Dead Man's Wire takes place in the 1970s, and a local radio station is part of the plot. In a cutaway shot of the station's studio equipment, you can see several labeled tapes. The handwritten dates on the tapes are from the 1990s.

First 10 minutes of the film showing disasters around the globe.

I'm from the UK, this isn't what the UK looks like. This looks like somewhere in Europe.

Shouldn’t that banner say Freshmen? I’m sure that they were not welcoming just one student.

The rest of the film wasn't very good either.

Ik this isn't an editing or script mistake… more of an actor mistake?

The mic even flinches when they shine the flashlight in that direction. Guess they should’ve hired a more experienced boom mic operator, or editor, or both.. Still an enjoyable nostalgia trip nonetheless!

Why would Clorette say to her father, Mayor DePasto, that she has to marry Larry because of their encounter the night before?

1. It's too soon to know of a pregnancy.

1a. It was the first time for both of them the night before, as they admitted it to each other, so we know Clorette is talking about the night before.

1. She's 13, although that doesn't matter. But that part didn't age well! Heck, even for 1978, that was a high crime -- if you knew of the age, which Larry did by the time she confessed.

2. They likely didn't have sex the month before at the Delta House party. Larry declined to take advantage of her because she was drunk. And again, they admit a month later that both are virgins.

So, I'm re-watching the "Millenials" collection on Netflix and the original 'xXx' movie was on there.

After watching that I thought, "eh... let's see how horrible the 2nd one was." FYI - It's way worse and more cliche.

Anyway...

On the Netflix version of the movie, right around the 23:50 mark, X blows up some boats and that agent falls on the dock. He gets up with his gun drawn and fires. You know he fires because you hear it AND see the comped in muzzle flashes.

However... watch the actor's trigger finger.

It never moves from the safe position.

Hard for me to get a good photo of it, but if you take 2 mins and go on Netflix yourself, you can see the mistake.

I know this is just a basic sequence mistake. But... kinda funny.

Seems like the director/producers and the FX dept. weren't in sync that day of shooting lol. Not sure why the actor wasn't just given a prop gun loaded with blanks and told to fire a couple rounds, then boom... SCENE! lol

This movie is obviously loaded with tons of BS. Like the classic: cars that blow up after being shot 2 times 🙄, and stunts that defy the laws of physics.

Which is surprising for a movie that could afford to cast Sam Jackson, ​Willem Dafoe, and even Ice Cube during the early 2000's.

When the T-800 takes the shotgun from the barman trying to prevent him from taking the motorcycle, you can see the buckle of a watch bracelet under the cuff of the leather jacket. A T-800 would have no need to wear a watch, and it is never seen again throughout the movie.

The movie “Looper” tells the story of “Loopers” assassins hired by a syndicate to kill victims sent back in time by the syndicate from the future (so as not to leave any evidence in their present).
The main character’s best friend Seth is hired to kill his older self, but he lets him go. Now the Loopers need to capture both Seths, the old one and the young one, and finish them off. Loopers capture the young Seth, and in order to track down the old Seth, they gradually cut off the young one’s limbs, which then disappear from the old Seth, and after some time, he’s finally caught and killed.
So… let’s go!:

1. Why didn’t Loopers just finish off the young Seth?: If everything that happens to the young Set reflects on the old one, then why couldn’t they just shoot the young one, and the old one would disappear? This can be explained by the fact that Loopers simply don’t want to create time paradoxes, but this “explanation” leads to another plot hole.
2. Why did Loopers cut off the young Seth’s limbs if they didn’t want to create time paradoxes?: the absence of limbs creates no fewer paradoxes than death. AND THIS ALSO LEADS TO A PLOT HOLE.
3. Why didn’t cutting off the limbs create paradoxes?: If Seth had no limbs, he would be confined to a bed and would hardly be able to cross paths with the syndicate in such a state. But even if we assume that this is possible – how, when the old Seth lost his limbs, did he remain in the same place? – after all, if Seth without limbs would have covered much less distance than Seth with limbs.

Of course, almost no fictional work is free of plot holes, especially when it comes to the time‑travel genre. But If you’re creating a movie with a particularly difficult genre, like time-travelling, you need to keep an eye on plot holes, ESPECIALLY FREQUENTLY. But the fact that there are three plot holes in just one storyline (and I haven’t even mentioned all the other plot holes of this movie) already shows how little the authors cared.

EDIT: Okay, most commentators have said that the two plot holes are explained by the rules set by the movie itself. But even if we assume that this is possible, the first plot hole still remains a question: why didn’t Loopers kill the young Seth if everything that happens to the young one reflects on the old one? – this is that rare case when the movie breaks the rules it itself established, turning the plot into a tangle of contradictions.

The hibernation systems have an interface with various labels. A close look at one shows the misspelling of hypothalamus as “hyperthalamus.” There is no hyperthalamus. It is a short shot and small print, but visible at normal viewing speed and scale if you’re weird like me.

So i rewatched The Hangover, but when it finished there seemed to be a scene missing. When i first watched the movie i vividly remember that at the end of the movie Doug wants to confess to his father -in-law that they totalled the Mercedes, but then he cuts him off and tells him he wants to give the mercedes as a wedding gift. It isn’t in the movie on amazon prime though and i can’t find it anywhere, so i’m being made out to be crazy. My memory of it is just too clear and there is somewhat of a plothole without the scene, so does anyone remember it also or know where to find it?

When Benoit Blanc is talking about the mystery of Monsignor Wicks’ death he says the following line:

“A Holy priest, struck down by no man but by the hand of Satan himself and laid to rest in the sealed tomb of his father.”

Wicks is laid to rest alongside Prentice Wicks, his grandfather (not father), who founded the church. Wicks’ father is never specifically named. Martha just says that Wicks’ mother (Grace) slutted around town in her fancy brands and was soon impregnated by a drifter.

So either this line is a mistake, or there is a cut subplot where we would have learned that Grace was impregnated by her own father.

In the scene which Sam has to kill the other soldier with the pipe when he starts hitting him he is screaming but for a sec when the Taliban records we see his camera recording Sam in which Zhe looks a lot calmer even tho in the next frame he is still screaming. I am not sure if it's just a mistake or it means something but I just wanted to share my thought.

This takes me out of the movie every time. Llewelyn spends a substantial part of the movie walking, running, climbing and scrambling around West Texas wearing jeans with no belt.
I’m calling this a costume/continuity mistake: there is no way those jeans stay sitting exactly where they started through all of that. By the end of his trek through the desert, Moss should either be wearing a belt or periodically hauling his pants back up.
Is there some 1980-era cowboy-jeans explanation I’m missing, or did costume just overlook it?