I suppose you could take the ending a few ways. Every person trying to warn people of some impending crisis who is then ignored feels like the guy in this movie.
Although they did leave out the aftermath where he mocks the dead.
That would almost make sense except the wife and daughter saw it before him and were staring at it too. The more accurate explanation is shitty writing.
He kills his whole family. In his skitzo episodes, his wife was attacking him and he had to kill her. In another he had to save his daughter from a violent horde. In the end, he sees the storm to end all storm, he kills his wife and then his daughter to protect her from who he sees as evil coming to claim her, as is a common delusion amongst skitzos.
Skitzo is slang you imbecile. No, his delusions become increasingly violent. That’s in the movie. Not just destruction, but violence, and when he has violent delusions we even see how he responds with violence in reality. That’s IN THE MOVIE. it only logically follows that his last skitzo episode is so monumentally violent and destructive that the way he reacts to it in reality is with extreme violence and destruction. He killed his wife and daughter, it wasn’t a happy ending where they hug out and defeat mental illness with the power of family, get over it you mental midget
everyone thought he was schizo with these hallucinations but at the end turns out he was right some kind of prophet or something the director said the ending is up to interpretation which makes zero sense when the mom and daughter sees the storm and oil rain
The ending scene unequivocally shows him as being right through the perspective of his daughter and the gathering storms/tornadoes' reflection on the window pane.
I think that the movie's brilliance is heightened by the ending bc the movie suggests a mental condition and then upends that by objectively implying-- that is, placing the evidence outside the viewpoint of the main character-- that there were indeed apocalyptic storms on the horizon
It's an anti-statement and it's pure cowardice and I'll have no part of it, thank you very much.
Art isn't a hamburger.Ambiguity is a perfectly fine choice even when-- as often happens-- the author has a specific interpretation in mind which he prefers not to disclose. The real laziness comes from predictable, neatly packaged literalist endings. People are meant to think and consider different scenarios bc that makes the work subtler and more vivid
Boy, did you just tell an AMERICAN a hamburger can't be art? I don't know what horseburger eatin' country you hail from but if you can't appreciate the ARTISTRY that goes into a 100% grade A beef burger topped ever so lovingly with AMERICAN cheese and put on a bun for every man woman and child in this God Blessed Nation to enjoy, well fella, you need to GEDDOUT!
Ambiguity only works when it's incidental or when it proposes a rhetorical question, not as a tacked on gotcha that turns a well meaning study on mental illness into an episode of the twilight zone. It just takes all the gas out of the finished product.
This is only true when the ending is “ambiguous” in the sense that it leaves two options of equal possibilities, ie christopher Nolan’s inception where it’s either he’s still dreaming or he’s not. This movie had plenty of different red herring possibilities for the ending which are obviously not the case, and one interpretation that actually fits the themes of the film. The storm at the end isn’t real, mental illness isn’t something you can escape or heal from, your friends and family will always be caught in the middle of it.
The way I see it either: >He was right all along
or >His wife is joining in his delusions
The fact that none of his other visions came true would seem to imply the second option.
Downer ending regardless.
Yes and no. A broken clock is right twice a day, but its still broken. He is broken. He thinks an apocalyptic storm is going to kill him and his family. There will always be storms. There will always be tornadoes. But if you're mentally fricked up you can exaggerate things. He was exaggerating things. His fear was causing the exaggeration.
The ending is him having another episode. His wife is trying to calm him, letting him know she knows hes having another episode. But she tells him its okay, she there with him until it passes...like all storms do eventually
I looked up and saw the director said the family finally connected and were on the same page which is what the scene tries to convey. Whether the storm is real, their families are all insane, etc are up to interpretation because it is not important.
Well in that case the director is a dumbass because schizophrenia isn't a contagious disease. The wife and daughter aren't going to magically be able to see the same hallucination at the same time just because he was.
No he was wrong
Explain the ending
if you're not baiting, he's still schizo but now he doesn't freak out because his family is by his side
I suppose you could take the ending a few ways. Every person trying to warn people of some impending crisis who is then ignored feels like the guy in this movie.
Although they did leave out the aftermath where he mocks the dead.
That would almost make sense except the wife and daughter saw it before him and were staring at it too. The more accurate explanation is shitty writing.
a gathering storm. metaphor for his psychosis.
The horror set in after realizing he paid to go to Myrtle Beach
He kills his whole family. In his skitzo episodes, his wife was attacking him and he had to kill her. In another he had to save his daughter from a violent horde. In the end, he sees the storm to end all storm, he kills his wife and then his daughter to protect her from who he sees as evil coming to claim her, as is a common delusion amongst skitzos.
You sound more "skitzo" than the character did. Also it's schizo you moron.
Skitzo is slang you imbecile. No, his delusions become increasingly violent. That’s in the movie. Not just destruction, but violence, and when he has violent delusions we even see how he responds with violence in reality. That’s IN THE MOVIE. it only logically follows that his last skitzo episode is so monumentally violent and destructive that the way he reacts to it in reality is with extreme violence and destruction. He killed his wife and daughter, it wasn’t a happy ending where they hug out and defeat mental illness with the power of family, get over it you mental midget
everyone thought he was schizo with these hallucinations but at the end turns out he was right some kind of prophet or something the director said the ending is up to interpretation which makes zero sense when the mom and daughter sees the storm and oil rain
Yes, his wife got everyone killed. Go figure.
I got a kick out of seeing him appear twice in 2 different roles on Early Edition, before he became famous.
The ending scene unequivocally shows him as being right through the perspective of his daughter and the gathering storms/tornadoes' reflection on the window pane.
The film would have been perfect if it simply ended with him opening the shelter entrance
I think that the movie's brilliance is heightened by the ending bc the movie suggests a mental condition and then upends that by objectively implying-- that is, placing the evidence outside the viewpoint of the main character-- that there were indeed apocalyptic storms on the horizon
OP, Michael Shannon is always right, no matter what role he's in.
I forgot this movie existed. I remember watching it with Cinemaphile actually
i hate movies where the creator says the ending is up for interpretation to me that just says lazy writing
It's an anti-statement and it's pure cowardice and I'll have no part of it, thank you very much.
Art isn't a hamburger.Ambiguity is a perfectly fine choice even when-- as often happens-- the author has a specific interpretation in mind which he prefers not to disclose. The real laziness comes from predictable, neatly packaged literalist endings. People are meant to think and consider different scenarios bc that makes the work subtler and more vivid
Boy, did you just tell an AMERICAN a hamburger can't be art? I don't know what horseburger eatin' country you hail from but if you can't appreciate the ARTISTRY that goes into a 100% grade A beef burger topped ever so lovingly with AMERICAN cheese and put on a bun for every man woman and child in this God Blessed Nation to enjoy, well fella, you need to GEDDOUT!
It can but it'll be valued inasmuch as it's predictable and offers a complete/self-contained experience unlike a movie
Ambiguity only works when it's incidental or when it proposes a rhetorical question, not as a tacked on gotcha that turns a well meaning study on mental illness into an episode of the twilight zone. It just takes all the gas out of the finished product.
This is only true when the ending is “ambiguous” in the sense that it leaves two options of equal possibilities, ie christopher Nolan’s inception where it’s either he’s still dreaming or he’s not. This movie had plenty of different red herring possibilities for the ending which are obviously not the case, and one interpretation that actually fits the themes of the film. The storm at the end isn’t real, mental illness isn’t something you can escape or heal from, your friends and family will always be caught in the middle of it.
The way I see it either:
>He was right all along
or
>His wife is joining in his delusions
The fact that none of his other visions came true would seem to imply the second option.
Downer ending regardless.
The first family member who saw the storms wasn't his wife, it was their deaf daughter who was playing in the sand with her back to them
A broken clock etc.
Yes and no. A broken clock is right twice a day, but its still broken. He is broken. He thinks an apocalyptic storm is going to kill him and his family. There will always be storms. There will always be tornadoes. But if you're mentally fricked up you can exaggerate things. He was exaggerating things. His fear was causing the exaggeration.
The ending is him having another episode. His wife is trying to calm him, letting him know she knows hes having another episode. But she tells him its okay, she there with him until it passes...like all storms do eventually
>hes having another episode
How was she able to see the imaginary storm too if it was just an "episode?"
Anon, hes the storm, shes seeing him
What?
Many such cases
I looked up and saw the director said the family finally connected and were on the same page which is what the scene tries to convey. Whether the storm is real, their families are all insane, etc are up to interpretation because it is not important.
Well in that case the director is a dumbass because schizophrenia isn't a contagious disease. The wife and daughter aren't going to magically be able to see the same hallucination at the same time just because he was.
maybe schizophrenia is just a different take on reality, no better or worse than that of neurotypicals