The Killer?
Was it Molly who killed her son, Eddie Katz, and the other boys? or was it the priest or Petrocelli? I'm confused. If she did, why?
shareOk, in answer to this question, it's a major spoiler for anyone else that reads it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Eddie was killed years ago in a hunting accident. He was playing in the woods by himself one afternoon while 2 brothers/businessmen (whom he did not know)were out hunting. One of the brothers thought he shot a deer, but he really shot and killed Eddie. They flipped out and decided to bury him and never tell anyone about it. The brother that killed Eddie felt so guilty that every year he sent the mom, Molly, flowers on mother's day. One year he was so sick he was on his deathbed and finally confessed what he had done to a priest, who instructed him to make right his sin. Apparently (and we only find this out at the very end of the movie) he took the priest's advice and told Molly what happened. Which means that when Ted Danson and the investigators told Molly what had happened to her son all those years ago, she acted surprised even though she already knew.
Molly had gone kinda psycho and started killing little boys that had lost their mothers, all so her dead son would finally have friends. So, she was the main killer in the movie. Eddie's death was an accident and not her fault.
The movie tricked us into thinking the priest was doing it because we heard movement in the church basement and assumed it was the little boy who was being kidnapped. The basement hallway looked similar to that which the boy was locked up in.
Also, the movie tried to trick us into thinking that Ted Dansen's character was doing it but had no idea he was doing it.
So, they figured it all out in the end but never suspected Molly because they didn't know that she already knew that her son was dead and who had killed him.
Got it? I hope I explained it well enough
i get it. i got it when i saw it. but i dont understand why they wouldnt just say the priest ahd nothing to do with it. it was left so mysterious. i didnt like that priests attitude through the whole movie. he had the attitude of a killer. and who ahs two basements exactly alike with green doors. its just crazy. so if the priest had nothing to do with it, then why did ted's mom even come back too. she didnt know anything about it either. ok so ted inherited the talking to the dead trait from her, but still thats nothing. she was there in the whole movie. thats just crazy to thrwo people off with the mom and the priest and they didnt even have anything to do with it. and gross! what was it the boy was being fed. were those body parts from other victims. or maybe it was the rats. esxcept the rats were in the church basement and thats not where the boy was. when ted and his dad were eating stew i almost thought it was the same thing as what the boy was easting and so then i sort of thought the mom and the priest were in it together since there was this line that sort of incenuated a possible liking between the two. the whole movie was just crazy. who throw things out there that have nothing to do with anything only to get you more confused. its annoying. and why did queen have to die. she was a good friend. the boys didnt grow old while they were in heaven so whats up with ehr dead baby being fice years old now. and mary steenburgen should have fallen in love with ted since queen was out of the picture. she was the only one left that believed ted. its just not fair. that was a long movie that i thought would never end. i live in america and it is was called talking to heaven and it says 2001. but here on imdb it says its called living with the dead and it says 2002. whats up with that.
shareFirst of all, you must remember that this is just a movie. All of those elements such as the priest and the two basements are there to add suspense. The point is not what the boy was being fed, but the fact that he was being "taken care of" and the way that he was being fed. The woman was just nuts. There isn't any logic when people are nuts therefore it dosen't reall matter what he was being fed. Once again, lets keep in mind that it's a movie made for entertainment. Queen Latefah (have you seen last holiday? love her) died becasue she smoked. I think that was one of the greated points of the movie. Do you know how many people that i have seen dye becase they were stupid enough to smoke? The movie was entertaining. It sounds to me like you just didn't like it.
shareWell, I think the reason they didn't come out and make it obvious that the priest wasn't a bad guy was to trick us. To make us surprised when we discover that someone else is doing it. That's just an element of good story-telling.
shareThe times the boy got out and almsot escaped, so it was the crazy old Mother that pushed him back in?! Queen Latefah, she looks young. How many years could someone her age smoke to cause her to die? I've experienced death from smoking and it is a long, slow and painful death. But then again maybe she started smoking at the age of 12.
When the kid was eating and licking the plate like an animal, I thought it looked like dog food. It was most likely something cheap, like poor, poor , poverty stricken or even homeless people eat. Sorry for the rambling on. Looked like chef boy r dee (the cheap generic kind) like the macaroni and beef stuff. That stuff is really gross or beef stew in a can. Ever had it? It looks really nasty. The beef is soft and mushy and actually does taste like dog food.
I thought Eddie's Mom was in the church basement? She was in there cleaning up the kids mess. Well the ending was very confusing so maybe I missed something. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that didn't get the ending.
the whole food part was to show the boy found a partial pill in the food so he stoped eating so he wouldn't be drugged, so we saw all the uneaten plates of food for a while.
share