Just because the Ark turns out to be too dangerous for the German to control, does not mean that's a plot hole.

This literally had milking shooting out of my nose... because its true.

In The Departed, after Queenan's demise, why didn't Billy Costigan seek out Dignam (Marky Mark) before confronting Sgt. Sullivan?

As soon as Marky Mark confirms to Arrrec Barrrdwin that Leo was the Stateys' undercover, Maaaat Daaaaamon is finished. But nooooo. Instead, how's about we meet on the roof of the building from which Queenan was hurled, and invite an old buddy from the po-po academy who may or may not see right through the ruse.

How does Legolas never run out of arrows?

Tbf Leo said on the roof that the dude was supposed to bring Dignam with him, but yeah there were many ways he could have handled it less dangerously (though he was always covered by the letter to Vera Farmiga).

The whole mystery about "who's the undercover?" was already suspending disbelief by the tiniest thread among Costello's crew, but okay they're not too bright, Leo is Donnie Brasco-ing the **** out of em, fine. But when Baldwin/Damon/etc. can't figure out that it's probably the "new guy" who was a former state police applicant and joined the crew right around when the inside info started to pour in, it's like "ummm."

But despite that, The Departed holds up really well imo. Leo's performance (it's absurd that he got nominated for Blood Diamond instead of this that year), the tension is ratcheted into the stratosphere during so many scenes, the editing, the always brilliant musical cues, a genre thriller that also feels intimate. It still doesn't crack Scorsese's top 5 for me, but his pantheon is large enough to have room for this on it.

The mistake is that they didn't even need to find the Ark, just keep the Nazis from getting it. Once they discover they don't have the two-sided medallion and are digging in the wrong place, the *only* way they can **** it up is to start digging in the right place with like a 2-man crew.

But if you're nitting about plot holes in Raiders, you're watching it wrong.

You're right about them digging it up if they don't want the Nazis to get it! But I assume Indy can't walk away from the discovery of a lifetime.

Indy couldn't walk away from the discover PLUS they'd have to assume the Nazis will just keep digging everywhere until they find the Ark.



MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger plot hole is that the Nazi are running around ****ing prewar Egypt like they own the place, when it was a British protectorate. Could have fixed the entire hole by changing one word. If they're digging outside of Tripoli instead of Cairo, no plot hole (Italians controlled Libya).

This is Probably not a great movie per se, but definitely an underrated one.

In ice cubes The Players Club somehow the protagonist "Diamond" (and some bad guys too) gets away with going on multiple shooting sprees in public, and a public assault too. Say what you want about the late 90s LAPD, this just isn't realistic at all IMO.

Not a great movie but it's a fun watch. National Treasure

So Nic Cage has a falling out with this Ian guy who says he's going to steal the Declaration of Independence since Cage tells him the next clue is on it. Cage is like no way bro that's nuts and tries to tell the FBI and CIA and Diane Kruger that he has knowledge of a plot to steal the document and that they should take care to remove it or add security or whatever, since he's a historian and doesn't want it stolen, especially by Ian. He's a well spoken scholar but somehow nobody believes him because for some reason he tells them all about the code on the back and they think he's nuts. So now he is like F it I'mma steal that bitch before Ian can so that it will be in good hands. So then he steals it and gets outside (Ian is also back outside after his unsuccessful attempt). Alarms are going off and everyone still inside is locked in and checked. It's a huge deal and something that will lead them to amp up security from here onward. So Nic has done his job already - Ian didn't get the document and they of course now will take extra care to secure it. Diane Kruger is outside and even knows Cage has it so he can literally hand it to her and hop in the getaway van or quickly explain that Ian is a bad guy and point over toward Ian's van for proof that he's there (dude is climbing out of a sewer). Or, he can hop in the van and be like "I will contact you from a remote place - it's in good hands!" or some ****. I don't know. But the whole point is he's not a bad guy. So anyway once he gets the document and she's out there he's suddenly like F it I'mma keep this bitch since it's got the clue and go do some treasure hunting. Then he gives Diane the fake one and she gets subsequently kidnapped by Ian. At this point, Cage shouldn't give a **** since he should realize Ian and his henchmen will just let her go without harm once they realize her DOI is a copy. But no he's gotta go save her, even though she's gonna be super pissed now and still mad at him for having the DOI. So he saves her and shows her they still have it and suddenly they are a team now.

I mean I know it's silly and dangerous to just hand it to her outside and hope that the federal government doesn't press charges but at least they all knew of his attempts to warn them (which they ignored). It's also far less silly than to just suddenly decide to keep it, take the girl, and go treasure hunting.

Ahhhh. I completely missed that on both viewings. I probably would have watched it several more times (as I have with almost all Scorsese movies) if I hadn't perceived it to be so flawed. (Computer on lap instead of full attention.)

It did seem ludicrous Costello couldn't weed out the rat in such a small & tight crew, but suspension of disbelief and whatnot.

Thanks for such a cogent reply to my drunk and somewhat incoherent post.

I thought that movie was pretty damn silly. Way overrated. Certainly watchable due to all the stars and Marty but it was largely contrived convolution and unbelievable. Seriously how dumb does Jack Nicholson have to be to not know Leo is a rat.

Simpsons had a beautiful takedown of it:

"Who's the rat? My best friend for life, my other best friend for life, or the kid who just moved to town?"

I think it's being over simplified a bit.

for one thing they knew his family so he wasn't some random kid who just moved to town, family connections are huge it's basically the foundation of organized crime.

also if you remember there was another rat in the crew it wasn't just leo.

and most importantly leo accompanied them on some serious crimes and witnessed murders, normally you wouldn't expect an undercover agent to be left in for those kindv serious crimes for so long etc.

I mean obv he was under suspicion and rightly so and most likely IRL he would've been got, but the mob can't just operate on a "anytime there is a rat the newest guy goes" or they would never get new recruits.

not to mention sometimes being the new guy means the Feds have less leverage to flip you whereas when you've been around for years they have all kinds of stuff they can use as leverage to try and flip you.

They also tried to trap him when they pretended to use new guys for a certain heist that they gave Leo the details on, but he correctly read it as disinformation, so it never got to Damon.

And part of it was the deeper theme that Nicholson liked Leo more than Damon as a surrogate son figure, so let himself be deluded.

the bigger plot hole was the ppl in the elevator not saying anything while Damon held it up for 3mins flirting with the psych lady.

I know ppl in Boston are renowned for their manners but that seemed unrealistic.

That was indeed among the most unrealistic scenes in the movie. Both times I watched it, at that moment, I had a compulsion to yell, "Shut up, or get off the elevator and hit on that six out of ten on your own time."

Also, is "people" so hard to spell that it must be abbreviated ppl?

I actually enjoyed that scene. It was a good play on the typical meet-cute, it gave a Damon a chance to do what he does best, and the whole movie was about masculine posturing, so him big-timing two other schmoes in the elevator kind of fit the theme.

Edit - The consistently perfect pocket texting, though

In Walter Mitty... Jesus.

So Mitty is supposed to hand in the negative for Life magazine's final issue, or 25th anniversary issue or whatever the hell it is. He manages all the photo negatives and he can't find this one. He has some clues so he follows those clues and it takes him to Iceland where he tries to track down the photographer. He meets the photographer who tells him he gave the negative to Walter's mom. Walter's mom never ****ing told Walter about this. She just stuck it in his wallet without telling him. Even though he's going nuts and about to lose his job if he can't locate it. So he goes to tell his mom he needs the negative and she's casually like "I put it in your wallet", then Walter is like "I threw my wallet away, though." And she's all "Yeah, I [happened to] see your wallet in the trash and I pulled it out" then she hands it to him. FULLY AWARE THAT THE NEGATIVE WAS IN THE WALLET. And Walter is halfway around the world looking for something that was in his wallet without him knowing. SKJFP:LSGH:LSH:KSFHPKSFJH:LS^FJH:SFHSJKFSL:FH:SLJ WHAT!?!?!?? Why didn't he slap the **** out of his dumb mom immediately upon returning to America? What a bitch. And why the **** did Sean Penn give the negative to Walter's mom? Why did Walter not even look at it before turning it in? Why was it a picture of Walter? I mean come on.

Were you high while watching this movie? The photographer sent the wallet to Mitty as a gift. The negative was in the wallet. After not being able to find the negative or track down the photographer he is at his mom's house and throws the wallet in her trash can because he is upset. Mitty then finds the photographer and he tells Mitty the negative was in the wallet. Mitty has to tell the photographer he threw away the wallet. Mitty returns to the U.S. and was talking with his mom and somehow he mentioned not having a wallet. His mom then hands him the wallet with the negative inside and said she found it in the trash and likes to keep his niknaks. Hence the negative getting back to time.

yeah A... I think you completely missed not only the chronological structure of the movies storyline, but also it's meaning and subtext.

But I understand, not every movie is for everyone.

What's the difference here? His mom didn't know the negative was in the wallet. Read everything you just wrote and realize how stupid it is.

It was a neat movie to watch due to how it was filmed and the scenery but come on, we're supposed to believe the photographer is this careless with a negative that is so important that a guy is willing to travel around the world to find? Sean Penn knows both Walter and his mother. Why the **** would he be so careless with making sure Walter gets the negative? Stupid.

It was probably the best Papa John's commercial I've ever seen, though.

You are correct. It was stupid of me to explain what really happened in the movie so you could realize this is not a plot hole.

I mean to say the entire movie hinges on the fact that this idiot photographer gives Walter the prized negative without telling him. Stupid. Not a plot hole but more of a "this movie should have never happened because the photographer, who presumably wants his photo on the cover of the magazine, would do everything in his power to make sure Walter gets the negative in a timely fashion". But nope. He's gotta hide it in a wallet and present the wallet as a gift. He also later tells Walter the vague answer, which is "you're sitting on it". Instead of "dude, it's in that wallet I gave you. Hurry back home before you get fired."

But I guess Papa John's needed a creative commercial.

So, are you're saying it's not indeed, a plot hole, in a not great movie?