Corrected entry: The volume of Jo and Bill's voices changes in the scene where he tries to stop picking up the Dorothy sensors that a tornado has already destroyed. When they're in the truck, they're loud probably because their dialogue was recorded in a studio later. When they're outside their voices aren't as loud because they were in the location.
TedStixon
9th Sep 2020
Twister (1996)
Correction: People's voices changing volume isn't really a mistake because it can easily just be that they stopped speaking as loudly for any reason.
1st Sep 2020
Halloween (2007)
Corrected entry: It can't have been 15 years since Michael's mother's suicide. Laurie was a baby, not a two year old toddler.
Correction: You're forgetting to account for all the time that passes between the beginning of the film and when Michael's mother commits suicide. There's specifically a nearly year-long jump between the murders and the sequences of Michael's incarceration at Smith's Grove. (The movie says "Eleven Months Later.") And then even more time passes before Michael's mother commits suicide. (As evidenced by the fact we see changing weather/seasons outside as people arrive at Smith's Grove.) So Laurie (who was a baby that was probably around a year old at the start of the film) was indeed a toddler by the time Michael's mother committed suicide. So the timeline checks out.
27th Feb 2020
Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)
Trivia: Scream Queen Linnea Quigley appears in the movie as a babysitter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How is someone being in the cast a piece of trivia? Unless it's something notable like one of an actor's earliest roles, or a final appearance, it's not really interesting enough to be considered trivia.
9th Jun 2020
Falling Down (1993)
Corrected entry: During the golf course scene watch the guy clutching his chest having a heart attack. He clutches the right side instead of the left.
Correction: It should also be pointed out that the clutching of the left side in a dramatic fashion is a Hollywood thing. Your heart is located in the center of your chest with just a small part of the heart on the left side, so often the pain will be in the center of the chest and radiate out.
Correction: There's no mistake here. He's having a heart attack. He's panicked and clutching his chest. There's no rule that you have to clutch the exact right spot on your chest while having a heart attack.
20th Aug 2020
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)
Corrected entry: The restaurant Nora's is a reference to Nora Shepherd from Jumanji.
Correction: Considering Nora herself is in the film, I think this is way too obvious to be considered trivia. The movie is very upfront about it being owned by and named after Nora.
6th Mar 2020
Candyman (1992)
Corrected entry: Although "Candyman" is the title character, he does not appear until 44 minutes into the film.
Correction: He actually appears earlier in the film - he's seen in the story that's told about the girl being killed. I believe that scene is in the first 10 minutes of the movie. He's only visible onscreen for about a second, but he's definitely there. His voice is also heard in the very first scene.
17th Aug 2012
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Gwen is grabbing the phone cable to not fall to her death, her father and boyfriend (Eddie) arrive. They see her, and show no sign of worry. Her father asks "What is she doing up there?", but doesn't react that her daughter is about to die. Eddie, who likes her very much, doesn't react either. What's wrong with these people?
Correction: There is not to much to do. The building is about to fall, and they only wait for someone to help.
Even if they were waiting for someone's help, it doesn't explain their behavior. They should have showed a lot of concern if they cared about her so much. How could they be completely sure that help would arrive? What would have happened if help wasn't coming? How could they react if she fell but Spider-Man hasn't arrived? There was also possibility that building would collapse much sooner than they expected. Since they care about Gwen very much, they should be very concerned or at least worried. Even if there was not too much to do, they should have tried to take some action if help wasn't arriving or if building was collapsing faster. This entry is correct. This is a mistake.
None of us can dictate how someone "should" act in every given situation. Her dad's literally just realised who it is, he's figuring out of the situation. What, you think he should be screaming and waving his hands around? He's an experienced police officer, well versed in staying calm under pressure. His reaction is entirely appropriate, and idle speculation about "what if she fell without Spider-Man saving her" is irrelevant. Not everyone in life panics over hypotheticals.
Maybe Gwen's father is well versed in staying calm under pressure but Eddie is not. At least Eddie should have reacted more intensely.
Eddie's portrayed as a complete and utter jerk throughout the film. Even after Spider-Man saves Gwen, he barely checks on her, only giving her a (very) half-hearted "Thank god you're OK" before turning his focus to Spider-Man. It's clear he doesn't really care about her as a person. Hence, he doesn't really react much to her life being in danger.
Agreed, his lack of reaction and indifference were done deliberately. Filmmakers wanted to hint to everybody how truly callous and heartless a person Eddie is, as he was very willing to photograph Gwen falling to her death. The movie's novelization takes this even further, depicting him as someone who actively hopes to find dead bodies and disasters to take pictures of.
19th May 2020
Spider-Man (2002)
Continuity mistake: Bone Saw had four valets during the wrestling scene yet during the cage match he's only got three at ringside, one of the two blondes disappears.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I just loaded up the scene. All four of them are definitely there during the cage match. There's even several shots where you can see all four at the same time.
30th May 2020
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Corrected entry: Considering Alice loses several fingers at the end it seems unlikely she could've ridden a motorcycle or used a weapon.
Correction: How is this a mistake? This is just pure (false) speculation on the part of the submitter. Just because she lost a few fingers doesn't mean she can't ride a motorcycle. I've seen people using them with only one arm! And she is still very capable of using weapons. She still has another hand, plus she didn't even lose all her fingers, so she could still use that hand for certain things.
Okay my bad. I meant to write she loses several fingers but is shown as having them all while riding away at the end. This would be a visible mistake. It was late night, I wasn't thinking properly. Thank you.
16th Aug 2004
Van Helsing (2004)
Corrected entry: When Dracula says "And perhaps the devolution of my ring." he shows that one of his fingers has been cut. Dracula's regenerating abilities should have made it grow back.
Correction: If the finger was lost before Dracule got killed and revived as living undead it would have not worked. The healing abilities only cure injuries which were inflicted after changing into a vampire.
Correction: The finger was not cut off. He simply held it bent at that moment.
He is not bending it. It's missing in that scene. Funny too because he still has that finger in previous scenes.
Yeah, if I recall, they even mention in the commentary that it's technically a mistake since he has all his fingers in every other scene. (I could be wrong though, but I'm pretty sure they bring it up when it happens).
6th May 2019
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Plot hole: At the end of Apocalypse the Umbrella corporation bombs raccoon City. It doesn't make any sense that they would do this with the entire Umbrella high command underneath the city, as we learn it is in this movie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Umbrella high command is far underground and safe from the surface bombing. There's no mistake here.
Really? The whole point of the bomb was to destroy any evidence of what happened. That includes the hive.
The point of the bomb was to remove any trace of the virus. Meaning all the inhabitants, dead or alive. Not necessarily the Hive.
Yes but literally the head of company in Dr. Isaac's is located there. It makes no sense that they would bomb Raccoon City because according to Final Chapter they wanted the virus to spread anyway. This film franchise is filled with bad writing, crappy continuity, and plot holes.
22nd Nov 2018
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Corrected entry: At the beginning the Red Queen said that the last human settlement will fall in 48 hours unless Alice releases the anti-virus, however when Alice does release the anti-virus (a few seconds before the timer ends) she says it will take years for it to reach around all the corners of the globe, this does not make sense and implies that the last human settlement will fall anyway.
Correction: I think you misunderstood what was happening. The human settlements were not being killed by the virus. They were being attacked by forces from the Umbrella corporation. The Red Queen explains in the final scene that once Alice killed Dr. Isaacs and released the anti-virus, she was able to take control of Umbrella and stop the attacks, saving the settlements.
That doesn't make really sense. What umbrella employees are left to do that? Also it's just bad writing.
The forces might not necessarily be Umbrella employees. They could be controlled creatures, clones or any of the other forces Umbrella has been shown to possess throughout the six movies. You can basically pick your poison, because Umbrella has been depicted as having near-limitless resources. Regardless, the movie does offer an explanation, and this particular mistake is incorrect because it is contrary to what the movie told us. Plus, like it or not, bad writing isn't necessarily a mistake in and of itself.
15th Mar 2020
Dracula (1992)
Trivia: The film earned over $215 million at the box office, making it the most successful adaptation Dracula adaptation in history.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
10th Apr 2020
Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)
Corrected entry: Gogo went in with white shoes. She dies with red shoes.
Correction: Her left shoe is red because the Bride stabbed her in the foot with the nail-studded table leg.
I just loaded up the scene on YouTube, and LorgSkyegon is 100% correct. Her left shoe looks red because it's stained with blood. But if you look closely, her right shoe is still white.
10th Apr 2020
The Dark Knight (2008)
Corrected entry: The way the Joker gets into the mafia capos meeting resembles the way Eric Draven did in The Crow.
Correction: I don't really think this constitutes trivia. Two scenes vaguely resembling each other isn't really all that interesting or notable. Plus, a character interrupting a meeting in such a manner is a pretty common trope used in a lot movies. I could probably name about a half-dozen other movies with similar scenes off the top of my head.
I agree. Without some correlation between the two films (same director, actor, etc), two similar scenes wouldn't be trivia.
6th Mar 2020
Parasite (2019)
Corrected entry: The landscape bonsai is a very heavy rock. When the apartment floods the rock floats to the surface. (01:37:25)
Correction: You missed the point of the scene. The rock floating implies it's a fake reproduction. It was never real. It's kind of a microcosm of the whole story. It's supposed to bring good luck and wealth, but it's hollow and fake. Just as the Kim family's attempts to move upward and find wealth via the Park family ends up backfiring and meaning nothing in the end because it all goes to hell. (SPOILERS: The fact it's a fake also helps explain why it doesn't kill Ki-Woo when he's beaten over the head with it).
Oh. OK. But then why when it is originally found it is at the bottom of the water and not floating? At least that is what I remember. I could be wrong.
Simple answer: It's much more cinematic for it to be underwater and then rise to the top, revealing it in a dramatic way. It gives the reveal of it being a fake more impact. If he just randomly saw it floating, the moment wouldn't work as well. (But I'm sure you could also make an argument that it's being pushed around by all the debris floating around, the current in the water, etc. and it got pulled under for a few seconds).
I agree with you, but up to a point. I was referring to the fact that when he first got the rock he got it from the water and he got it from the bottom. Or am I remembering it wrong?
The mistake is 'deliberate' by account, because, quoting a page that is based on what the actor playing the son says; "In the script, the rock didn't originally float," Choi recalls. "But when we were shooting, director Bong was like, 'You know, I think it would be better if the stone floats up through the water.' I remember thinking, 'Whoa. What?' ", On the other hand, I wouldn't really extend this alleged bit of symbolism in one shot, to infer properties of the rock on other than that single scene; the rock has always been presented and described as heavy, and not the foam prop that it is, and if it were hollow the characters would have noticed and made it apparent earlier. Not even the director and commentators of this particular bit support this. As you say later in the discussion, it's just "more cinematic" to do so but it I don't believe there is reason to paint it as a reveal. Therefore I'd say this should not be corrected but rather changed as 'Deliberate mistake".
I'll agree with this. Thanks, Sammo.
12th Nov 2008
Black Rain (1989)
Revealing mistake: Watch Andy Garcia's decapitation scene. His head starts to come off before the sword makes contact with his neck. Slow motion helps but is not required.
14th Jan 2020
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Factual error: When Boris jumps out of Lunar-Max, you can see a complete Apollo Lunar-Module (LM). The LM consists of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage. We can see both, obviously the Ascent Stage was never used. That doesn't make any sense, because the Apollo Astronauts need to use/"consume" (climb in and "fly" away) the Ascent Stage to leave the moon.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It could just be a copy of the original. For all we know the lunar landing was staged in this world.
This is far too much of a stretch to be a valid correction. What reason would there be to put a copy there? Also, the Apollo 11 mission to the moon absolutely having to happen is literally a plot point.
The men in black have shown to use alien technology for many of the things they do. This could include the Lunar-Max prison. I agree the lunar landing is a plot point and thus probably true, but why not make a replica in front of the prison as a monument? It doesn't have to be built right next to the site of the first lunar landing. Seems a bit silly to me.
Remember, one of the site's rules is "don't just try to think of an excuse" when correcting entries. Nothing in the film suggests it's a monument, therefore suggesting it's one to try and correct the entry is not valid.
I look at if it's plausible. I guessed since in this universe humans have access to advanced technology the moon landing seems to be more of a coverup for something secret or simply a staged thing. I think this because in MIB 1 they show the world expo observatory towers were in fact real spaceships and they had been there since 1964, so they already had spaceships before ever going to the moon. Again, though, its not relevant to the mistake. It's also obvious with the prison on the moon that they have been there multiple times and thus changed a lot. Building the prison in front of the landing site is again a bit strange so therefor I think it's just a replica, to show visitors. It's not impossible so it can hardly be called a mistake, just something that isn't explained. I'm not making excuses, there may not be actual evidence that it is a replica, but there is no evidence it is the real landing module either.
I don't understand how the Men in Black using alien technology has anything to do with this entry. Regardless, nothing in the film suggests that the capsule is a monument. It's even roped off, much like museums often rope off actual artifacts.
19th Jul 2019
Spaceballs (1987)
Corrected entry: When President Scroob is beamed to the next room, his head is on backwards. When he pulls away the back of his coat and says, "Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?", his hands are angled like they are backwards as well. His palms are pointing towards his back. They should be facing the other way, as well as his thumbs being reversed.
Correction: The crew remarks that his head is on backwards. It doesn't mean his entire torso can't also be backwards.
To be fair, they even admit this was a mistake on the Blu-Ray edition of the film. (There's a special feature that points out various flubs.) It was really only meant to only be his head that was reversed.
Well, I think you could argue that it may have been a mistake as far as the filmmakers' intent was concerned, but it doesn't necessarily translate to mistake with respect to the scene itself. Technically, Skroob's head was on backwards. Nothing any of the characters said contradicted that.
25th Jan 2004
Red Dragon (2002)
Corrected entry: Why does Dolarhyde's house explode suddenly when it's on fire? It's not as if he keeps vats upon vats of chemicals or gases in there. It's just a cinematic effect to look cool. It should just keep burning steadily without exploding.
Correction: While the other correction isn't valid (something from the book can't explain away a movie mistake), it's entire possible that a gas line in the house went off in the blaze. That has happened in real life, and it can be pretty dramatic.
Correction: In the book, his safe is full of explosives. I can't recall if there was some visual reference to this in the movie.
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: It's common in movies for audio - especially dialogue - to be boosted or lowered depending on the needs of the scene. (Ex. In this case, the voice-over audio being boosted while they're in the car so the audience can hear them when they wouldn't otherwise be able to - we're basically hearing the conversation in the car from outside.) A filmmaking tactic such as this can't really be counted as a mistake because it's a common and necessary requirement in filmmaking in order to convey the dialogue, and is used countless times in just about every film. Nothing about it is technically a "mistake" per se.
TedStixon