Do these mistakes include peculiar use of quotation marks?
There weren't any mistakes in this sequence. The link-chum circle is supposed to make us think there's something naughty in the background. Maybe a hanging munchkin. (Note: if the image is poorly sized, it's not my mistake. The blog software is responsible.) Not to say the movie isn't full of errors; this site counts 71 mistakes. For example:
Factual error: When the Griswold family are going to buy a christmas tree, they are in the mountains. There are no mountains near Chicago, where the Griswolds live.
Oh, there's more:
Continuity mistake: After Clark receives what he thinks is his bonus check, he says if there is enough money left over he will fly all of the relatives out to see the new pool. Everyone reacts with excitement, particularly Ellen, who is standing right next to Clark. She lets out a cry of excitement and raises her arms. The next shot is taken from the opposite point of view (from over Clark's shoulder). In this next shot, you can see everyone else still excited with the sudden exception of Ellen. She went from shrieking in excitement to having her mouth closed and her arms back down at her sides.
Who takes the time to notice these things? Who's going over "Christmas Vacation" frame-by-frame, taking notes?
Here's my favorite: "Continuity mistake: After Clarke falls in the bush, the gutter repairs itself."
MOVIES Chaplin's "Freak," the "masterpiece that never was."
After what turned out to be his last finished film, "A Countess from Hong Kong" flopped in 1967, Chaplin was distraught, but immediately dived into a new project, "The Freak", Smolik told AFP. The famous filmmaker wrote the synopsis for the story in 1969, at the age of 80, and worked on the project for another two years.
Why wasn't it made? Because he was old and his health couldn't take it. You get the sense that any work done on the film was intended to indulge him, to pretend there was a chance he could still work. Just as well. Latter-day Chaplin taxed the goodwill of his admirers, as this NYT review of "Countess" demonstrated. It includes this curious line: "Old-timers will know what I mean when I say that the title of this fiasco should be 'Up in Ogden's Room.'" The phrase generates two results in Google, both of which are the NYT review. It's probably that the critic - Bosley Crowther, if you're curious - is referencing some old sex farce from the silent days, or burlesque. If you could slip that reference into the Times, it probably meant something to enough of the audience. Now? Nothing.
Related: here's an art form that's tiresome and debased: the movie trailer.
I saw three trailers yesterday that were guilty of most of these cliches. Seeing a movie over the Christmas holiday? Prepare yourself for the FOGHORN OF DOOM.