Question: This 1978 comedy take on the Hound Of The Baskervilles featured a stellar cast of British comedy icons: Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Spike Milligan, Kenneth Williams and Terry Thomas. Yet it was not remotely funny and was a box office bomb. Biographies of cast members say the film was a low point of their careers, their acting lacks conviction, as if they know it isn't funny. So, why did they keep making this film, since, even when it was half completed, everybody knew it would be a total flop?
Rob Halliday
28th Jul 2022
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978)
3rd Jun 2015
The Ladykillers (1955)
Factual error: The Boccherini string quintet is actually scored for 2 violins, 1 viola and 2 cellos, not the crooks' line-up of 2 violins, 2 violas and 1 cello.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't really know anything about how string quintets (or quartets) perform, or how any group of musicians might prepare to perform a well-known piece composed many years ago. So maybe my answer is not valid. But would it be acceptable within the music community for a musical group to re-score a piece, so long as they remain faithful to the original? If two members of a string quintet said they were more confident and capable on a viola than on a cello, would the quintet re-score the piece accordingly? Is it acceptable for musicians to adjust a long-established piece of music? Another possibility. The crooks are not musicians at all. They pretend to be musicians, but this is only a "front" for a bank robbery they are planning. They maintain the pretence by miming to records. So is this a subtle joke?"Look, the crooks are pretending to be musicians, but they are getting it all wrong! They are playing the wrong combination of instruments. Ha ha!"
I asked a friend who belongs to a string quartet if you could re-score a quintet piece. She said this would be complicated, difficult, and more trouble than it was worth. So I must retract my suggestion that the crooks re-scored the Boccherini String Quintet. But maybe I am right with my other suggestion. The crooks are not musicians, but only mime to records. Thus, they use the wrong combination of instruments. This is therefore intended as a subtle joke.
16th Jan 2009
Carry On Cowboy (1966)
Audio problem: When we see the can-can dancers perform on-stage, the music is played by a full band including brass and drums, despite the fact that there's only a pianist on-stage. (00:22:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This error is not unique to Carry On Cowboy. It seems that in very many western movies (and TV shows) there might be a scene in a saloon, in which a singer or some dancers are performing on a stage. In nearly all such occasions they seem to be accompanied by a full orchestra which is nowhere to be seen.
This is not a valid correction. To say the error exist in other films does not invalidate this error.
Sorry, I think I got that wrong. I was not trying to invalidate the error, far from it! What I meant to say was that I agree that this is quite an obvious error in Carry On Cowboy, and that this also seems to be a common, and rather amusing, error in many other western films as well.
Unfortunately at this time, valid mistake entries are not subject to forum discussion where one agrees or discusses the mistake. Just give the mistake a thumbs up if you agree with it.
4th Jul 2020
The Long Ships (1964)
Factual error: At the end, Rolfe suggests to King Harald that they seek "the three crowns of the Saxon kings." But this lost treasure legend is a modern invention. In 1925 M R James wrote "A Warning To The Curious", which says that the Anglo-Saxon kings of East Anglia buried three crowns near the English coast. Somebody who finds one of these meets a mysterious, sinister death. The legend of the three crowns of the Saxon kings has since appeared in many books about English folklore. But there is no record of this story before 1925 and it is now believed that M R James invented it. Thus the story of the three crowns would not have been known to the Vikings.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First of all, you state "it is now believed that M R James invented it." So it is not known for certain if he did or not? And if it is doubted now, what about 1964? Something doesn't become a mistake if future discoveries contradict what was known at the time. And finally, whether it was a real legend or not is irrelevant. It is a legend in the world of the movie, just like the legend of the golden bell. If anything this should be listed as trivia.
Well observed, Sir! I concede that you make very valid points. In hindsight, I should not have submitted this as a factual error. I should have worded it as a question. I should have asked if Rolfe's closing lines about "the three crowns of the Saxon kings" alluded, directly or indirectly, to the M R James ghost story "A Warning To The Curious." Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I will have to agree that, if the golden bell is a real object in the cinematic world of "The Long Ships", then the legend of the three crowns of the Saxon kings can be an equally real legend in the cinematic world of this film. I am fully aware that films are not real life and that the internal logic of a film need not follow the logic of real life.
2nd Feb 2007
The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Factual error: Ramses' sphinx was established in record time. Given the time between Moses' leaving Egypt and his return, there would not have been enough time for that Sphinx to be constructed. If the movie had conveyed the 40 year span between Moses' leaving and his return, the construction of that Sphinx would have been probable.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is nothing in the film to indicate that Moses hadn't been gone for forty years or more. He looks younger than that, but many people lived longer in those days, so Moses might look younger than he really is. It is not stated in the film how many years took place between Moses' flight from Egypt and his return, so it is impossible to say whether or not it was less than forty years.
Modern research suggests it may have taken much less than forty years to construct the Great Sphinx Of Egypt. Archaeologists have spent much time trying to establish how long it might have taken the Ancient Egyptians to build the great monuments, temples and structures of Pharaonic Egypt, considering the resources, manpower and technology available at the time. This has also been examined by modern engineers who have practical knowledge of the problems that people might have been faced with in building such incredible structures. It is uncertain if there will ever be any fully accepted consensus, but there is now general agreement that the Ancient Egyptians were highly intelligent and might have been able to build these structures in a relatively short time. The website interestingengineering.com has a webpage about the Great Sphinx, and it, quite credibly, suggests that a workforce of one hundred people could have constructed the Great Sphinx in a mere three years.
17th Nov 2008
The Omen (2006)
Factual error: When Thorn tries to kill Damien he takes him into a church at night. No church in London would be open at night unless a service was going on.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Supernatural forces of good and evil have a vested interest in trying to save or eliminate Damien. Throughout the Omen trilogy it is implied that they might be on hand to subtly influence the course of events. Maybe God (or one of God's agents) unlocked the church door to help Thorn. Or maybe the Devil decided to wind up Thorn by letting him get into the church, only to make things go wrong when they got inside! but you DO lead ME on to something that puzzled ME. In the first Omen film the very young Damien is taken into a church (in point of fact Guildford Cathedral). As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into church. In later films he can enter religious buildings without any ill effects.
For a long time I have wondered about countering your observation on The Omen. I am 64 years old and worked for an organisation that takes care of historic churches. I also have pursued specialist historical research on churches, and visit historic churches for a hobby. I agree that, generally speaking, churches in London are locked at night unless a service or special event is taking place. Yet sometimes parish priests and church custodians can be very absent minded, and just leave a church door unlocked. Or maybe a late-night service is scheduled, so the priest leaves the door open all evening. I have gone around London and other big cities at night and passed churches, and, just for curiosity, tried the door. Sometimes I could gain access. So, all things considered, it is unlikely that a church in London would be locked at night after dark, but this is not wholly beyond possibility.
26th Aug 2018
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Question: At the end of the film Blondie, sitting on the horse, turns around, aims his rifle, fires, and severs the rope with a single shot. Lets face it, that rope would be a very small target, and difficult to hit with precision, even from ten or twenty feet, and Blondie is now so far from Tuco that he would no longer even be able to see the rope. Could anyone hit such a small target from such a distance with such incredible accuracy?
Answer: There's a show called "Hollywood Weapons: Fact or Fiction" which dealt with this exact question (s01e03). Blondie is roughly 200 yds away. In the show the host didn't hit the rope, but only missed by an inch on his first attempt. I definitely think an expert Sharps Rifle shooter could make the shot. The issue however, is the bullet would most likely not actually slice the rope apart as seen in the film (they fired the Sharps at point blank and the rope remained partially intact still). They also tested shooting a hat off someone and (as expected) the bullet just goes right through the hat without lifting the hat at all.
That was another thing that puzzled me. On several occasions in this film, Tuco is suspended from a rope, and Blondie cuts the rope by firing a bullet at it, (I think Clint Eastwood repeated the trick in "The Outlaw Josey Wales"). But if you fired a bullet at a rope holding a (rather large) person like Tuco (or a similarly heavy weight), even at close range, would it really sever the rope? I will have to look out for "Hollywood Weapons Fact Or Fiction." I hope they only used a dummy or a model to re-create the shooting feats. I don't think I would have liked to have been hanging on a rope while somebody fired bullets at me to see if this would sever the rope, or to stand there while they fired bullets into my hat to see if they could lift it off my head.
Answer: Probably not, but remember...this is a movie, a western at that and they typically have over the top action to excite audiences. Kinda like how it's impossible to shoot someone's hat off without harming them. It's all for show.
28th Jul 2018
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Question: Not just this, but every cinema and television adaptation of the legend of The Man in the Iron Mask that I have seen, without exception, has always left me asking the same question. A man is locked up in a lonely prison where his face is hidden by an iron mask. The Three Musketeers or some similar swashbuckling heroes rescue him. He may have worn the iron mask for weeks, months, or even years. So why is it, that, when the iron mask is removed he always emerges clean shaven?
Answer: The mask would be periodically removed by the prisoner's attendants to shave his beard and cut his hair. Leaving it on permanently and letting his beard and hair grow endlessly would create physical and medical problems, possibly even suffocating him eventually. The goal was to keep him imprisoned for a long period of time, not to execute him.
But isn't he wearing the mask so that nobody will know who he is? If the prison staff keep removing the mask to shave him and cut his hair then they will all know exactly what he looks like, and they will be able to identify him. In many versions of the story he has to wear the mask so that nobody will recognise him as the king's twin brother. If the prison guards remove the mask won't they see how he resembles the king? Alternatively, if the prison guards already know that he is the king's twin brother, then why bother to mask his face?
Anyone who was guarding and/or attending to the prisoner would be loyal to the king, acting as his agents, and sworn to keep his secrets. Not doing so would be treason. They would likely have minimal knowledge of who this person was, nor would it matter to them. They may or may not notice any resemblance to the king. In the prisoner's disheveled and weakened conditioned, it would not be obvious that he is an identical twin. Also, few people in pre-mass media times, knew what royals looked like, probably only catching occasional glimpses of them from far away, if ever at all.
Answer: In the 1939 version of The Man in the Iron Mask starring Louis Hayword, when the mask is taken off, he does have a beard. Phillipe even asks Louis how long it will take for his (Louis') beard to grow once he is in the mask.
10th Jul 2018
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Other mistake: Like most Sherlock Holmes films 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' is set in Victorian England: Queen Victoria even makes an appearance. Holmes and Watson go to Loch Ness in Scotland, where they see the Loch Ness monster. (Spoiler alert) it turns out that the Loch Ness Monster is not a living creature, but an experimental submarine. Like most people who would have seen the film on its release in 1970, they are familiar with the Loch Ness monster (even if they do not necessarily believe in it). But the first documented sightings of the Loch Ness Monster were only made in 1933. Nobody ever thought there might have been a monster in Loch Ness before 1933.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sightings and lore of the Loch Ness Monster date back over 1,500 years. In fact, the indigenous people of the region carved images of the monster into stone as far back as 500 AD. The 1933 hoax was certainly not the first time the monster was sighted; however, the hoax was inspired by the centuries-old Loch Ness legend, of which Holmes, Watson and everyone else would be well aware in the Victorian era.
The only carved images from that period are Pictish symbol stones, none of which are particularly associated with Loch Ness.
On the contrary, the Pictish "Drumbuie Stone" (recovered at Drumbuie Farm on Loch Ness in the mid-19th Century) depicts a large serpentine creature, very much matching traditional descriptions of the Loch Ness monster. Https://canmore.org.uk/site/12626/drumbuie.
Suggested correction: This is somewhat incorrect. The 1933 photograph that was published in newspapers may have brought the idea of a Loch Ness Monster to a wider audience, reports of a creature in Loch Ness (or Loch River) were around long before then. And just because the term "Loch Ness Monster" may have first been printed in 1933 doesn't mean the term didn't exist before then. In a fictional story surrounding fictional events, there's no mistake in bringing up a creature already rumored to have existed.
Well observed sir! I thought somebody might well say that. Maybe I should have gone into more detail. May I make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster in a Sherlock Holmes film, since Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' was an imaginary story. (Plus the film contained some intentionally comic elements, it was a bit 'tongue in cheek', so lets not take it too seriously!) But lets look at the history of sightings of the monster. The first sighting to attract widespread attention was on 22 July 1933, when the Spicers saw a creature near (but not in) the Loch. On 12 November Hugh Gray took the photograph you allude to. In 1934 Rupert Gould published the first book about it. You say that earlier sightings may not have been widely reported. You are quite correct! One D. Mackenzie said he saw a monster in the Loch in 1872, but did not tell anybody at the time. A sixth century life of St. Columba records an encounter with a 'water beast' in the River Ness. My point was that, in the film, Holmes, Watson, and most other people, are familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. (Spoiler alert again) : The 'monster' is an experimental submarine, which Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is helping the war office to develop. To stop people realising they were experimenting with new military technology, they would develop the submarine in Loch Ness, so anybody seeing it would think it was the Monster (to add to the deception they give it an artificial neck and head). My point is that, while most people who saw the film in 1970, and most people using this website, would be quite familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. So, whether or not they believe in its existence, they would get the joke (after all, the film was not meant to be taken completely seriously). In the Victorian era the Loch Ness Monster would, at best, have been a local rumour, not something that was known worldwide so it is doubtful that even people as undoubtedly intelligent as Holmes and Watson would have known about it. If they saw a monster in Loch Ness they would not say 'Oh, that's the Loch Ness Monster'. They would ask 'Whatever is that great big thing going through the water?'.
8th Jul 2018
Braveheart (1995)
Corrected entry: Some more errors about Princess Isabella: at the height of William Wallace's rebellion Edward I sends her as an ambassador to negotiate with Wallace (and spy on the Scots) instead she falls in love with Wallace. Princess Isabella was born in 1292: Wallace's rebellion was at its height during 1297-8, so she could have been no more than 6 at the time. (Somebody else has already observed that she was only 13 at the time of Wallace's execution.) Isabella's first language would (obviously) have been French, a 13th century Scotsman would speak either a heavily accented Scottish version of English, or Scots Gaelic, but Isabella has no communication difficulties in Scotland. The Wallace-Isabella affair is also absurd, since it is implausible that, at the height of a war, an unaccompanied young woman, let alone a princess engaged to the heir to the throne of England, would be sent into the heart of a war zone as an envoy and a spy.
Correction: Her age has already been marked as an error. As someone well travelled, Wallace knew several languages and as an educated princess, Isabella would have likely known several (and this could all simply be a translation convention). And the king admits that he knew of the danger, and hoped that if Wallace or his men killed her, her father the King of France would help him defeat the Scottish rebellion.
I concede most of your points, and, as you observe, if Isabella and Wallace can converse, this is 'translation convention'. Another error in the film that has already been marked: while the historical Wallace was a minor nobleman, Braveheart shows him as a common man, with no aristocratic or upper class traits, so the Isabella-Wallace romance forms a stock element of many romantic stories, a princess or prince defying social convention to fall in love with a lower class man or woman, entertaining as a story, but implausible in reality. And I think we agree that Isabella was only 6 at the time of Wallace's rebellion, so, in reality, she would have been far too young to have been involved in events.
First, both historical inaccuracies and things that you consider unlikely are not mistakes. Second, history is riddled with accounts of nobles having affairs with commoners and slaves.
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: The actors would have no control over whether a film should continue production, particularly just because they didn't like how it was progressing. They were under contract and paid to act in a movie, regardless of the quality and would be sued if they quit. Movies are financed by studios and investors who expect a monetary return on their investment. Even if the film's quality was considered poor, producers would base their decisions on making a profit or at least recouping the costs. Halting production would be an extreme last resort.
raywest ★
Thank you for your informative and interesting points. I read a biography of Peter Cook which said that when the film studio executives saw the finished film they realised it just was not funny or entertaining. There was reluctance to give it a cinema release, as it was thought it would not even recoup distribution costs. It was eventually given a limited release and it bombed. I saw the film once on television, even though I am a fan of many members of the cast, I was wholly unimpressed. I think most of the cast, too, were embarrassed by the film.
Rob Halliday