MOVIES

One Killer Theory May Explain The Film’s Most Baffling Mystery

Something that made “Scream” stand apart from its slasher contemporaries was the reveal that there are two killers all along. In an interview with SFX magazine, director Eli Roth said he wanted to make something akin to that film. “We had such high standards and high expectations for the movie,” he said. “We wanted to make a great modern slasher film. I remember the first time I saw ‘Scream’ in the theatre and you just go, ‘Holy s***. That was amazing!’ That’s what I want, to do that for the next generation.” With “Scream” as a clear inspiration, it seems even more plausible there could’ve been two killers the whole time. 

The “Thanksgiving” fan theory has taken off, with most people assuming there were two throughout the story even before the Sheriff Newlon reveal. For instance, u/Cosmokram3r1 speculated on their thought process, positing, “I’m terrible at figuring out killers I thought it was her boyfriend and ex-boyfriend working together.” Another Redditor had a similar idea because the logic didn’t add up with only one killer. “At one point I thought this only because I wasn’t buying that patrick Dempsey could keep disappearing with no one noticing,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the lapse in logic doesn’t seem to deter many people’s enjoyment. It’s a slasher movie where the killer dresses like a pilgrim, so it can be forgiven if not every single plot point quite adds up. Besides, the ending of “Thanksgiving” leaves the door open for Newlon still being out there. Perhaps a sequel could see him team up with someone else, or two entirely new killers could enter the murderous fray. As it stands, it’s a solid horror flick where viewers would probably do well not to think about it too hard.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX GOOGLE INDEX