Explain the twist
ould somebody please explain the twist ending to me. Thanks!
share The writer (Anwar) had a twin sister. There were 2 little girls in the room
and the Manville boy killed one in some uncomprehensible manner...rape? wierdness? who knows... the writer and director certainly didn't. Anyway Anwar hid and then ran away after the seeing her twin be murdered. Where were her parents?
So Anwar gets adopted by somebody...whatever happened to the girls original parents? they never said... all the stuff about 1902 had NOTHING to do with ending. The three friends let the Child Anwar shoot MAnville and escape. It was all the ghost of her twin calling her back to settle the score.
Does that help? I wish Forrest had picked a different DOG of a movie to be in, but everybody has to make a buck.
Er, actually they DO explain what happened to the girls' parents...
Earlier in the film, Anwar explains that her parents died in a car accident and she was adopted by two teachers. She had then suppressed the memory of her sister's murder.
After the car accident, Mercy's family had taken them in and they were staying in the empty farmhouse. Then Mercy brings her drinking buddies round and Manville rapes and kills one of the twins (here, I agree, the film doesn't make what happens clear, but I guess we are to assume that Manville was a paedophile because he had been sexually abused by his mother as a child; his father refers to this rather elliptically when he says that his mother wanted the boy to turn into a man too fast and that Manville had bent to her will). Little Anwar kills Manville, then Mercy and her buddies hide his body and the body of Anwar's sister in the marsh. Then Mercy claims that Manville raped her to explain his disappearance (if you remember, the newspaper with the report of the rape was missing from the newspaper archives). In the meantime, the hunters find Anwar in the marsh and then she is presumably adopted by the teachers. Then when she returns to town, the newspaper editor fabricates the whole 1902 story to cover up the deaths and throw Anwar off the scent.
As I said before, the film does seem to expect the viewer to read between the lines a lot. Not sure whether this was intentional or they downplayed the whole child rape angle to try and get a lower censors rating or maybe secure a TV sale. But it does all kinda make sense.
*still confused*
were the twins sisters or otherwise related to mercy?
(and i assume the teachers didn't adopt anwar twice...)
[deleted]
Child voice :Ask me nicely !!
Mother voice :Why are you doing this sht , just stick it up your as !
Child voice : Please, just ask me nicely !! (sob sob)
Mother voice : I already asked you nicely 10 minutes ago , I'm gonna tear this house apart and when I find it , you're gonna be one sorry kid !
Question ::
1. Ask me nicely .... to do what ?
2. Stick what up his as , and what is meant by that ?
3. She's gonna tear the house apart to find what ?
[deleted]
I just watched it, and Mercy was the babysitter. Claire says so as she's remembering/retelling the story. She says Mercy was babysitting us.
So it does beg the question - WHERE WERE HER PARENTS??? Maybe they had already died in the car crash, and Mercy's family was a foster home family, as someone suggested. Okay. I can accept that, even though it's a stretch.
But she still had to explain to someone why she came home without either one of the girls. And she still had to explain why one of them was found in the marsh the next day. Huge plot hole IMHO.
Also, I can see Claire blocking out a tragic event, fair enough. But forgetting she even had a twin? She was eight, not four. She would remember having a twin sister. And by the way, wouldn't she have recognized herself when she saw the photo of the young Rose? Speaking of photos, just where did that photo of Rose and her killer come from? You know, the one that was supposed to be from the turn of the century? What the heck?
Finally, what was up with Noah? The killer's father tells him about the visit, and he says "I'll take care of it", and goes after them with a gun, ready to kill them. Huh? To protect what secret exactly? It's not like he killed anyone. He was a teenager at the time. What did he think would happen if the secret came out? Not a whole lot, that's what. Certainly nothing to kill over! That made no sense.
I thought this movie was okay - low budget, B movie, but okay...until that ridiculous third act! Man, what a lot of nonsense!
“I always tell the truth…even when I lie” - Scarface
Having just watched this movie for the first time, I must respectfully disagree with some of your assumptions. I think you are doing a lot of surmising and playing fill-in-the-blank to come up with that explanation. The movie really left too many pieces dangling. Claire (Anwar) claims her biological parents died in a car accident - that much is true. But we don't know when this happened ... we don't know if they are already dead at the time of the "incident" or not. This could also be a false memory/fabrication on Claire's part, considering that she didn't even remember even having a twin, let alone witnessing her sister's murder and subsequently shooting the murderer.
We don't know that Mercy's family had taken in the twins, period. We aren't told anything about the relationship between Mercy's family and the twins. All we know is that Mercy was "watching" the twins that night. We don't know if the biological parents were alive or dead at that point. You'd think that they were probably deceased, because otherwise, wouldn't they have put up a stink about one missing daughter and another daughter found in the marsh? I would need much more concrete details to understand what was going on between the twins and Mercy - especially since Mercy was such a minor character who was barely even in the movie until the final act.
The sexual assault piece is fuzzy and to me, may be a red herring. The movie led us to believe that the assault had occurred with Claire as a young girl. The story in the newspaper was obviously not about Claire's twin, given that no one knew what happened to her. We know that the June 19th issue of the newspaper was missing, but we don't know what story was covered that day - how could we? It's a pure guess that Mercy had claimed to be sexually assaulted by Brendan. That could account for his disappearance, but what about the disappearance of Rose? That wouldn't have been so easily explained. You'd think even a small town police force would have investigated the sexual assault, the whereabouts of Brendan, and certainly the whereabouts of a missing 8-year-old girl.
None of it adds up.
We do know that Noah fabricated the 1902 story, but where did he get the picture with Brendan and the little girl? For what purpose would that have been taken? I don't trust that it could simply have been photoshopped, because that would have required a posed photo of each of the parties, in complementary positions. Yet another loose end.
I like movies that leave something to the viewer's imagination, but when it is done to this extent I cry foul. It's pure laziness or indecision on the part of the writers/directors/producers.