Question: In the final shot, we see Jill's head move a little. Was that suppose to let the viewers know that she's alive or was it just a mistake?
Answer: I actually read that they noticed this before the movie came out and left it in to keep the ending ambiguous and since they were planning to make Scream 5, they felt that would possibly be the way to go.
That's very interesting, especially now that Scream 5 is finally getting made. Although it doesn't appear that Emma Roberts is returning.
Question: In the last part of the movie, how are they supposed to drive the snow vehicles? There is a scene before where they cut the wires of all the vehicles to disable them for the quarantine. Am I missing something?
Chosen answer: By disabling the snow vehicles, they are making sure that the creature can't use them to escape from the quarantine zone. Since the creature can assimilate anybody, it would probably know how to use one.
Question: What (if any) is the significance of the "OZ" graffiti that pops up throughout the film? It became quite distracting as I thought it would pay off at the end of the film.
Answer: The 'OZ' sprayer is a very disturbed man who claims to be an artist but the courts think otherwise. You can found his OZ (which he claims to be read OLI!) everywhere in Berlin and Hamburg. It has absolutely nothing to do with the movie but you can't film a wide open scene in Berlin without taping it.
Answer: Mise en scene. OZ / OLI is firstly a name. Asking what or rather who OZ / OLI is, is the point. One of the main questions of the film is what constitutes a person's identity.
Question: In the scene when Moriarty is doing a book signing, his aide sits and hands him a piece of paper with what looks like some kind of grouped numbers together. What is this and does it get referenced later in the film?
Chosen answer: That's the key code for his fortune concealed in his library. The one Mrs Watson uses to relay to Inspector Lestrade. Like the book reference numbers in a public library.
Question: How does Eddie get away with the apparent murder of the blonde woman in the apartment? I gather that even he doesn't know whether it was him or not but surely the Police would want to at least call him in for questioning at some point? And if it was him, surely, in that situation, it would be difficult to get away without leaving any evidence?
Answer: Although there is no definitive proof, I believe the killer to be Atwood's henchman. During the trip scene we see him following Eddie and the Blonde to their room and although it comes off as an illusion there's no reason it cannot be real. This alone is not enough to say for certain but the main reason I point to the henchman is because of how the story plays out following the murder. Eddie is by an eyewitness (probably someone working for Atwood if not the actual killer) who tells the police about him and as a result he is called into questioning. Because of the inquiry Eddie hires "the best lawyer in the city" who as we know is under Atwood's thumb. It is during this line of questioning the lawyer is able to go into Eddie's jacket and steal his NZT. None of these things would have happened had the Blonde never been killed.
Answer: There was no mention of physical evidence like hairs or fibres, the only evidence the police had was an eye-witness placing Eddie at the scene at the time the murder occurred; the eye-witness failed to I.D. Eddie in the line-up he was called to at the police station so Eddie was released, as the police had no case.
Answer: It was mentioned that the room was wiped clean after the murder. It was probably Atwood who set it all up because he was on NZT and needed some more.
Answer: Did you watch the movie? Lol... Eddie was called in and questioned about the murder. He was able to beat the case because the eyewitness couldn't pick him out of a line-up. Remember, his lawyer arranged to have a line-up full of men that looked just like Eddie.
The point of a line-up is to make everyone look similar to the actual suspect. So, the lawyer didn't do anything shady, and it would have been the police's job to have similar-looking people. A line-up of a mix of people is kind of a movie/TV trope, and the film implying the lawyer rigged the lineup fits into that trope.
Question: Why does the Station Inspector chase children who are on their own and threaten to send them to an Orphanage? Is that what it was like in the 1930s?
Answer: He's not making it a point to chase down random children - he's like a security officer at an airport. It's his job to apprehend thieves and troublemakers and keep the station safe, and he only threatens to send children to the orphanage if they don't have parents for him to return them to. Also, it's implied once he finally apprehends Hugo that his particular harshness toward orphans (and most of his character flaws in general) is due to apparently having been one himself. He spells out the kinds of lessons he was forced to learn by growing up without a family, explaining how he became so cold, bitter, and antisocial.
Chosen answer: It is more than likely an early form of our modern day child protection. Just as today if children are found to be at risk, they can be and are taken away by social services and put into foster care. In the film, orphans may have been seen as a plague in an area that attracts posh looking people in stark contrast to urchins in rags eating out of bins. Most European orphanages/care homes/hospices/whatever you want to call them at that time were no better than anything depicted in Charles Dickens 50 years previously.
Question: Where did Mary Lee live before moving into Ross' old apartment?
Answer: Rosery Road.
Question: At the apartment, Tintin can't find his magnifying glass and Snowy finds it for him. He says "Thank you" like he's annoyed at him. If he is annoyed at him, why is this?
Chosen answer: He must have thought that Snowy had found the magnifying glass and was playing with it. Like most dogs would do with a toy.
Answer: I personally submitted this as a revealing mistake. There is no official statement from Wes Craven or anyone else involved in the making of the movie about it being deliberate. So in my eyes, it's a mistake.
THGhost