Best mystery movie questions of all time
Please vote as you browse around to help the best rise to the top.
Question: Is there a reason why when they're in the past they can't catch up with the present, but when they land a little into the future, the present can catch up with them? Are they not moving along on their own timeline? And if not, why are they not left in that moment and stand there to see the present come and go without taking them?
Question: Does anyone know if Noah knew all along that the elders were dressing up as the "monsters?" I think he did, and that he thought it was just a game. Is that why he laughed and clapped every time the bell went off and they had to hide? Perhaps the elders didn't hide this from him because he was simple-minded and couldn't talk. So, when he went after Ivy in the woods, he thought it was all for fun. Does anyone else agree with this?
Question: In Angier's final performance Borden watches Angier's duplicate drown in the tank. Does the other Angier still reappear for the audience, and take a bow? They never explain this in the film. If he does take the bow, Borden would never have been accused of murder. If he doesn't take the bow, how does the duplicate know not to do so? The duplicate would have no idea that Borden was below stage.
Question: At the end of the Chamber of Secrets, Harry gives Lucius Malfoy the diary, showing him that he knows it was him. In the Half Blood Prince we see Dumbledore at his desk mulling over Tom Riddle's destroyed diary - is this an error, or have I missed something? Was it not given back to Malfoy at the end of Chamber of Secrets?brdwyguy
Question: When Bourne interrogates Nikki (under duress) in the underground station, Nikki insists that Bourne had never worked in Berlin, much less completed his first mission there. But it is established that Bourne had killed the Neskis in Berlin on what is described by Conklin as his first mission. Assuming Nikki has no reason to lie and that she would have accurate information about Bourne's activities, what might explain that issue?Dusibello
Question: Here is something I really don't get. Near the end, Wendy and Kevin find out that Ian was supposed to cause Wendy's death somehow, but Ian would've already been dead. If Wendy hadn't intervened with Ian's original death, Ian wouldn't have been at the fair to cause Wendy's death. Can someone please explain this?M0vi3