Question: Several other answers and corrections state that the reddish liquid sprayed by the tripods was what essentially grew the red vines. However I thought I heard someone in the film say something along the lines of "using us (i.e. blood) as fertiliser". Can someone please clarify?
Question: What does Hu Li say in Chinese near the end, when she is holding the bomb that is about to blow up?
Answer: 两个王八蛋 （You two bastards), 你不就要我们死 （You wanted us to die), 现在我自己来，我来了! （Now I do it myself, I am here!) 我现在主动来了！ 我来了！（I am doing this on my own now!).
Answer: She says 'we'll go together, inspector'.
Question: Does anyone know who does the voice of Korben Dallas' mother?
Answer: Jill Mullan.
Answer: Haviland Morris.
Question: I don't really understand why Jodie Foster's character didn't tell the police something was wrong when they came to the door. I know she was worried for her daughter but the robbers couldn't overhear and she could have asked the police to come back later, giving her a chance to smash the cameras. Also, considering that she emphatically denied there was anything wrong, why did the police return later with all the guns etc?
Answer: But if Jodie Foster was so keen to placate the burglars and protect her daughter's life then why did she smash the cameras after the police left? It doesn't make sense.
She smashed the cameras, so the thieves in the Panic Room couldn't see what she was doing. That's why the thieves had said, "Why didn't we do that?"
Answer: The cop told Jodie "if you can give me some kind of signal." Jodie runs her fingers through her hair, that's the signal.
Answer: One doesn't ask the cops to come back later, especially when one's daughter's life is a stake. Also, the cops came back because they just didn't believe her and felt that something was up (call it intuition).
Not only that, Jodie Foster said that "they were good", why would she say that they are good if not that they were right?
Question: Even though Isabel committed suicide, shouldn't she have gone to heaven? She willfully sacrificed herself to insure that Mammon couldn't cross on to earth so in a way, she was saving billions of people, so that should have guaranteed her entry into heaven.
Answer: Sin for a good reason is still sin, and as Gabriel says earlier, you can't buy your way into Heaven. Real Catholic dogma, however, doesn't hold the mentally ill as condemned for committing suicide.
Except Isabel wasn't mentally ill. She saw angels and demons just like Constantine did. It was her parents who believed she was mentally ill.
While suicide is a mortal sin, it's shown later (as in major plot point) that sacrificing yourself to save the world is a redeeming act.
Yes, but Constantine also said "My parents were normal. They did what most parents would do. They made it worse. You think you're crazy long enough, you find a way out" which could relate to Isabel losing her sanity in a way as well because of her family and how they saw her. The whole Isabel's sacrifice is added by the novelization but the movie is ambiguous about the suicide.
Except Isabel wasn't mentally ill. She saw half breeds just like John did.
Sacrificing yourself for others isn't a sin.
Answer: If a soldier jumps on a grenade and dies to save his fellow soldiers, it's considered giving one's life for others. To my understanding, that isn't considered a "sin." If it was a mental health issue, a just God would give her a pass. If she was doing it to thwart Mammon's plans, again she was sacrificing herself. If she did it to get Constantine involved to help stop Mammon, again is was self sacrifice. (Notice how she says "Constantine" just before jumping when her sister views the video?). As a plot device, I understand it, but from a theological standpoint it is weak.
Answer: It is shown in the movie that it was Balthazar who whispered into her ear, gave her suggestions. Eventually she committed suicide to escape that, to escape her torment. She certainly didn't sacrifice herself to keep Mammon out because Mammon needed twin psychics, one in hell and one on Earth to do it, which Balthazar achieved for him.
The film doesn't give information about the need of having one twin in hell and the other on earth to complete Mammon's plan; the movie states Mammon needs a powerful psychic and God's help. It isn't shown either that Balthazar was the one whispering to Isabel's ear considering she was apparently hearing Hellspeak, but no individual besides her appeared on the death scene; therefore, it was left ambiguous. Otherwise, provide evidence of the statement above.
When John and Angela are walking back to the elevator after taking care of Balthasar they specifically mention Mammon needed twin psychics. The only reason would be for their connection. One is in hell, the other on Earth. Through their connection Mammon is able to posses Angela. As for the second thing. When Isabel commits suicide you both hear Balthasar whisper to her and she has the mark on her wrist, like Hennessy had on his hand palm, the sign of Mammon. They wanted her in Hell.
The dialogue, when they are walking towards the elevator, is "Constantine: Beeman said Mammon needed divine assistance to cross over. How's the blood of God's only son? Ángela: The stains on the spear. Constantine: Yeah. Ángela: So he gets the spear. He still has to locate a powerful psychic. Constantine: Not really. Ángela: Twins." Angela says "twins" after hearing Constantine say "Not really." (while looking at her) which made Angela realise that she was Isabel's replacement as a powerful psychic since they had the same gift, but the former's was dormant up until that moment. It's not because the plan needed one in hell and the other on earth. That's never stated as far as we know from the information provided by the film. As for Balthazar, it's never stated it was him who whispered to Isabel. That's an assumption based on hearing the voice alone. Also, the mark appeared on the guy's hand at beginning of the film after he found the spear and Balthazar was probably not there.
It's not an assumption when it's his voice. It doesn't all have to be "stated." And the whole twin part is just a coincidence? Are you saying Gabriel and Balthasar found twin psychics so they have a backup if one of them dies? That's ridiculous. They needed twin psychics specifically, and they make one of them commit suicide. That's not just a random thing, it's what needed to be done. And it's Mammon's sign, not Balthasar's.
It's an assumption because there is insufficient evidence to prove it, and there were other voices in the film to assume it was specifically Balthazar's given that Angela heard a similar voice calling her name when she was in hell and Mammon appeared, which could indicate that maybe it was Mammon who whispered to Isabel too but still not clear though. It's more speculation. Yes, not everything has to be stated since some things are implicitly given although it also depends because it can become ambiguous if it lack details which is open to interpretation, but the movie dismisses any possibility of your theory of "one in hell and the other on earth" by stating what the "villain" needed and with that the argument doesn't work. Otherwise, it would be a plot hole for creating an inconsistency with the rules established before. Angela just realised she was the powerful psychic since they had the same gift, so Mammon didn't have to locate another one since it was there in the other twin.
There is no inconsistency with the rules, there is help from god, there is a psychic. All that fits, the Hell Bible just wasn't specific enough, they didn't know the full plan. There is something significant about them being twins. Both because Isabel was killed and Angela and Constantine realise that's what Mammon was looking for.
Now, all that is just speculation, and misinterpretation of what has been explained in the reply above yours. Not continuing the discussion.
Answer: The film itself can't be blamed for that really because it was left ambiguous; the novelization added the part of Isabel's sacrifice to the story. If we go by what the film gave us then Isabel might have been an unstable person considering even Angela didn't back her up about what they could see which could've led her to believe that maybe she was indeed crazy, and as Constantine said "You think you're crazy long enough, you find a way out." Perhaps she just wanted to end everything that was happening to her. There isn't enough information in the movie to confirm or deny it.
Question: What does the Phantom eat and what does he spend his salary on? Presumably he can't just go to the shops etc with his mask on. If he doesn't leave the opera house where does he learn his skills like driving a carriage, who does he practice sword fighting with? Wouldn't his health suffer if he spends decades living in this damp cold rat infested place wading through lakes all the time? He even complains about it being cold himself at one point. Surely if it snowing outside his lair can't be warm but he's not wearing much.
Answer: First, it is established in the movie that he is dependant on Madame Giry and it is presumed she does his shopping for him. As for learning skills, it is established he is a genius and one can assume he is very well read. Additionally, for single handed skills, like driving a carriage, he can possibly go out at night to learn them. As for his living conditions, the human body adapts well to continuous conditions, it is how the people in Siberia can tolerate lower temperatures better than those who live close to the equator. Lastly, one can easily assume he has other (warmer) clothes that he wears off camera.
There is a character simply known as 'the Persian' He has known the Phantom his whole life and would have taught him horse driving. In the book, the Phantom has a life before the opera house where he would have learned fencing and torture. Also, the phantom knows all the secret passages. When it's cold he leaves his lair and lives someplace warmer.
You're totally right but also, in addition to your mention of The Persian, in the book it is he that is the Phantom's only "friend" or whatever but in the movie there is no Persian exactly but the two Characters Madam Giry and The Persian from The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston L. Are both combined as one, to be know as Madame Giry in the 2004 flim.
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?
Answer: When the Elders found Noah missing, they referred to a costume that had been hidden under the floorboards. My guess is that at some stage Noah found that costume and may have figured out that it was a game then. I doubt if the Elders realized this until he went missing. Also, given that Noah had already stabbed Lucius, I don't really think that he was joking when he went for Ivy in the woods.
Answer: Noah had figured out shortly before the movie begins that the monsters were a hoax made by the Elders, having found a creature suit in the "punishment room." This can be seen early when everyone is eating. They hear howling from the woods (it's actually sound devices in a big tree deep in the forest that create sounds from the wind), and Noah simply laughs at it. He probably thought it was all a game, never understanding the true purpose of why the Elders created the hoax. During the Covington Woods quest, he most likely went to kill Ivy. Recall the "daring game" played by the children. We learn that creatures imitate their victim before they attack. Noah does the same to Ivy. She snaps her cane, and the creature also snaps something. She throws a rock, he does the same. Noah was actually smarter than we think. He was THE creature, the usurper of the Elders' hoax. So, he tortures Ivy mentally first before trying to kill her. He was kinda sadistic (he also massacred the livestock).
Question: Is this a true story? The ending with text "John W. Creasy" and lifetime dates makes it seem like a true story.
Answer: Daniel "La Voz" Sanchez was based off the kidnapper Daniel Arizmendi López and Aurelio Sanchez was based off his bother Aurelio Arizmendi López, so some of it maybe true but not a lot.
Answer: No, the movie was based on a fiction book. The book takes place in Italy, and the kidnapping ring is run by the mafia.
Answer: The movie was completely lifted from a much better 1987 version of the same story.
Question: Why would Sam and his friends go to the library?
Answer: Possibly because it was the closest building with height to it as they are about to be hit by a gigantic wave of water. There was no snow yet, so I don't believe burning books or snow was on anybody's mind yet. It turned out to be a great idea as snow soon starts to fall and those books were literally a life saver.
Answer: It was the closest building they could access. While the smarter move would have been to just go back to JD's apartment (which Brian and Laura suggest) it may have been too far a walk to get out of the flooding streets.
Why did they burn the books and not the wooden shelves that the books were on?
As for burning books rather than shelves, it was just easier. They would have had to expend more energy to break down the shelves into manageable size.
Question: Does Danny's ability to "shine" have any connection to Jack's insanity and the events that occur in the hotel?
Answer: Effectively, Danny's shining is what brings the hotel to life. Because he has such an incredibly powerful shine about him, all these weird ghost things in the hotel are able to materialize and reveal themselves. These weird ghost things are always present to some degree, and those people with a small degree of shine get glimpses of them - like Dick Hallorann. (It's not quite made clear in the movie, but Dick saw the woman in room 237 in the book). However, Danny's shine is so great that he gives these forces enough life to appear to those without any shine, people like his father and mother. As it's the hotel that's slowly driving Jack crazy, and the hotel gets its power from Danny's shining, then I'd say there's definitely a connection between Jack's insanity and Danny's abilities. In the movie, it's not as clear as it is in the book, but Jack is effectively possessed by the hotel. He's not a flawed drunk with an anger problem who loses his mind because of isolation. He's a flawed drunk with an anger problem who's doing the best he can, until the forces of the hotel get inside his head and make him lose it.
If Danny's shining is what brings the hotel back to life, does this mean that all the previous "Jacks" had a son or daughter with the shining too?
Answer: The movie is really 2 parallel story-lines with history repeating itself. In 1920s Jack visited the same hotel with his wife and son, they got stuck there due to snow storm along with rest of hotel crew (which leaves early in a hurry in 1980s). The director has carefully changed background score on things which were not present in 1920s when Dick is showing the facilities to Danny and his mother (like food cold storage). In the 80's version, Danny, Jack and Dick are the ones who have the power to shine or see scenes from the past in the same place. But as Dick says, its like reading a book and has no physical presence in current world. Whenever Dick is talking to Danny, it happened exactly the same way in 1920s, except replace the secret of shining with the secret of cannibalism around the hotel. Jack's insanity is just a repeat of his past, in the 20's the job of being the butcher (of human flesh) got to his mind and he started behaving weird. In the hotel lobby, replace the sound of heavy typing on the long table with sharp knife falling on human flesh. Red carpet depicts the blood and body parts all around the floor in 20s.
Question: How does he fold the Monet in half to fit into the briefcase? Originally I thought he'd separated it from the wooden frame (ie. just a canvas), but when he takes it out back at his house he holds it up, and the wooden frame's still in one piece. Also, surely folding it in half would crack the paint, but despite the painting being twice the width of the briefcase (it fits snugly when the case is open), he then shuts the case down to a "normal" size. Any ideas?
Answer: I believe that the Monet that Crown hides in his study is not the one that was stolen, it is a copy that he already had prepared. He can enjoy the copy knowing that the original (with the broken spreader bars) is also in his possession. The stolen original then goes to the forger who repairs the broken spreader bars, and then paints another painting (using water soluble paint) over the Monet, so he can "return" it to the museum 3 days later. It gets more complicated when he discovers that Russo is on to him so he has a second forgery made (even the edges forged to match) over the top of "Dogs Playing Poker." He doesn't know if it will be necessary, but given his research into his new adversary, he concocts this contingency. It is likely that he has many contingencies in place, but the "Monet with a ghost underneath" is the only one we get to see. Of course for my theory to hold water, there must be (or have been) that earlier forgery - unless it has been destroyed.
It's not the forgery that he takes out of the briefcase. Even if it were, he still put the Monet in the briefcase at the museum and would have had to break the frame to close the briefcase, thus also breaking the paint and tearing the canvas. The real answer is that it is just something that couldn't really happen, and the movie people don't want the viewer to notice.
Answer: The only explanation I can come up with is that the inner part of the frame is precut. With the frame cut that way it would allow the picture to fold, but when unfolded it would be fairly rigid with the exception of bending it forward at that point. When he pulls the painting out, it still holds the square shape of the frame. Best I can come up with.
Answer: He doesn't fold it. The frame is solid. It's just movie editing to make the viewer think he put it in her briefcase. You can't fold a Monet.
He absolutely folds it. We see him put it in the case and him then shut the case, folding it in half.
Question: Wouldn't it be easier if Stewart just attached his cab to 777 and any other qualified personnel with him just walked from Steward to 777 and took control of it, too easy perhaps? Or the welder could have someone with a BB gun in the back to shoot the famous "kill switch" next to fuel tank, instead of the cops trying to?
Answer: Yeah, but it wouldn't be nearly as dramatic.
Answer: Put a man in the back of the truck with a broomstick and use it to push the fuel cut off switch as the truck drives alongside the train.
Question: Are the people present at the digging site when they're discussing new approaches to analyzing skeletons supposed to be paleontologists in dr. Grant's group? If so, why would they laugh at his musings of "how dinos learned how to fly"? And why would he have to explain it to them? Seemed to me like he is explaining very basic stuff to the people that would already know this (and of course, to the movie audience).
Answer: They are not paleontologists, just people interested in dinosaurs. It is common for museums and other scientific organizations to offer the general public an opportunity to participate in a real paleontology dig. For a fee, they become an exhibition team member for a period of time, learn about dinosaurs, help excavate fossils, and so on. This is likely how Dr. Grant (or his institution) supplements his research funding.
Question: I can not figure out how in the world agent Starling makes the connection about where Buffalo Bill lives. I don't understand the connection she makes at the house where she finds the pictures and says "you covet what you see" It has driven me crazy for years and I need help. How does she figure it all out?
Answer: In Frederika's bedroom Clarice sees the dress being made and recognises that the pieces of material are the same shape as the pieces of skin missing from the victims' bodies. In the bank, where Clarice meets Frederika's friend, Stacy tells her the address of 'Mrs Lippman' whom Frederika used to work with. Presumably Buffalo Bill is related to, or is, Mrs. Lippman since that is where Clarice finds him.
He's not Mrs Lippman. He did, however, kill her. As Clarice chases him through the cellar, the woman's decomposing body is in a tub.
Answer: "You covet what you see": Agent Starling looks out the window of the girl's house to see who the neighbors are, who may have been watching the girl.
Question: Is there any reason why Luke believes what Darth Vader says when he tells him that he is his father?
Answer: The vision Luke sees in the cave on Dagobah is a clue to this. Luke is realizing he has a lot more in common with Darth Vader than the idealized father he'd always imagined. When Vader tells him he's his father, Luke doesn't want to believe it, but he simply can't deny that it feels much more true that his father would be someone passionate and reckless like himself rather than someone who exemplifies a noble Jedi, which feels like an obvious myth in hindsight.
Question: Several times near the end of the movie, there is a biker type man. He is wearing some Harley Davidson clothing and a black leather cap. He is one of the pilots. He stands out if he is just an extra. Is he anyone famous?
Answer: In the book of the same name, this man is called "Pig". He was a test pilot during the Vietnam War. He played a crucial role in training the new pilots.
Answer: He is just an extra, who just happens to be in more shots then the other extras. He is not more famous than the other extras.
Answer: Since the tripods tended to spray the red fluid shortly after pulling a human into themselves, it seems a good assumption that the red fluid is essentially blood. Given this, it seems likely that the "spore" of the vines is spread in the red fluid.
scwilliam