I'll say one thing for it, though, I can't think of another movie that actually activated my fear of extreme heights.

Uh-huh.

I'll say one thing for it, though, I can't think of another movie that actually activated my fear of extreme heights. The last bit had my heart going a mile a minute.

The otherwise-okay-as-long-as-you-forget-it-has-anything-to-do-with-Asimov's-novels I Robot triggered my extreme heights fear, as did PJ's Kong.

In Kong, it was because Naomi is up on that tiny little disk of space at the very top of the building, and keeps getting knocked around.

In I Robot, it was because of the spinny-cam thing they did during the climactic fight on a catwalk several hundred feet off the ground.

I'm not sure why I saw Cliffhanger (the Sylvester Stallone rock climbing movie), but just typing about it now makes my palms sweat. Yikes.

I love Cliffhanger, dude.

It's Die Hard on a mountain!

Cliffhanger was silly and stupid.

In a fun way, but still silly and stupid. Plus Janine Turner!

Aw, now I'm missing Northern Exposure all over again.

I haven't seen Juno but I agree with the above posters that when you have some knowledge about whatever subject a movie is about, you're almost invariably going to have problems with believability.

People who know a little bit about fire protection get yanked out of a story every time someone holds a match up to a sprinklerhead and the whole floor goes off.

It drives me nuts whenever someone who is chasing or getting chased through New York spots a carriage horse in central park and in two second flat converts it to a saddle horse.

Anyone else have some pet peeves when it comes to movie vs. reality?

My pet peeve involves movies set in the past. It drives me crazy when they get the culture wrong.

A lot of the early talkies do this. The story will start during or just after WWI. But the clothing styles are early 1930s. Which wouldn't be nearly as bothersome if women's hemlines hadn't climbed by about a foot during that time.

And while I can't think of an example offhand, I react worst when it's done with music. If you're setting your movie in the '80s, your soundtrack shouldn't include "Baby Got Back."

Not a pet peeve per se, but I'm always amused by movie geography. With a single angle shift or turn of a corner, characters are suddenly miles away from where they were previously. Even when they get it right, it can be entertaining. Speed actually does a halfway decent job of depicting the bus' progress through Los Angeles, and the route can be traced on a map, but most of that movie is still well over the border into Ridiculousland for lots of reasons, not the least of which being the notion that the bus could have followed that route at a clip of 55 mph the entire time.

LA geography is also laughable in Volcano. The movie more or less shows how places are located in relation to each other, but has silly time dilation effects when people travel from one place to another. Places close to each other take a long time to travel to, and places far away from each other are reached quickly. And the effects of traffic are selectively applied.

And while I can't think of an example offhand, I react worst when it's done with music. If you're setting your movie in the '80s, your soundtrack shouldn't include "Baby Got Back."

The Wedding Singer, which is otherwise a delightful period piece - but how did they let Drew Barrymore get away with the wispy hair and babydoll dresses that no one would have gone near that decade.

LA geography is also laughable in Volcano. The movie more or less shows how places are located in relation to each other, but has silly time dilation effects when people travel from one place to another. Places close to each other take a long time to travel to, and places far away from each other are reached quickly. And the effects of traffic are selectively applied.

Best ever: Rumble in the Bronx, with the snowcapped Rockies visible in the distance across the Hudson River.