Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
remove error
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John (always called "first John" to differentiate it from "John"). It may be an error, or it's to show how scatterbrained or unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is. (1 John 3:8 is "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.")
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.
to:
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John (always called "first John" to differentiate it from "John"). It may be an error, or it's to show how scatterbrained or unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is. (1 John 3:8 is "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.")
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.")
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
clarification
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.
to:
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John (always called "first John" to differentiate it. it from "John"). It may be an error, or it's to show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.is. (1 John 3:8 is "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.")
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Add more fridge logic
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods. (However, one suspect had an equally flimsy alibi and did confess he found the victim but didn't report it, while a convicted sex offender had no alibi, so the actual murderer wasn't cut-and-dried.)
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguable the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguable the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.
to:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). A) the weakest alibi and B). B) the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods. (However, one suspect had an equally flimsy alibi and did confess he found the victim but didn't report it, while a convicted sex offender had no alibi, so the actual murderer wasn't cut-and-dried.)
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away fromarguable arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.is.
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from
* FridgeLogic: The murderer's "confession" is no such thing. All he says is that he "knew" she wasn't dead for real, but maybe he went into denial at the victim's death, so when she turns up "alive" he feels vindicated for suspecting she wasn't dead. That's pretty far from admitting to murder.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods. (However, one suspect had an equally flimsy alibi and did confess he found the victim but didn't report it, while a convicted sex offender had no alibi, so the actual murderer wasn't cut-and-dried.)
to:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods. (However, one suspect had an equally flimsy alibi and did confess he found the victim but didn't report it, while a convicted sex offender had no alibi, so the actual murderer wasn't cut-and-dried.))
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguable the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.
* FridgeLogic: The religious nut, during interrogations, quotes John 3:8 as, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning". Not only is this wildly wrong (it's "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.", which vaguely fits the psychic part of the movie), but is only a few lines away from arguable the most famous verse in the New Testament, John 3:16. He (or the writers) seems to have confused it with 1 John, always spoken as First John to differentiate it. It may be an error, or show how scatterbrained or actually unlearned in the Bible the religious nut is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods.
to:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods. (However, one suspect had an equally flimsy alibi and did confess he found the victim but didn't report it, while a convicted sex offender had no alibi, so the actual murderer wasn't cut-and-dried.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the eventual murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods.
to:
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the eventual murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* FridgeBrilliance: Granted, this doesn't redeem the movie but having the movie bear a misleading title mirrors Dr. Krasker's theatricality and misdirection which, in the movie, is enough to bluff the murderer into a confession. It helps that he really does believe in his research. There's even some ambiguous dialog with the police about Krasker using his "unorthodox methods" to help them solve crimes in the past which, on second viewing, suggests that Krasker is willing to regularly take advantage of his reputation to long con criminals. It might even explain where he's getting the funding for his "research."
to:
* FridgeBrilliance: Granted, this doesn't redeem the movie but having the movie bear a misleading title mirrors Dr. Krasker's theatricality and misdirection which, in the movie, is enough to bluff the murderer into a confession. It helps that he really does believe in his research. There's even some ambiguous dialog with the police about Krasker using his "unorthodox methods" to help them solve crimes in the past which, on second viewing, suggests that Krasker is willing to regularly take advantage of his reputation to long con criminals. It might even explain where he's getting the funding for his "research.""
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the eventual murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods.
* FridgeLogic: Considering the fact that the eventual murderer had A). the weakest alibi and B). the strongest motive, which the police had already discovered that he had lied about, there really was ''no point at all'' to the elaborate trap that Krasker came up with, since it seems pretty clear that they could have gotten the man with ordinary police methods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* FridgeBrilliance: Granted, this doesn't redeem the movie but having the movie bear a misleading title mirrors Dr. Krasker's theatricality and misdirection which, in the movie, is enough to bluff the murderer into a confession. It helps that he really does believe in his research. There's even some ambiguous dialog with the police about Krasker using his "unorthodox methods" to help them solve crimes in the past which, on second viewing, suggests that Krasker is willing to regularly take advantage of his reputation to long con criminals. It might even explain where he's getting the funding for his "research."
