Question: How did the bad guy have a gun on the flight? He pulls a gun in the airfield chase scene so he had to have it on the plane as he jumped off it.
Answered questions about specific movies, TV shows and more
These are questions relating to specific titles. General questions for movies and TV shows are here. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.
Question: When did Mason have time to write the note of the location of the secret stuff? He surely didn't have it on himself all the time due to the risk of being frisked and that it had no water damage.
Answer: He didn't. He told Goodspeed if he happened to be honeymooning near a certain church and look through a certain confessional booth, he'd find some information.
Not true...he hands Goodspeed a piece of paper with the location written on it. In answer to the original question, I think this can be classified as a mistake...Mason had some downtime during the mission (notably, when they were captured and held in the cells), but I can't imagine where he would have gotten a piece of paper and pencil to write the note.
Question: Karl was hanging more than 5 yards off the ground for more than 6 seconds, and nothing indicated he was alive. So who removed him from the chain to the ground, and how did he not die?
Answer: Well the obvious answer to the first question is he simply unhooked himself from the chain. And the second, his neck simply didn't snap. So he was hanging in such a way that he was still able to breathe.
That I find hard to believe because with what was shown he was not moving and had the appearance that he's dead.
Answer: Don't forget, Hans blew the roof up so the chain mechanism probably got blown up as well, meaning Karl would have plummeted back down to the floor.
Question: Why does everyone argue over the best way to remove Cersei from power with minimal civilian casualties when they could have just sent Arya to assassinate Cersei? Given her training with the Faceless Men, she could easily infiltrate the Red Keep and get the job done. On top of that, Arya wants to kill Cersei.
Answer: Daenerys and her allies don't just want to kill Cersei, they want to claim King's Landing and free her people from Cersei's grip. The problem is the people of Essos viewed Daenerys as a liberator but the people of Westeros view her as an outsider and usurper. They would never follow Daenerys if she had Cersei assassinated. That is Daenerys' dilemma, she certainly has the ability to wipe Cersei out and obliterate her armies but doing so would make her a tyrant. Which as it turns out is exactly what happens.
But no-one has to know that Cersei was assassinated. Arya has the ability to impersonate anyone she kills, so she could pretend to be Cersei afterwards and profess to the citizens of King's Landing that she has yielded the throne to Danaerys and that she is going into exile.
That plan would be incredibly suspicious. Knowing what they know of Cersei it is highly unlikely the people of King's Landing would believe that she would accept defeat so easily and then voluntarily exile herself, never to be heard from again. In order for that to work, all of Cersei's advisers and closest allies would have to be similarly eliminated, or they would have to be on board with the exile plan. If they are all killed it sort of makes it obvious that something is amiss. There's no way they would be fooled by Cersei suddenly doing a 180 and completely changing her personality by accepting defeat without a fight. If any part of this plan goes wrong then Daenerys would look worse than just an assassin, she would also be deceitful to the people she hopes will willingly accept her rule.
Question: How would Stone have known where she would land? Was it just pure luck that she landed in water and not on land?
Answer: She didn't. Thing is, the Tianggong station was deorbiting already, and the Shenzou was attached. She was re-entering the atmosphere whether she wanted to or not, and the fact that she landed on (or rather, near) land was just lucky.
Question: I don't understand what Henry is hiding from Paulie when gets out of jail? And also, why is Henry cheating, and does Karen know? (01:00:00 - 02:00:00)
Answer: Henry is hiding because he's become addicted to cocaine, which he knows will cause Paulie to consider him to be too great of a liability to the mob. Henry cheated on his wife simply because he was afforded the opportunity, and Karen was indeed aware of Henry's infidelity throughout most of their marriage, but she mostly overlooked it because she'd become too accustomed to the cushy lifestyle of a mob wife to risk giving it up by divorcing Henry; it's possible she also didn't want their kids to suffer through their parents' breakup.
Question: Why was the money wrapped up in aluminium foil?
Answer: When criminals transport large amounts of money, it is often wrapped in foil and plastic to protect it from accidental damage from liquids and fire. There is also an urban legend that wrapping it in foil will keep it from being detected by scanning equipment.
Question: Did Charlie ever work at the skate shop?
Answer: You can see Charlie working at the skate shop in the second movie, with Jan saying that he hired him because he was spending so much time there to avoid being around his stepfather.
Question: Why did the mom's boyfriend Ben adopt Joe? Shouldn't the minister have adopted Joe seeing as he was the boy's father?
Answer: For the reverend to admit to being Joe's father, meaning he not only had a child out of wedlock but knowingly abandoned him, would destroy him. Ben knew him and cared about him and would be able to take care of him.
Question: As we learned later that Lt Einhorn killed Roger Podactor, how did Einhorn get out of the big apartment after murdering him without being seen? The manager who is at the crime scene doesn't seem to recognize her.
Answer: The old lady said that she heard a scream and called the police. That could easily leave several minutes when she could escape through a back exit or merely hide in the building until after other police get there and said she just arrived. There is no reason to assume that the manager knows everyone who comes into the building, especially if she had only been there a few times.
Question: What was wrong with Rachel's sister Zelda? In the flashbacks it shows the older sister as having a twisted spine and being in bed. But what was wrong with her? Was she crippled?
Answer: In the original film, she has a condition called "spinal meningitis," which is an infection in the fluids and membranes around the spine and brain. The disease in real life can cause a range of effects including severe joint and back pain, weight loss, light sensitivity and even brain damage. The implication in both films seems to be that we're not really seeing the "real" Zelda, but more of a monstrous version of Zelda based on Rachel's memory as a child.
Question: Before firing the first barrel into the shark, Hooper attaches something that appears to be a locator beacon to the line. While this device is seen in some later shots it never appears to be used. What is the device and why was it never used?
Answer: I haven't seen the movie in a while but the script says it is a strobe light so the shark can be spotted if it surfaces at night. The climax of the movie is in daylight so the light of the strobe is not visible.
Question: Early in this movie while still in the USA, Gail says she can't support the research that the blood orchid flower can be used to renew youth for humans, which would make that flower the fountain of youth. Why can she not support the valid scientific research?
Answer: I interpreted it as "I can't support this claim the chemical will extend cell life" because she already said it was impossible. However, the way the line sounded when delivered off screen makes it seem like it was dubbed over different dialog. So someone may not have like what was initially said and had this in as a foreshadowing of her objections later in the film, or it was just a throw away line.
Nothing was stopping her from saying that before they left the United States so that is awful writing. She had no valid reason to think or expect that saying "I can't support this" would change the President and other persons minds after they saw a great presentation with images along with science research to substantiate the claim that the blood orchid flower could renew human youth like a fountain of youth. I assume by objections you mean she didn't want to continue to go through with the expedition after Ben was killed by a giant anaconda, also she gave some answer about evidence not being valid.
Question: At one point in the film, Joker says to his henchman Bob "You are my number one, and I..." I understand this is a callback to Carl Grissom saying almost the same thing to Jack Napier early in the film, but since he doesn't finish the sentence, what exactly did Joker mean by the "and I..." part?
Chosen answer: Actually he said, "you are my number one guy."
Question: I'm asking this as a question, cause I'm unable to determine if this is actually a mistake with the weird writing... or if I'm just missing something. Right after The Jackal kills Lemont, it cuts to the FBI in a room trying to piece things together. Witherspoon walks in and says "Here we go, sir. Eleven days ago, Charles C. Murdock bought himself a brand new Dodge mini van. Now, that was a big surprise to Mr. Murdock, whose passport and wallet were stolen 16 days ago at the Helsinki Airport." He says this to Preston and the rest as if this is brand new news, a new lead they have to go on and a break they've needed. But then Preston just looks at him contemplating this and immediately responds. "Anything from the border? We sent a description of the van to every crossing from here to Manitoba." Him saying this as if they had this information long ago and already had people searching for it. To me this doesn't make any sense with how either of those characters said their lines. Witherspoon has been with Preston and the others almost this entire time in on the investigation and would have known if they already knew about the van. And if the van was actually a new lead Witherspoon just found and was telling them. Then what Preston said makes no sense. So where is the error in this or am I just missing something? (01:01:35)
Answer: It seemed to me that they had a description of the van, but had not yet identified the owner. Witherspoon is saying the van was purchased with a stolen identity and therefore they still don't know who really bought the van.
But how did they even have a description of the van then? Up to that point it seemed they didn't know anything about a van. This is why i'm confused.
The film makers may have cut out some scenes that would explain it in better detail, but as it is, there's no mention when the FBI knew about the van. However, they did know the Jackal was using James' passport and flew into Montreal so they have been able to follow him, although they're always a step behind. I don't think it's a plot hole or bad writing though, but it certainly up for debate.
In the movie the Jackal (Willis) often changed the colour of the van, white, blue, red etc. So for a proper BOLO of a van especially in 1997 there are many (including currently) many colours of a minivan (family van) so the color it was sold as was changed and it showed him practising washing away one color over another and the last being red.
Question: Why did Sirius slash the Fat Lady entrance? and if it wasn't him, presumably it was Lupin, but again, why?
Answer: Sirius was attempting to break into the Gryffindor common room to find and kill Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail), who had been disguised as Ron's pet rat, Scabbers for the past twelve years.
Following on from this answer, when the Fat Lady would not give him access to the tower because he didn't have the password, Sirius (not Lupin) became angry and slashed the painting in an attempt to get her to open and allow him access. However, she still refused him access and then left the portrait, essentially sealing off the common room.
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.
Answer: Airport security in the late 1960's was not nearly as thorough as it is in present day. Metal detectors didn't become commonplace at airports until the early 1970's.
BaconIsMyBFF
It was the D.B. Cooper hijacking of a Boeing 727 commercial jet in 1971 that radically changed how airport security was handled. Before that, there was virtually little to no pre-boarding security checks.
raywest ★