first time we see it and 10:45 when they cut the cake, so it's close to the afternoon and not very early in the morning. The position of the sun confirms this.
So, if it's 10:45 West Coast time, that makes it 1:45 PM East Coast time. Would you carry on a birthday party if the other side of the country got nuked four hours ago?
The show is not taking place on the East Coast; it's on the West Coast in California. The show made it so it was 10:45 AM on the West Coast when the attack began. The attack happened all over the US simultaneously. This is not a mistake but done intentionally. You can call it a deliberate mistake. Definitely nothing wrong in the continuity of the show.
26th Apr 2021
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: When the SWAT team enters the Cyberdyne office (After Dyson grabs the detonator), they start shooting immediately. It's very unlikely that a specially trained police unit would do that as they didn't know if there are hostages or other innocent people inside. They hit and lethally wounded Dyson who was actually unarmed, he could have been taken as a hostage by the others. Instead of a mindless full scale attack, the SWAT should have secured the scene with flash grenades or tear gas first.
Correction: First off, what the SWAT team "should have done" is not a mistake. Second, police brutality is certainly a problem and was a bigger problem in the 90s. Third, these are cops going after someone who killed 17 police officers. They are going to do whatever they have to to take him down.
Police brutality and trigger happiness are not the same, especially not if we talk about a specially trained enforcer unit. Besides, later on, they faced the guy who they thought did kill those officers but still, they used gas grenades and told him TWICE to lie on the ground, before shooting him.
That part might deserve a spot in the mistakes, but your original point is still correctable. I agree with the correction, plus the Terminator had just unloaded on the entire police force with a massive machine gun. No one was hurt, but the cops wouldn't know he held back. To them, it's the same killer who killed 17 cops in a police station. They'd likely enter with orders to shoot on sight.
I would like to add that Miles Dyson was not unarmed; he was holding the detonator. Someone holding a detonator to a bomb is considered armed and would be taken out.
Answer: English, Arabic, Chinese, and Hebrew.
LorgSkyegon
It's Yiddish, and it means along the lines of "crazy." In the movie, they broaden the meaning to "mess."
What are you talking about? The question was what languages Beni was speaking in when he ran into Imhotep. Where do you get that Beni was speaking Yiddish or what it meant?
I think it's a mistaken reply to another question about the word "meshuga" that the curator of the library said.
lionhead