I've seen a few movies and shows in which a character wants to use a false identity. They find a record of a person who died in the same year that the character was born, and use that person's name. Why do they need to do this?
KeyZOid
18th Nov 2021
General questions
Answer: Each is taking over a deceased person's identity and hoping that nobody realises that person has died. It is a way of establishing a birth actually occurred (as opposed to merely making up a name for which there would be no record of birth). In other words, a person can't exist or present oneself as a legitimate member of society without having been born; the deceased person WAS born and is no longer circulating in society, so taking on that person's identity at least gives the impression that the imposter is a legitimate member of society. Without taking on a deceased person's identity, the imposter would lack a history and presumably be more susceptible to being discovered. The chances of encountering someone who actually knew the deceased (and could seriously question the imposter's true identity) is relatively low. Until and unless someone becomes suspicious, the imposter can maintain the fake identity and continue living as a respectable member of the community.
28th Jun 2009
The Terminator (1984)
Question: I've always wondered, what's the significance of the kid pointing a wooden gun and making 'pew pew' noises at Reese when he enters the human hideout? Is it meant to be purely a bit of comical play between the two, or a subtle inference that mankind will never be able to abolish its inherent desire to destroy itself, even in the face of total extinction?
Answer: Its simply a child being a child and playing, but more than anything, showing the innocence of the children that inspite of the near death of the human race all around them, there's still time to play and be... human.
Answer: I think it refers more to the irony fact the kids innocently playing soldiers, would soon become real soldiers in a fight for their lives.
Answer: I've always thought it was to show that these children didn't know anything else. They hadn't had a childhood due to the war against the machines and all they knew was to shoot guns because that's all they've seen people do.
Answer: I agree with the playing and innocence aspects, as well as some comic relief. Toddlers/children prepare for possible future roles in life by mimicking adults' behaviors. What the child lacks is a sense of danger, showing no fear (or guilt) "shooting" a much larger person who knows how to kill. The child also lacks an understanding of consequences of behavior and meaning/permanence of death.
12th Oct 2021
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Can someone explain what the one Johnson agent meant to the other one when he said "it's like Saigon, ain't it slick?"
Answer: I don't remember the exact quote, verbatim, but using your wording, the proper punctuation would be "It's like Saigon! Ain't it, Slick?" The older Johnson is referring to Army Helo Ops in Vietnam. He's calling the younger Johnson "Slick", as a nickname. I believe the younger's response was something like "I was just a kid then" or something similar.
The younger one says "I was in junior high, dickhead". :-) Clearly not holding the older Johnson in especially high regard, or keen to make it clear he's not as old.
Answer: The elder Agent Johnson is a Viet Nam vet who excitedly says, "It's just like f***in' Saigon, eh Slick? The younger Johnson mockingly responds, "I was in Junior High, dickhead!" meaning he was too young to have served in that war. The older Johnson is comparing shooting at the terrorists (or just John McClane) atop the Nakatomi Tower to killing enemy soldiers from a helicopter in Nam. He is macho, has lost objectivity about the hostage situation, and is treating it like an arcade game. As pointed out in another answer, "Slick" is just a nickname, like calling someone "Dude."
Answer: "Like Saigon" could mean that under the circumstances, they were not likely to win or be successful in what they were trying to accomplish. Largely in the 1960s, the U.S. military was stationed in Saigon. While there, parts of the city were ruined or demolished by fighting. There was a lot of destruction in the Die Hard movie, and the situation seemed dire.
15th Apr 2018
Matilda (1996)
Question: What exactly has Harry done to have the FBI watching him for ages?
Answer: He has been receiving and selling stolen car parts.
Answer: It is a federal violation to own/operate a "chop shop." Other possibilities include interstate transport of stolen vehicles or car parts, altering Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), and falsifying documents. After a VIN is altered, it is difficult to positively identify the vehicle as stolen and acquire the necessary evidence to get a conviction if the.case goes to trial. But it is the interstate aspect that makes the FBI the key investigators.
1st Oct 2021
Matilda (1996)
Question: When the Trunchbull chases Miss Honey and Matilda through the house, why didn't Miss Honey just reveal herself? It's her aunt at the end of the day so it wouldn't have been as bad as if she'd have found Matilda.
Answer: Trunchbull is biologically related (Miss Honey's aunt), but does not fit the typical profile of a loving, caring aunt. She is a ruthless, cold, and hostile person to everyone, including relatives. To say that Trumbull and Miss Honey's relationship is strained is putting it mildly. Trumbull doesn't even meet the meaning of "estranged" because her behavior has always been hostile and malicious (never "loving aunt").
Answer: Also, Miss Trunchbull killed Magnus (Miss Honey's dad), so she's probably scared the same thing will happen to her in the same house.
1st Oct 2021
Matilda (1996)
Question: Just as the Trunchbull gets back to the house after pushing the car back, there's a red trail on the road. Is this supposed to be blood or some sort of fluid leaking from the car?
Answer: It might have been antifreeze that was leaking.
Anti-freeze is yellowish. The red liquid suggests transmission fluid.
11th Sep 2021
Disturbia (2007)
Question: Even if Turner planned to stage Kale's murder as a suicide, wouldn't the fact that someone who accused a neighbor of being a serial killer, only to turn up dead only hours later make Turner an immediate suspect? I would think that most serial killers wouldn't be dumb enough to risk having the person who accused them to turn up dead in only a few hours no matter if it was staged as a suicide.
Answer: Being a serial killer, Turner is most likely a transient. When he starts to feel threatened (close to being identified as a suspect) or has committed several murders in one area without getting caught, he will sense the need to move on - relocate with a new identity. At least initially, he can portray himself as a law-abiding "gentleman" to reduce/ eliminate suspicion or buy himself enough time to flee the area and avoid getting caught.
Answer: Turner might be considered a suspect based on Kale's accusation, but there would have to be solid evidence, for which there was none. More likely, it would probably be theorized that Kale's recent erratic behavior and emotional state is what led to his "suicide" and that he had become fixated on Turner and irrationally fantasized and falsely claimed that he was a serial killer.
23rd Feb 2021
Cast Away (2000)
Question: Considering that Chuck had been on the island for four years, would he actually still have all of his teeth or would he have lost them all? From all the things that he saw in the packages that he opened, not one of them had anything to keep his teeth clean.
Answer: Even without dental care for four years, it would take far longer for a generally healthy person to lose their teeth if they had previously maintained proper oral hygiene. Chuck's diet was a factor (little or no sugar) and he could also fashion a primitive toothbrush or toothpick from materials on the island. Ancient humans had relatively little tooth decay. It was after sugar was introduced into the European (and later American) diet in the 11th century, that dental problems started becoming more prevalent.
Answer: It's possible that he could keep his teeth, provided he doesn't eat too many sugars. Just think of all the cultures throughout history and today that do not brush their teeth. They certainly have dental issues compared to those who regularly brush and see a dentist, but it's not like none of them have teeth.
Answer: Toothpaste and toothbrushes (+ floss) are not the only things that can be used to clean teeth! (What did people use before toothpaste and toothbrushes were manufactured?) A CLEAN finger can be used or a wet piece of cloth - and some fruits (e.g, apple) and vegetables (e.g, carrot) can help remove gunk from teeth. He had access to sea salt, which could help. If he "wiped" his teeth (after every meal and snack), he would be able to avoid plaque and tartar buildup. Toothpaste in and of itself is NOT necessary - it is added flavor to supposedly make brushing teeth taste better (e.g, bubblegum flavor for kids), be more pleasant (and thereby encourage people to brush longer), and/or add fluoride. Few, if any, people make it through adult life without a cavity, but there's no significant factor during his four years that would make him lose all of his teeth! The information given in the previous answers is also relevant.
Answer: I wasn't told as a kid I had to brush my teeth every day. I brushed them only before going to the dentist or a special occasion, would sometimes go months without brushing. I only started brushing properly after puberty and I still have each and every single one of my teeth. They're a bit yellower than average, but not that bad. Even with smoking all my life and practically living of sugar, most people actually think I have pretty decent teeth and I never get comments about having bad teeth. They do tell me that if this had gone on for much longer, I would regret it and my gums have retracted a bit from all the tartar, but this makes me assume that, being healthy, you can probably go at least 10 years with poor mouth hygiene before your teeth actually start rotting.
19th Jul 2021
The Nanny (1993)
Question: This might be a stupid question, but why do all three of the children speak in typical American voices? Wouldn't their speech have a British influence because of their father, and also Niles?
Answer: Children's brains and language skills are still developing at that age and they adapt to the environment they live in. My former boss was born in England and moved to the US at about eight years old. She completely lost her British accent by her teens, even though her parents still spoke as typical English citizens. A Japanese co-worker and his wife, also Japanese, spoke English as their second language. Their two children learned both English and Japanese simultaneously while growing up and spoke each language with the appropriate accent.
Answer: Kids tend to take on the accident of where they live. I once had a British student who lost his accent after a couple of years in the US.
Not just where they live, but also after their peers (who live there, but you know what I mean).
Answer: Not necessarily. Their late mother being American would've probably made the most impact on their speech, considering most kids spend most of their early years more with their mothers than fathers.
Gracie is young enough that she doesn't remember her mother. The episode "I Don't Remember Mama" was about this.
10th Dec 2020
Fargo (1996)
Question: After kidnapping Mrs Lundegaard, the kidnappers return to Brainerd where they get pulled over and it all falls apart. My question is... Why do they return to Brainerd? They end up keeping her in a cabin near the twin cities metro area. So they drive down to the cities from Brainerd, kidnap her, return to Brainerd where they're pulled over, and then return again to the cities to lie low in a cabin. So why make that initial return to Brainerd? They likely had the cabin arranged in advance.
Answer: I was confused and questioned why things occurred in certain places - Fargo vs. Brainerd vs. Minneapolis vs. The cabin's location, identified as Moose Lake near the end of the movie. Other than the beginning barroom meeting in Fargo between Jerry and Carl/Gaear, I didn't see the significance of Fargo. Jerry and his wife (kidnapping victim) lived in Minneapolis. The murders took place in Brainerd, and Chief of Police Margie eventually investigated some leads in Minneapolis. We don't know where the kidnappers planned on holding Mrs. Lundegaard. IF the kidnappers were from Fargo or even Brainerd, they may have been planning on taking her to one of their homes and were in the process of driving there when pulled over by Brainerd Police. No one was supposed to get hurt, but the murders occurred and their plan was no longer going as expected. Instead of continuing to a home, it may now have made more sense to "hide" somewhere to avoid getting caught. Moose Lake could have been chosen.
This change in plans would mean they did NOT already have the cabin rented. Maybe Carl or Gaear owned it, but didn't initially intend to use it because they were not really committing a kidnapping and preferred to go home.
7th May 2014
Fargo (1996)
Question: Gaear gets the kidnapping job from his friend Shep. He can choose anybody he wants to help him do it. Why does he choose Carl, a person he obviously can't stand? They don't "fall out" - Gaear hates him from the get-go. And don't say that Gaear deliberately chose someone he disliked because he planned to kill him all along. Yeah, right... Planned to bring an axe to a gunfight. Great plan. Granted, it worked. But that was not planned. Anyway, Gaear is all ursine impulse, not organized forethought. So why Carl?
Answer: Gaear would choose who he thought was the best person to help him pull off the job, regardless of whether or not he likes him. He's not particularly intelligent, and Carl is the smarter of the two and that would be an asset. Gaear also appears to be very anti-social and it's doubtful he has any friends, or at least any that would participate in such a plot, and this may be the only person he knows of who will go along with it. His choice really has little to do with liking someone and everything to do with getting the job done. Gaear may very well have intended to kill him later to help eliminate any ties to the crime and to keep the money. It's easier to kill someone he doesn't like.
All good points! I might add Gaear was "mostly brawn." His limited intelligence ("dull normal" at best?) and lack of basic communication skills ["Where's pancakes house?"] would interfere with his ability to engage in constructive conversations with Jerry to arrange the kidnapping. He'd also have difficulty making a plan and following through on his own. Gaear wouldn't have any problem overpowering a person to be kidnapped, but needed someone like Carl to make the before and after plans.
9th May 2005
Fargo (1996)
Question: By the time Jerry gets arrested, his wife and her father are both dead. What will now happen to Jerry's son, now that his dad is in jail, and his mother and grandfather are both dead?
Answer: While there is nothing in the film that explains this, the most likely step taken by the authorities would have been to see whether Jerry and his wife had made out an will and who they would give legal custody of their son if anything happened to them. If there was no will then it's likely the closest family or relatives would be asked to take custody.
He probably still has Lundegaard Grandparent (s) and a grandmother from his mother's side - any of which could and would become his legal guardian (s).
He'll be a rich man. Grandfather said early in the movie that his daughter and her son would bever have to worry about money or words to that effect.
Answer: Early in the film, Jerry's father-in-law makes it a point to mention that his daughter and grandson will never have to worry, financially. It's implied Wade made the necessary arrangements to ensure Jerry's son would be provided for in the event something happened to his parents.
14th Apr 2004
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
Question: I hear that Kyle Gass is supposed to be in this movie. Does someone know who he plays?
Answer: I can't find any credited source saying that Kyle Gass was in this movie.
Answer: I didn't do a thorough or very extensive search, but of the numerous sites I did check, I found ONE reference indicating that he WAS in the movie: tvguide.com. However, what part he played was not specified. There is a photo apparently showing what was probably a cameo, and it looks like he is one of two men standing in an interior doorway (such as in the cafeteria?). During my search, it became obvious that Kyle has had a minor role in MANY movies.
The TV guide site you're referencing is just wrong and I don't know why they added him. You'll notice he's the only one without a character name. And the picture they used isn't a still from the film. The "other man" in the picture is Jack Black. It should be noted that that the DVDs Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny; Dumber and Dumberer; and Run, Fat Boy, Run were sold as a 3-pack bundle in the US for a short time and maybe that's where someone thought Kyle Gass was in this film.
If you knew the tvguide.com site was "just wrong", why didn't you respond to the question a long time ago and state you know tvguide.com incorrectly lists him under "cast". Yada Yada yada? And offer a possible explanation as to why someone might have thought he was in the movie but you know he definitely wasn't? Or, didn't you know he wasn't in the movie? Have you at least contacted tvguide.com to inform the ed (s) that Gass wasn't in the movie but tvguide.com erroneously indicates he was?
I didn't answer the question because I've never heard of the rumor he was supposed to be in it. But I know the TV guide site is wrong because of preponderance of evidence, basic understanding of how to credit a source on the internet as being reliable or accurate with given information, there's no character name listed, and they used a still from The Pick of Destiny movie. Maybe someone did it as a joke like when JB said KG graduated from Juilliard at age 13.
I did think of the possibility that it was a joke... I never even heard of him before.
And what "proof" or objective information from a relevant, reliable source makes you so sure that you are right but tvguide.com is wrong?
12th May 2017
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Why do the tripods make a horn sound?
Answer: Adding a horrifying sound is also intimidating to the people they're attacking.
Answer: It is a signal to the other tripods. They coordinate their attack with the signals. For instance, a specific horn sound is heard when a tripod discovers a group of humans and other tripods come to assist.
But if it is the case, there would probably be a more efficient way to communicate. They can travel through the lightning but they can't use a walkie talkie.
We know virtually nothing about the aliens or their culture. Using the horns in this manner could be ceremonial. It's also a misconception that a society more advanced than ours must have mastered everything our society has mastered. Just because they built death machines millions of years ago doesn't necessarily mean they ever developed a walkie talkie. The Martians seem to be perplexed by the wheel. The scene with the wheel also occurs in the source novel, wherein the narrator theorizes Martians never invented the wheel, "skipping over" this crucial milestone in human advancement.
In addition, it can be used as a way to intimidate the populace of Earth, to try and make them panic into poor decisions.
I mean, from a cinematic standpoint it definitely darkens the mood even more. A walke talkie wouldn't hold the wow factor as a loud sinister horn sound did.
Each tripod seemed fully capable of destroying anything (and enough) around it. Your idea is as good as any, but it seemed like the tripods just came out wherever they were buried and did their own thing without assistance. Besides, didn't a lot emerge from the water?
Answer: The sound of the said to be *horn* could be a way of asking for assistance or giving off their location to other tripods.
Answer: I thought it happened when the tripods flushed waste. Kind of like grunting is to humans.
Answer: I "thought" (guessed) it was to blow out any dust/debris that may have accumulated while underground and/or "fire up" (energize) their weapons before shooting.
9th Aug 2020
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Question: Given that the crime is murder why is she paroled after only six years?
Answer: She apparently was convicted in a jurisdiction that used indeterminate (not determinate) sentencing, allowed a life sentence to be "with the possibility of parole" and sentencing philosophy of "let the punishment fit the criminal (not the crime). " When there is no mandatory minimum number of years to be served in prison, a convicted murderer (of various°) could actually serve relatively few years in prison with the remainder of the sentence served outside of prison (such as in a halfway house or residential treatment center, or in her own home under electronic monitoring) provided the offender does not violate the conditions of release. An offender receiving a sentence of "life imprisonment", for example, could serve the first several years in prison and then be released to a halfway house to continue "serving time" outside of prison (with supervision). The years served "in the community" are still "time served" under the sentence - only the location of serving it has changed.
Answer: To start, this film gets a lot wrong about the judicial system and law (including the whole idea that Libby can freely kill Nick because she's already been convicted of his murder). In the film, they just say she's charged with murder, but never what degree. In Washington State, 2nd degree murder generally carries a sentence of 10-18 years (not including felony-murder). However, Washington State did not offer parole at the time of the film like other states did. To be released, she'd have a hearing in front of the Washington State Clemency and Pardons Board, not a Parole Board. And it's unlikely they'd grant her a release. But in Texas for example, she could possibly get parole after serving at least half her sentence.
4th Mar 2021
Drowning Mona (2000)
Question: It's never explained why Bobby would ever even consider going into business with Jeff? It's not as if Jeff is some great business mind. The entire Dearly family has no respect for him and treat him like a buffoon. There's absolutely no reason given for why Bobby would ever set foot on their property, much less inside their house.
Answer: [Continued] Bobby may have had a better "presentation of self" than Jeph and LOOKED smarter, but he had his own deficiencies (plus mowed over Peaches, losing that contract, and intended to kill Jeph, not Mona). Would a stranger (outsider) be willing to enter a business agreement with Bobby? When choosing someone you have known for years, you have a good idea of what to expect from that person and might have fewer doubts and face fewer unknowns (such as whether the person can be trusted). Partnering with a stranger can be a very risky endeavor. When starting a business, there's no guarantee that you will be successful. Landscaping businesses/ jobs involve hard physical labor - something a lot of people are not interested in doing, so Bobby may not have had (m) any potential candidates with the exception of Jeph.
Answer: I doubt anyone can give THE answer with any degree of certainty. This may be why your question hasn't been anwered yet. One possible answer lies in the film's setting, Verplanck, NY. In real life, Verplanck is a small area (less than ONE square mile) with maybe 300 houses within the city of Cortlandt. Such an area, where "everyone knows everyone else," is classified as a hamlet (smaller than a village). Household/ family income probably falls below the U.S. median. In the movie, residents were portrayed as poor and not very intelligent (read: dimwitted, "Forest Gump smart" or "idiots"). Jeph and Bobby were part of this close-knit community and probably had more similarities than differences. Bobby didn't even have money to start the business - his brother Murph put up his half. Who would become business partners with someone who didn't have the start-up money? Someone in the hamlet who needed a job and could get money from his parents - Jeph. [Why would Jeph partner with Bobby?].
24th May 2021
Equilibrium (2002)
Question: Why would they need to authenticate the Mona Lisa painting at the beginning? Wouldn't a replica yield the same punishment for whomever is in possession of it?
Answer: They need to know they got the real one because that is the one that is so revered and protected. Not a replica.
Answer: I'm not sure who "they" refers to, so I'm giving a general answer. They need to ascertain the monetary value of the painting in order to know how to proceed. Obviously, an authentic painting (perhaps worth millions of dollars) has a much greater value (selling price) than a fake painting (which could be produced at a small fraction of the cost plus would not hold the same cultural or historical significance). The "punishment" (sentence) that could be imposed may vary with jurisdiction, type of sentencing system, monetary value, and the offender's prior criminal record (if any). Although it may be possible somewhere for the replica to carry the same punishment that is attached to the authentic painting, the extreme difference in value between the two paintings is likely to separate them into different classifications or grades of the offense (felony/misdemeanor or grand/ petit larceny). In general, the grand theft of an authentic painting worth millions carries a heavier sentence.
The plot of this film is that all emotions have been outlawed, as are anything that can stir up emotions (art, literature, music, etc.) Anyone that violates this law is put to death. So someone that has a replica of the Mona Lisa would be executed just the same as someone that has the real thing. Monetary value doesn't factor into the equation, because the police force in the film incinerates all contraband.
Thanks for explaining why my general answer does not apply and is thereby "dead wrong." I know I saw "Equilibrium" but I didn't remember anything about it; it obviously didn't have a lasting impression on me. I should have at least looked it up before giving a general answer. Now I am wondering what the specific answer is... Good question.
20th May 2021
Point Break (1991)
Question: Gary Busey (Angelo) is supposed to be keeping an eye on the bank, the one that he and Johnny Utah expect the Ex-Presidents to rob. Instead, he is reading Calvin and Hobbes comics and not watching the bank at all. As a result, he doesn't see the Ex-Presidents pull up and enter the bank to rob it. Why was he not doing his job? Is he simply an idiot?
Answer: Probably not an idiot, but perhaps a big disappointment to FBI higher-ups. Having Angelo distracted was designed to make the movie more exciting, but there's a good chance this could have happened (and does happen) in real life. Stakeout work is typically long and boring, and may be non-productive because the agents can't know with certainty if/when (or where) the robbers will show up. After years/decades of conducting boring stakeouts where no-one came or robbers arrived after several hours, agents' experiences may lead them to believe nothing is going to happen right away - it will be a long wait. A false sense of security leads to slacking off, and opportunities for robbers to be more successful increase. While it might be required that FBI agents give their undivided attention on the job - no matter how boring - it is unrealistic to expect that all agents stay alert at all times. Reading comics to pass the time isn't impressive, but being able to laugh is a stress reducer.
24th May 2021
Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012)
Question: Why was this movie made-for-TV and never released theatrically?
Answer: Simple answer is because ABC Family along with Fox TV Studios produced the movie specifically for their television audience. Which is what they did for "Home Alone 4" as well. Airing original movies on a channel is a way for networks to increase ad revenue as it draws an audience to watch their movies. They wouldn't have a need (and probably not a budget) to release it in theaters.
Answer: Same reason why so-called "Home Alone 6" will appear on Disney+ as an original film - as explained previously. Although if Home Alone 4 was anything to go by, the bottom of the barrel was scraped to the point it had a hole in it. Patched I reckon by "Home Alone 5."
Answer: It's a separate movie set in the same universe, a sort of reboot. Introducing a new younger child to the franchise.
Answer: In addition to not being able to cast child star MacCulkin again (who drew earlier crowds but was now older and "not so cute"), the script was not of the same calibre. Without being able to surpass the previous highly successful HOME ALONE movies in quality and desirability (as well as meet fans' high expectations), it was a way to offer "something" (less satisfying but "cheaper" to produce) by going straight to TV or DVD (the next best thing).
This answer doesn't explain "Home Alone 3" though.
20th May 2021
Entrapment (1999)
Question: Is it actually possible to get on to a moving train as implied in the very last scene?
Answer: Unless the train stopped, it is absolutely impossible for someone, particularly a senior man and a woman in a tight skirt and high heels, to be able to jump onto a moving commuter train, and on one that would have automatic doors.
HA! A looser skirt and flat-heeled shoes wouldn't improve the odds.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Using the identity of someone who is dead, generally their social security number, is called "ghosting." The main reason is because using a false identity is easier than using a fake identity. A fake social security number (as in made up) will raise flags whereas using a real number that doesn't belong to you won't raise the same flags, or at least not immediately. (Think of putting a credit card number in online, if it's not real, the system generally knows right away and rejects the sale). The reason someone wants to use a dead person's identity is because there's less chance someone is monitoring identity theft, whereas a living person might see accounts opened in their name, etc. As far as finding someone who died the same year the person was born is not ideal though since it could raise flags too. Ideally, the person would want to use an identity of a deceased person that's the same age, sex, and race.
Bishop73