I haven't read the novel, I am just basing the question off of what I saw in the movie.  Don Corleone orders Luca Brasi, one of his most trusted muscle men, to infiltrate the ranks of a rival family and gain their trust and information.  The opposing family would have surely known about Luca, and his strong affiliation with the Corleone's.  Any word otherwise would be laughable, given the circumstances.    He is not a particularly smart man, and by no means is he well spoken.  We see him preparing a very short speech, for a relatively long time, and then fumbling over his words wishing the Don and his daughter good tidings on her wedding day.  I see Luca as more of a loyal meathead/hitman than a cunning spy, so I feel like this was either an exceedingly dumb move by Don C, or he wanted Luca out of the picture for reasons that are beyond me.  Why did Don Corleone essentially send Luca Brasi to sleep with the fishes?
122271
Can anyone tell me why Vito would send Luca to Tattaglia's night club under the ruse of being a traitor in The Godfather? The relationship between Vito and Luca must have been well known in the mob community and Vito would have known that. Are you going to tell me that Vito didn't consider the fact that Tattaglia wouldn't buy that his story of being unhappy with the family? If Vito is as sharp as they would have us believe, why then would he send his most trusted soldier to his death? I believe this is a flaw in the plot.
53410
In Looper, it is established that permanent physical harm to a young looper will instantaneously affect the old version of the same looper. For example, a looper can send a message to his older self by permanently carving it in his arm.  I assume Abe and his gang know about this. Why is it, then, that in Seth's case:      when the killers capture young Seth, they torture and mutilate him in order to force old Seth to come to them, then end shooting him up? Wouldn't simply killing young Seth get rid of both Seths? Is the torture simply sadism?   We know the above will happen, since something similar happens later in the movie. And if Joe, who is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed, can figure it out, surely Abe must also know it?
41105
I know he's supposed to be an evil super-genius, but the Emperor seems to lack common sense here.  He sensed that Vader's feelings about Luke weren't clear pretty early on, and while he was using Force lightning on Luke, Vader was doing the exaggerated "Look at Luke, now look at the Emperor.  Look at Luke, now look at the Emperor" thing for a good 15 seconds or so.  Granted, the Emperor had little peripheral vision with his hood on, but Vader can't turn his head without also turning his torso to some extent, and someone with the Force should be able to tell when someone in the room is moving.    EDIT:  I just found out that the 2011 Blu-Ray edition has  while the Emperor is using his Force Lightning on Luke.  This makes the Emperor's obliviousness even harder to explain.  Why does it seem like it never occurred to him that Vader might react badly to seeing his son being brutally tortured to death in front of him?  Why have Vader stick around to see that?
101420
I read it a long, long time ago, I think it was just a short story.  The plot was that society had lost it's way, accepting that everyone was equal, and therefore no advances were being made, as smart people just 'pretended' to align with the mediocre.  One guy decided this was not good, and fashioned himself into the ultimate bad guy, triggering society to change to recognise greatness/intelligence where it arose. Eventually society recognised that some people were better than others, in some ways, and scientific advances were made.  In the end I think he climbed into an engine nozzle, so he'd be entirely destroyed and no one would know what happened to him.
15600
During the demonstration of the ED-209 in the boardroom, the ED-209 was loaded with live ammo. As we see in the movie, this turns out to be a bad decision and it goes horribly wrong.  But why was the ED-209 loaded with live ammo in the first place?
101087
So the billionaire in Inferno leaves a crumb trail all the way to the inferno virus so his followers can find it e.g. Siena. And Siena even says she's going to protect the virus to ensure it goes off because people are looking for it. However, the people looking for it are only able to find it, as is Siena, because of the trail Zobrist left.  Why did he leave a crumb trail? It doesn't make sense. Nobody would have found it if he didn't. Just time the device to go off. Most likely, the WHO characters in the film wouldn't have even known without the Faraday pointer...   Am I missing something?
20259
I have been reading Men With Brooms for a few days. I read a sentence which did not make any sense to me, so I landed here to get some help on it. I have pasted the sentence from the novel. Please go through it and let me know your valuable feedback on it.  An excerpt from the novel (Men With Brooms: A Sweeping Epic, paperback 2002, a novelization by Diane Baker Mason):     Gordon was about to walk away from the Impala when he saw it stop and his son get out. So it was real the boy had come.   As per my opinion it should have been:     Gordon was about to walk away from the Impala when he saw it stopped and his son got out. So it was real the boy had come.   I have two questions here:   Why did the writer use stop and get instead of stopped and got? As she is telling us a story which happened in the past. Let's say the writer is telling us her mind's situation and she used the present tense for it but why did she use stop and get instead of stops and gets?
105630
I understand that as Harry can speak and understand Parseltongue, he could hear the Basilisk's voice from through the walls.   (So, people who can't understand Parseltongue would hear it speak, as a hiss.)  But, when a basilisk is speaking, it means that people who aren't Parseltongue should hear a hissing sound?   Then, why didn't Ron and Hermione hear the hissing sound, even though when they are straining their ears to hear one?    Some points to keep in mind:   The basilisk spoke only to Harry, as it's on a mission. So, it might not have even hissed apart from the two occasions when it spoke(or inform?) to Harry through the walls/pipes. []
118490
In episode 3 of “Bodyguard,” Tahir Mahmood steps onto stage at St. Mary’s college as the Home Secretary is speaking and the two of them, plus others, are blown up by a bomb. In the next episode we discover that the stage had a weight trigger and that his arrival set it off. This heavily implies that whoever asked him to go on stage was affiliated with those who planted the bomb.  We know that Mahmood was sent on stage by advisor Rob Macdonald as part of a scheme, together with other members of the home secretary’s staff, to embarrass her. The audience knows that some of the people in on this scheme have been plotting with the U.K. security services. This, together with interference in video recordings of the event, characteristic of the security services, implicates the security services in the assassination.  In the final episode it is revealed that the bomb had been set by members of an organized crime gang who had gotten the explosives from an Islamic terrorist. A senior member of the police force had been helping them by leaking information. So, were the security services involved? If so, why? If not, who got Mahmood to go up on the stage? Was it just coincidence that he went up there at the right time?
32127
From what I recall from the movie, Daniel only finds the seventh symbol... however when he explain they give way to show him the star gate and they put their sequence in the dialing computer. This proves the dialing computer was prepared to dial 7 chevrons.  It’s also stated they’ve also tested the 6 previous symbols in the order they appear on before, one has to assume only to fail when they insert the 7th, making them aware of the fact you can, at least dial 7th chevrons.  With 39 chevrons on the gate and 6 already locked in, that leaves 33 to try to get a lock. Those are not that many not to go and simply try one by one so... how come nobody brute forced the thing?
61802
In the movie, Newt reveals that the beast attacking New York was actually an Obscurus, which he explains is      a burst of dark power that manifests in witch or wizard that represses their magical power.   Now, he goes on to explain that      The oldest known Obscurial was 10 years old, but they're usually younger.   If this is true, why then      did Harry Potter or Hermione Granger not develop an Obscurus? They were not even aware magic existed until they were 11. My only thought would be that they didn't actively repress their magic, just didn't know what it was.   I don't know if there was any more detail given in a companion novel, Pottermore or the book itself, but on the wiki it made no mention of details other than was given in the movie. Are there any additional rules that would explain why this doesn't happen more often?
28790
In the beginning of the first movie, in the first conversation, between Cypher and Trinity, he says:     Cypher: We're going to kill him, understand?   Trinity: Morpheus believes he is the One.   Cypher: Do you?   Why did Cypher said that? Was it a habit to kill potential red pills? Was Neo considered to be a threat, so he needed to be killed if he was not the One?
83250
I'm talking about the movie  Spoilers ahead.  Walter (Daniel Radcliffe) gave the task or blackmailed the Four Horsemen to steal a chip from a lab which can access any digital device. So they did steal the chip. And when they rescue Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) from drowning in the water, Jack Wilder said that the chip is fake.     Jack: Wait something is not right.      Atlas: What's wrong?      Jack: It's fake.   Then they assumed that Walter did not know that the chip is fake. So they came with a plan to bluff. They pretended that they had the real chip. After they got caught by Walter, they gave the fake chip to Walter. Walter checked the chip and declared it as real. The Four Horsemen were surprised.     Walter: I'm sorry to interrupt. But I have to say congratulations and   thank you. It's real.      Lula: What? It's real!!!!!      Atlas: What? Is it real?      Jake: What is he talking about?   What happened? I didn't get it. What did I miss? Was the chip real? Was Walter pretending it to be real? If so, then why? If not, who switched the real chip with the fake one? Who had the real chip before?
13995
During Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort tries his best to lure Harry to the Ministry so that Harry retrieves the prophecy for him. In the aftermath, while Harry follows Bellatrix towards the exit, he raises a valid question:  ”Why couldn’t he (Voldemort) come and get it (the prophecy) himself?”  This is a valid question, the prophecy is labeled as referring to the Dark Lord and maybe Harry Potter. Only those mentioned can retrieve the prophecy, so Voldemort should have been able to get it, assuming he is the Dark Lord of the prophecy. Bellatrix gives a good answer:  “Get it himself?” shrieked Bellatrix on a cackle of mad laughter. “The Dark Lord, walk into the Ministry of Magic, when they are so sweetly ignoring his return? The Dark Lord, reveal himself to the Aurors, when at the moment they are wasting their time on my dear cousin?”  Despite the cackle of mad laughter, the reasoning is sound, Voldemort didn't want to reveal himself. Yet he does exactly that when he appears in the Ministry and is seen by the Minister himself, and he exposes himself for no gain. Bellatrix may or may not have been able to escape without his help, but he couldn't know that before he came, and his other followers that were captured were freed again a few months later, so it wouldn't have mattered much, he would have freed her, too. So why did he go to the Ministry and reveal himself?
56935
Towards the end of the movie, we see  in an apartment full of dead bodies. He ends up confessing what he's done to his lawyer. Later he goes back to the apartment, only to find the bodies are all gone. What happened to the bodies?
63552
There is the following sentence in the scene a reputed lawyer, Thomas Cohen gives advice to 16-year old client William Kane, the son of deceased bank owner on the issue of inheritance of his father’s property in Jeffery Archer’s popular fiction, “Kane &amp; Abel.”     “Mr. Cohen continued. ‘The answer to your second question is that you   have no personal or legal obligation to Mr. Henry Osborne. Under the   term of your father’s will, your mother is a trustee of his estate   along with a Mr. Alan Lloyd and a Mrs. Millie Preston, your surviving   godparents, until you come of age at twenty-one.’"   I wonder why it is a Mr. Alan Lloyd and a Mrs. Millie Preston. Here Mr. Alan Lloyd and Mrs. Millie Preston are too obvious to both parties concerned, and different from the case of being told by your secretary, "A phone from a Mr. Smith Brown.”  What significance is added to by prefixing ‘a’ to the name in this particular case?
29566
In Hitchcock's Vertigo, there is one part of the film that has never made sense to me and I believe that it was a cheap ploy to mislead the audience until the ultimate reveal (I won't spoil it here).    In this scene Jimmy Stewart watches Kim Novak enter a rooming house and afterwards sees her standing by the window on the 2nd floor.  When he enters the house and talks to the inn-keeper, she tells him that Kim Novaks's character positively never came in and even shows him her room key that is still behind the front desk.  They go up to the room and find it empty.   This scene seems to imply that the Kim Novak character may have had a ghost like quality. But given the reveal at the end she clearly does not and there was no way for her to enter the room without a key and without being seen by the inn-keeper.  If this was done by some other director I probably wouldn't have given this much thought but Hitchcock was a perfectionist (especially for this film) so I never understood the significance of this scene other than to mislead the audience (with a cheap ploy IMO).  Does anyone who is familiar with this film have a different explanation/perspective about this scene in an otherwise brilliant movie.