+Philo Janus actually Rosebud was the name of the hooker Kane first had sex with, but the scene was deleted. The whole sled thing was an accident. And you can say you read that on the Internet.
Not exactly sarcastic I think. Alex, even under the aversive effects, enjoys violence. Thus the brainwash is a sickness for him. When he says cured it's a point of view issue. He's free to do as he wants, cured of the inability to inflict violence and indulge in debauchery. Though I too think the ending is pretty clear.
Inception's ending scene is cleary Nolan's way to demonstrate the concept works. By filming that totem spinning and cutting before you get to know if it keeps spinning or it falls he creates an inception on the viewer. Without saying anything, it makes the viewer wonder if it's real or if it's a dream. Genius.
What do you mean why would he? He's basically Bruce's dad in their relationship dynamic and he wants to see his son happy and in love with a hot woman. Selena Kyle is that. Also, how the fuck is Batman going to stop being Batman and be some coffee drinking tourist? Same goes for Selena Kyle, that's not who those characters are so it makes no sense for them to end up like that. In addition, what, do they wait at that cafe every day hoping Alfred shows up and makes a slight nod at them? If they were really there, why doesn't Alfred go over and talk to them? Why is it just a slight acknowledgement? The whole thing doesn't make sense.
ThwartedVillainy really? This Bruce Wayne never wanted to do it forever. He eventually wanted to be with Rachael and be done. Alfred told Bruce where he vacations and the cafe he goes to, and told him of a hope he had when he was originally missing....of seeing him there and not saying a word. Just knowing he had made it and was happy. Watch the damn movie.
monokhem thank you, I thought I was the only one who thought the Dark Knight was ridiculous crap, riddled with plotholes and a boring storyline. But most for some reason think it's this centurys Citizen Kane and will argue vehemently this is the case. If Ledger hadn't died, I think more would have seen through his act and realised it was okay at best (but ruined by a terrible script and directing that had to make every single scene he was in 'really cool and awesome'). as it is, everyone gushes about how awesome he was.
In Inception the ending wasn't a dream. This is based on the fact that Cobbs' totem isn't the top; it's his wedding ring. He wears his ring during dream sequences in the movie and doesn't wear it in real life. He's not wearing it during the final scene.
**10 Ambiguous Film Endings You Got Completely Right Unless You're an Idiot Who Thinks Deliberately Ambiguous Film Endings All Actually Have a Hidden Correct Interpretation
They often do, however. While some directors make ambiguous on purpose, some have a clear agenda, for example, in the Wrestler, it doesn't matter if he dies or lives, he's a one trick pony and can't get accustomized to ordinary life, it's a pretty clear point, and so is No Country for Old Men, it's literally in the title, the world became too brutal, violent and meaningless for that generation. Again, pretty clear point of the movie.
i like how youre not afraid to say you dont know the answer to something. sometimes people forget to do that, and just pull things out their butt. good on you sir.
I read the book long ago. In the book, the space baby was moving towards earth and nukes were going off. A new beginning, but not without destruction...Just like the caveman monkey creatures discovering violence and how that marked a change in their development. Destruction=rebirth...something like that. Also, in the special features for the movie, I believe they said that the monkey guy, the astronaut, the old man in the room at the end, and the space baby...were all related. Same string of DNA.
jfrsnjhnsn Well go watch 2010? It's pretty clear. David Bowman becomes a super being, though a baby in comparison to the beings that made him. At the end of 2001 he just arrives at Earth and sets off orbital nukes (vague), but in 2010 we learn that he's here to set Europans free.
The space baby theory I latched onto was that it represented the next step in evolution, the ability to transcend Newtonian Space Time, to comprehend the present, past and future at once
He's not in a dream in an inception. The top is a red herring and his real dream indicator (I forget what they're called) is his wedding ring which he doesn't wear in dreams. We can see him wearing it in the end. All in all though, video guy is right and it doesn't really matter.
I believe you're wrong, the ring shows that he is married with Mal, aka when he's in a dream. But he lets go of Mal near the end of the movie. So in essence Mal is no longer attached to him and he's free of her, and the ring.
I remember reading "Shane" the book by Jack Shaefer back in Form 2 (Secondary School) and our teacher asked us to discuss the very ending. It really was a 50/50 situation, where some did say that he die later on due to his wounds, and others assumed he lived because his wounds could have just been a graze. One theory was the Fletcher's hitman obviously died, but Fletcher was able to get a hit on Shane, which could have made him bleed out. Another theory was that Fletcher was not that good of a shot, and in his panic (as the Hitman had failed), tried to take out Shane, but only grazed him. One final theory was that the hitman actually hit Shane, and Fletcher missed (because he was a horrible shot). To this day, most of my former classmates can have the same discussion, and I still have the original book I used in form 2... (Edited from before. John Steinbeck wrote "The Pearl".)
I liked it but it bugged me because I have a thing about innocent/likeable female characters getting killed for no reason. The lesson of randomness cuts deep though, so it worked
I was about to say that as soon as the mentioned the ending of Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick was notoriously known for changing the feel of the written inspiration of his films.
I'm going to have to look at that... Ebert was just a hipster that spoke out about Horror films being "misogynistic", when in most horror films, the villain is defeated by a woman. He also said that "Citizen Kane" is his favorite film of all time. While it's a great film, it's not the best film ever made. I could go on for days about Ebert AND Siskel. Kubrick was a GENIUS. Most of his films carry on debates, still today about what actually happened, except, of course "A Clockwork Orange".
If you read Arthur Clarke's book about the making of the movie--the writing of the movie script, he said "Stanley" was always drunk & just couldn't figure out what he wanted to do, & he, Arthur, stayed up a couple of nights & put together a script, with the journey inspiring everyone because it was so beautiful, so it filled out the time. A wonderful movie, because everyone who saw it seemed to "fill it in." Bravo, Dearest Artie. When will someone do "Childhood's End?" Love, Deirdre
The ending of Inception is explained in plain sight by a seemingly ambiguous character. "No. They come to be woken up. The dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise, son?" As said very nicely in this video, it doesn't matter whether he's asleep or awake, he's reunited with his kids and is happy. Some say Michael Caine's character is trying to help Mol wake Cobb up. Lots of theories, lots of discussion, and this is what Christopher Nolan wanted.
yea people keep saying this as it means something. The totems works only in a way they know, so that they can tell if they are in someone elses Dream. BUT since Cobs wife is dead, he couldnt be in her Dream. so the totem still works.
Yes. But, at the end......where was the money? That's the real question. Was it in the car? Chigurh has to leave it if it is. Or, is it in a hotel room somewhere? And will Chigurh be able to retrieve it? And, will he once again self-treat? I suppose going to a doctor is out, but he's in pretty bad shape.
The ending of The Graduate was a result created by a stand in filmographer or video technician filming and not saying cut when the couple were happy, but the director liked how the actors just kind of slid into the "what do we do now that noone has said cut phase" and kept it, as he realized it added more ambiguity to the film and a better chance to end up on a list like this.
I doubt that. As the movie begins the main character has just completed a major accomplishment, yet doesn't quite know what comes next. So, the ending of the Graduate makes sense since it is in-line with the way this character has acted. When he get's what he wants, he begins to have doubts about whether he really wants it and where to go from there.......The ending is not simply some dumb accident.....geez.
Sort of like God deciding having a Republican win the 2000 Presidential Election was a more interesting way to end the Second Millennium than the Global Nuclear War or World Wide Communist Revolution Hollywood Atheists had been telling everybody for the last century was it's inevitable ending.
Jim Scribner Why would God give 2 shits who won a United States Presidential election in 2000? It wasn't God it was man that chose that action, not by popular vote but by a fabricated electoral college that makes it's own rules for itself. Are you arguing that G.W. Bush made the world great, or what is your point?
So glad you included the Graduate in this list. I have often explained to people that the ending is not as happy as so many think, that the reality of the future settles in and thus their smiles fade.
+bard icus "if the multiverse theory is right, then there will be an universe were it isn't" - some floating post I saw on tumblr our minds love turning onto paradoxes and paradoxal situations
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the baby is David Bowman, the main character. In the books he is turned into an energy based, eternal Star Child so that he can travel through space forever.
+asmiskelley Yeah, reading the book gives a lot of insight. At the finale, once you are past Jupiter's moon, as far as the movie goes, your guess is as good as mine. You could say that he becomes the Star Child, and I agree with that, but the movie, leaves you hanging....
And the books say he was saved inside the black monolith like a computer program, so it's a new David, a new age of man. Birthdays are featured in the movie several times.
lol, unexpectedly good ending Adam 😂 "I don't know and I'm probably wrong ..." what a refreshing change of tune in a sea of know-it-all TH-camrs. Good job sir!
It's click bait trash invented by the owner of this channel, they invent a title that encourages you to watch purely because they have arrogantly challenged you by saying you didn't understand the ending to 10 different movies.
Yet you still continue to NOT GET THE POINT. He literally says its not about the top and you still think the ending is about the fucking top. You are an idiot.
+Jelly xT He's not even talking about the top, he's talking about how it's stupid that people still argue over the top when there is a definitive answer. And YOU are missing the point, the top is a sign of whether the ending is real or entirely a delusion, something that matters to the plot and to the fans. Yet still you just repeat what the man in the video said because you can't think for yourself. You are an idiot.
Though "No Country for Old Men" pissed off many people (and left me wondering a bit) for having and ending that didn't give the simple, "and the good guy WINS in spectacular fashion!" that everyone expects, I think it made sense after I gave it a few thoughts. The clue is in the title, at least for my own interpretation. Most older stories (including TRUE stories) about good guys/bad guys cat-and-mouse games seemed to be "cleaner", simpler, with a strong line between criminals and those who chase them. Whenever I heard or read about "bad guys" from pre-1980's or further in the past, there seemed a clear-cut difference between them and average law-abiding folks, and if I knew somebody causing trouble, they either got arrested, killed, or went downhill fast somehow. The cops, rangers, sheriffs, etc... didn't even have much reason to look over their shoulder, and the bad guys were obvious targets. THESE days, you can be an officer searching for some weird dude cutting people up, or you can be a citizen avoiding involvement (!) and in the process easily get gunned down accidentally by some stupid gang members like in the film's ending, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It can be horrible, tragic, gut-wrenchingly meaningless, and nightmarishly confusing to live in these times where the odds of being killed from some unrelated bullshit are much greater. In the wrong town or area, or... "country".... that bullshit is very likely nowadays, and the "....Old Men", formally die-hard warriors standing up for what's right are now scratching their heads about it, feeling maybe they'd better retire after all.
I had trouble getting into a movie about a serial killer on a rampage who is only being chased by one country cop... Try and redo what he did and you would have the FBI working alongside multiple police agencies trying to catch you. Not one country cop who spends more time drinking coffee thinking about philosophical questions instead of actually doing his job...
The film is set in 1980, just two years after people like Ted Bundy got captured and exposed. The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime in the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit wasn't even created until 5 years later. In the film, the state police and the county sheriff never sync up because they never make the connection between the random murders and the drug enforcers, because of no federal crime database, no internet, no dna science...the list goes on and on. Very accurate. All of those these things came later. It was No Country For Old Men indeed, because old methods were completely ineffective in catching modern criminals.
JJ, That adds some interesting historical detail to the story but honestly I found it so bleak and nihilistic that all I could think about afterwards was the spectacular cruelty of Chigurh. It's hard to see it as historical fiction when the dramatic deaths overwhelm you but the tension certainly was effective and it kept my attention. Can't say its a movie I will want to watch again though.
AEA don't forget the writer was Cormac McCarthy... A consistent theme over many of his stories is that sometimes good things happen, and sometimes bad things happen (and good people lose). It ends up feeling very realistic... There isn't necessarily a rhyme or reason, things just are as they are. I find that it actually makes me really appreciate small kindnesses and occurrences when they happen in McCarthy's stories (and maybe in real life too).
Love that for 2001 you presented that we are all wrong, you are wrong, everyone is wrong cuz who the heck knows?! Great vid regarding all these movies!
I read "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale", the short story by Philip K Dick that "Total Recall" was inspired by (a *lot* of films are based on his writing) and at the end was left thinking, "WTF?" That's the thing about his work, he did a lot of drugs and was intrigued by the nature of "reality".
Yeah I always found it confusing when Dicaprio spun round the space baby which showed that it wasn't still a dream but really it was designed by those brain butchers at Recall, which meant that glance he gives in the taxicab mirror meant that he was ready to flip again at any moment and impulsively get married. I always interpreted it to mean that the cowboy really was a child abuser, so that's why he rode off into the sunset to escape from the neutron bomb, and that's why Alfred was pleased to see Javier Bardem at the cafe being "cured" of his inability to close his eyes. Now I see I got it wrong. Thanks for clearing it up!
+Lemonjamin that's what I understand too. The top was Mol's totem, and the totem is supposed to be specific to the individual that carries it. The wedding ring was his totem, which can be seen throughout the movie, but never discussed.
In Inception, whether or not he is in the dream certainly IS the point, to have the audience question that. But it's also the point that he doesn't care, which is why he walks away from the top.
In the movie Inception he wasn't dreaming at the end. His totem isn't the spinning top. It's his wedding ring. Watch the movie again. You can thank me later! lol =)
Or that The Graduate's ending was positive. The title of this video should be "10 Ambiguous Film Endings It's possible to find some mentally challenged people on the internet Getting Totally Wrong "
not the point. point is that we know the totem and how it is checked. we the audience dont get to see whether or not it falls. cobb knows his ring totem and from his reaction you can tell its legit. the mission was accomplished.
So the whole movie was mols dream about her husband living moving on and living without her because she is crazy, and she knows it and thinks he would be better off without her?
@Liam, No, she's really gone. She gave him her totem because she didn't care what was real anymore. His totem was his wedding ring, he wears it in the dreams. He's not wearing it in the last scene, so we know it's real and not a dream.
2001 is about consciousness. They found that space had it and that their minds could not handle the growth in consciousness without being overtaken by it. The baby represents the astronauts mind as it's gone full circle and now understands time and space as it reflects on it's own existence.
You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered that absolutely don't get that he's pretending to relapse so he can be lobotomized on purpose. I thought it was glaringly obvious, but there you go.
Certain directors(or the writers whose work the film is based on) intentionally want ambiguous endings because it's a declaration of the view that much in life is mysterious and unknowable with no clear cut, unequivocal answers.
Totally right about Total Recall! When I saw it a second time, I suddenly got the scene early on which mentions "blue sky on Mars" and I believe something like "he'll never want to come back".
The top is irrelevant in Inception. 1. That's not his totem, it's Mal's, so it's kinda useless. His actual totem is his wedding ring - On in the dream and Off outside the dream. 2. He doesn't care if this is real or not, it's HIS real.
+chiffmonkey The whole concept behind the top as a totem doesn't even make sense anyways. The point of the totems is that there's some specific detail about them that only the owner knows that it would be impossible (well improbable) for a dream architect to replicate, that way if suddenly that detail about your totem is wrong you know you're in a dream. Basically it's the same as in the beginning of the movie where the guy realizes he's in a dream because the carpet is wrong. Yet the top works the complete opposite way, instead of having some special detail in reality that can't be accurately replicated in a dream, instead it has a special trait in dreams that it lacks in reality. It's function implies that every architect would decide to give the fake/dream top a clearly unrealistic trait, which would make about as much sense as putting a flying car in the dream and expecting nobody to figure out they're dreaming. But then again, the concept of totems itself contradicts what the movie tells us. When Ariadne questions how she could ever achieve enough detail to create a convincing dream world, she's told that she doesn't have to create the details, just the broad structure and that the host's subconscious will fill in all the details. Which means that if your dream is being invaded your totem would be useless because YOU are the one who determines all of the details of the dream-totem, which means that it would match the real one anyways. Don't get me wrong, I liked the premise of the movie overall, it just dropped the ball a bit on its movie-science.
+phiefer3 Totems are used by real life lucid dreamers, they just aren't always explicitely called such. You should do some research on the subject, quite interesting stuff. :)
+Moonstone Knight I think it's a deliberate ruse, so anyone watching thinks it's his totem when it isn't. Which is actually rather clever, because it makes his real totem less obvious.
I'm pretty sure the reason the obelisk was at the end of the movie was because it was what started it all. With out it there would be no concept of god, evolution, or technology progressing through the ages
The ending to No Country For Old Men is in regards to Tommy Lee Jones' character, who has spent his entire life waiting for life's great answers to reveal themselves or for everything to make sense. But, in the end, nothing reveals itself. It is an homage to existentialism.
The dude in Clockwork Orange is not being sarcastic when he says he's cured. He's saying that his fantasies and desires now fit within society's norms, and therefore he is cured, but not in the usual manner. He has stayed the same (almost) and society has changed to tolerate (or embrace?) his twisted inner life as normal. It's a classic indictment of society. We must have fantasies just as sick as his, after all we just sat through a projection of his fantasies onto a movie screen, and we didn't leave, or try to rip the screen down -- instead we consumed it as entertainment. His fantasies are our fantasies; sickness is the new normal.
Re: Inception. I heard the final scene concluded with a cut away from the spinning top, only here the top fall just before the credits roll. It's been so long, I can't truly say I heard it but you might want to look that up.
Hey! search "ASS" clip from Idiocracy! Completely in line with your comment lol & I highly recommend watching that hysterically brilliant movie in full!
I agree that some directors use ambiguous endings as a defensive mechanism to convince people their movie is smart, and not a pretentious bag of air. But if a movie is done well, you'll notice how air tight the logic is throughout the film, and realize that the ending, although ambiguous is truly the correct answer to the question you don't fully understand your first time watching the film. If you haven't seen the movie Mr. Nobody, I suggest you watch it like 5 times. The ending isn't really ambiguous, but the entire movie is, and it's a trip.
"basically if you just scream 'BRAIN SCIENCE' into a bag filled with coins, you get inception." I swear, "deadpan snarking brit" ought to be it's own article on tvtropes
"No Country for Old Men" the film left out a giant scene that was in the book. When Sugar held Woody's character at gunpoint, he explained why he let himself get arrested. He spoke about how if Fate meant for him to go to prison, then so be it, but he escaped. Quite easily. Then at the end he gets in a horrific accident and is seriously injured. It explains Fate once again. But you miss that in the film due to the missing scene.
Inception ends when Leo is not in a dream. Spinning tractricoid top originally belonged to Mal, his wife and it was her totem. Leo's actual totem was his wedding ring. In the final seen he doesn't have it, while when he is in a dream he has it. Mindfuck right?!!
The totem of Cobb is the old Saito asking him if he is here to kill him. And it's way more complexe than that, so it's hard to explain. But Cobb was in the limbs, and the thing that save him is the movie itself with Saito as starting point and ending point. The last scene is the only thing that happen one time, but the all movie just goes in circle in his head while he wait in the limbs. For an infinite time, he just see the all thing again and again, and the movie we see is the last time ever he see all of that, and Saito asking him if he is here to kill him is the point that bring him back to the layer just above. After a certain amount of time, he can come back and not kill Saito this time, so they are all back, once and for all.
My explanation of "2001: A Space Odyssey", which I think is the most likely. The theme: Man vs. the tool - who is the master? So in the beginning, we have some ape creatures. They're not doing very well as far as competition for food goes. Then they come across the first monolith... and they change. They now have knowledge of tool use. One of them fights off competitors from a choice carcass with a bone, then throws the bone in the air. We follow the bone (the tool, which the monolith has given these creatures knowledge of) up, up, up to the sky when suddenly the scene changes and... ... We're still looking at the sky, but now there is a ship (a tool, developed by the descendants of the ape creatures). We then meet a Dr. Floyd, who is boarding a flight to the moon for some secret. But what is happening? The gentle computer voice gives him instructions and he dully obeys, standing where he's told to stand, being still as he's told, etc. This is the first sign that there is a question as to whether man masters the tool or the tool masters man. And since the first monolith affected our evolution the first time, it would now be time for a test. We've now reached the moon and found the second monolith, which sends out a signal somewhere in space - we don't know it yet, but it's calling to the third monolith. It had been placed there (as is told to Dr. Floyd) four million years ago and we in the audience are left to guess, knowing about the first monolith which the characters could not possibly know about, if the first scene we saw also took place four million years ago. Perhaps some ancient intelligence wanted another intelligent creature to speak to and figured that once we made it to the moon, that might be an indication that we're ready. Ah, but the test is coming, and as the people on the moon cover their ears to protect them from the high-pitched sound the second monolith is making as it calls out into space, the scene changes and... ... We are now viewing a ship. On board the ship, there are some astronauts. The ship is being run by an advanced AI, who also happens to show more emotion than the astronauts themselves, seeming perhaps _more_ human? (Cue the Rob Zombie song.) Now, a lot of people misunderstand what happens in this big, middle part of the story. They think HAL is insane. In fact, he is carrying out the instructions that humans gave him. When HAL says, "It can only be attributable to human error," he is completely correct and telling the truth. You see, the astronauts did not know what the true mission was. Only HAL knew that, but he was instructed only to tell them once they had reached Jupiter. As well, he was told that the second, secret mission was vital and must be carried out at all costs. This began the ultimate conflict of the film when HAL detects an equipment failure and one the two astronauts who are awake (there are three others are in cryogenic sleep) takes a pod outside the ship and retrieves the piece of equipment. Back inside, they find there's nothing wrong with it. HAL says to reinstall it and let it fail to find out what the problem is, but mission control back on earth has run tests with their two backup HAL 9000s and insists that their HAL must be wrong. HAL, however, says that the problem "can only be attributable to human error". And that's true! HAL has been introduced to lying: In being told to keep the mission secret and pretend that the red herring mission is the real one. He has no built-in way to handle this new concept, so he was trying it out when he reported a problem with the equipment. Concerned about his failure, the two astronauts get into a pod where HAL can't hear them and discuss shutting him down. But he reads their lips. More human error, followed by HAL needing to keep up the deceit, because if he is shut down, he cannot tell the astronauts about the true mission and they have to get to Jupiter for him to be able to. So when one of the astronauts goes back out to replace the equipment, HAL sabotages him, cuts off his oxygen and sets him adrift. The second astronaut goes out to try to save him. Alone with the three sleeping astronauts, HAL cuts off their life support, killing them, so that there is only that second astronaut, Dave Bowman, and himself left. He needs just one astronaut alive to finish the mission, but can't have more or they'll band together to shut him down. He begins to try to bargain with Bowman when the astronaut wants back into the ship, with HAL saying that he can't jeopardize the mission. Bowman manually reenters the ship and heads to the core of HAL to shut him down. HAL goes through various emotions trying to make Bowman stop and then finally accepting his fate. Now there is one man left to master the tool. But HAL still must obey his commands. Just as he is shutting down, he throws up the video that he was _supposed_ to show once they got to Jupiter, wherein Dr. Floyd explains the true mission. With no one left but Bowman, the astronaut decides to finish that mission and takes a pod to the third monolith. Remember that the first monolith helped us evolve by giving us knowledge of tools. Now one of us has proven mastery over the tool and it is time for the new monolith to continue what the first one started. Bowman enters the monolith, where we see in a clever scene that he lives out the rest of his life until, old and decrepit, he lies on a bed and on death's door. He then dies, but his story isn't over. He is reborn (Religious symbolism! Religious symbolism!) as the Star Child, or "bigass, floatin' space-baby", a new form of human. Whereas the first monolith gave humans tools, this new one removed the need for them and a new era is born. Cue "Also Sprach Zarathustra". And that is what "2001: A Space Odyssey" is all about, including the ending.
+Silas Mortimer Best explanation ever. thanks for taking the time! I still don't like the ending because of its too deep, hip, surreal late 60's style. I was around that time and you get sick of people trying to show they are clever by being deep, hip, surreal. Think Yoko. :)
Saved you a click: Basically this video says, "You know that movie that had a weird and ambiguous ending? We don't know what it means either and, SURPRISE, it's up to your interpretation of it."
How can you get it wrong if it's ambiguous. What ever you believe and draw from it is correct for you, otherwise the film would explicitly tell you otherwise.
I always thought that last scene in Taxi Driver was coma dream of Travis while he was in a hospital bed slowly dying. There is no way he made a full recovery and faced no criminal charges, let alone being a hero and his dream girl coming back to him, seeing him as not a creep but a hero. It is too good to be true.
No Country For Old Men was not only a great movie but an even better book. The book just does so much more justice for the characters. I highly recommend.
My son and I literally just watched Inception a couple hours ago, before I came on and watched this video. The slightly unstable top at the end started driving my son (13 y/o) nuts, until I reminded him that the top was never Cobb's totem. It was his wife's.
+El Duderino that's the point. if it's a dream he wears a ring. if it's real he doesn't. the top spinning is not the thing that alludes to a dream, his ring is
+Jack Phillips It's plausible, but it's not conclusive. Like nothing in this movie is conclusive. The point of the totem is to know wheter or not you're in someone else's dream. So it has to be an object that behaves differently in the real world (the loaded die, the poker chip spelled wrong..), so if someone would replicate in the dream, you'll know its not your dream. Why would someone replicate his ring if he doesn't wear it in the real world? And why he never checks his ring at any moment of the movie if its in fact his actual totem?
I've seen Taxi Driver a bunch of times. What's being said he does make sense, because it fits the pattern. When he shot the robber, and the store owner covered for him, validation. When he wiped out all those perverts, saved Jodie Foster, validation. You can see his violence escalate in the movie, and every time, it was validated. It would make sense he'd do it again, and keep doing it until he was killed, or locked up. In a sense, he became a serial killer.
Agreed. But I thought this video would offer different explanations to some other endings. Many of these movie I already 'got' the endings. A bit disappointing, but I did enjoy having an excuse to re-watch(most of)these endings to 'real movies'. I'm sure the Transformers ending was real straight forward. No Confusions. Or need to think or debate.
I believe that not answering questions at the end of 2001 was the most brilliant thing ever. Not only was he asserting that we are not alone, but humankind was taking the first baby steps into an existence so vast that the number of unanswered questions we could expect to be facing would be infinite.
+Fuzzy Wuzzy This is a bit sideways, but if you want a really good 'there is no clean getaway', you can't do better than, er, "The Getaway" by Jim Thompson. Pretty certain that neither movie from this book came anywhere near the book's actual ending mainly because it is so freaking bizarre. It's the Twilight Zone version of 'there is no clean getaway'.
The best part about A Space Odyssey is the ambiguity. I love how it is interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people. Kubrick hit a home run in his adaptation of Clarke's novel.
+isaiah r Shockingly, the director of "American Psycho" insists she wasn't going for the "it was all in his head" ending, and what you see is what you get (she said so in an audio commentary). I prefer to think of it like you do, especially since it's closer to the actual book.
+isaiah r I thought that too because of how his lawyer acted at the end of the movie and like nothing was wrong at all, but the director of the movie had said that he left it unintentionally ambiguous and Bateman really had killed all those people. There's an interview somewhere online
Spot on with Orange and Inception. Took me some decades to notice Alex's lead and final close-ups, but when I did I very nearly shouted out, "Stanley, you [son of a gun]!" I "got" 2001 on first viewing...the "baby" very nearly shocked the marmalade out of me...but I'd long wondered how all concerned came up with the transcendent ending. That turned out to be far more a collaborative result than you'd think. Even Keir Dullea (Bowman) says he came up with "hotel suite" shots that ended up in the film. Granted, Clarke's novel that was reportedly written in parallel with the production tied things together beautifully.
I love the ending to No Country For Old Men. They left it real. They left it legitimate. To me, that was the point, it was a modern story in that sense, no sugar coating. Brave decision and in my humble opinion and enjoyment of it, huge pay-off
+Rodgerinho The movie was based on a poem about the struggle of man against his own mortality. The bad guy got away because he wasn't actually out to be bad; it's just the way he was, like death itself. It's not evil, it just is. It's also inescapable and uncontested.
I'm sure Total Recall could be interpreted that way, but Philip K. Dick's 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' (what Total Recall was based on) was not based on a dream. They were trying to install memories of going to Mars because it was cheaper than actually going there. They had problems with the uploads because they found out that the guy had actually been there and had his own residual memories. They tried to escalate this, but it didn't work. Brilliant short story.
'No Country For Old Men' rocks! The dialog follows the book (nearly) word for word. The villain wreaks havoc, and gets away with it. All of the ""good-guys" are likeable people (most of whom end up dying in the end.) I like this film because it breaks the preconceived (Hollywood) notion of "the bad guy always gets what he deserves."
+Blue From the film's ending and where the story & villain would continue for awhile more, he got some of what he deserved with the accident which was the beginning of his end, and lots more after the boys told where he hobbled off to.....tracked down & killed or caught and off to prison.
RockinProfessor ...no-one really knows what happened in the end... and that's the beauty of it. The best is when Carla Jean refuses the coin toss -- proving that she is free in a way that Chigurh could never be.
It's odd though - because I think she's an idiot - I'd take the chance of getting to live even if it's random and has a fifty fifty chance of failure - at least it's a fifty fifty chance.
+MaxTheGreat14 exactly! i'm surprised that there's so much confusion. it's about human evolution, and the idea that there are intelligences that guide other species through the steps of consciousness evolution.
My father, as the president of the Ontario Science Fiction Club got to meet Arthur C Clarke soon after the film came out. Recall this was before the book was written. He asked Clarke 'what does the end of 2001 mean?' to which Clarke replied, according to Dad, 'I don't know, Stanley won't tell me.'
The ending of 2001 is easy to figure out when you understand that Rosebud was the name of his sled.
+Philo Janus Gaaaaan!
+Philo Janus DUDE! Spoiler alert!
+Philo Janus Dude....spoilers!
dammit now you've RUINED it!
+Philo Janus actually Rosebud was the name of the hooker Kane first had sex with, but the scene was deleted. The whole sled thing was an accident. And you can say you read that on the Internet.
I always thought that the ending to "A Clockwork Orange" as explained here was obvious.
stop being so pretentious kyle
Also, can you bring back Parks and Rec? I don't know what it is you do, but you seem important enough to get that done.
Kablash chris pratt is too expensive
Ditto. He was very clearly being sarcastic when he said he was cured.
Not exactly sarcastic I think. Alex, even under the aversive effects, enjoys violence. Thus the brainwash is a sickness for him. When he says cured it's a point of view issue. He's free to do as he wants, cured of the inability to inflict violence and indulge in debauchery. Though I too think the ending is pretty clear.
Inception's ending scene is cleary Nolan's way to demonstrate the concept works. By filming that totem spinning and cutting before you get to know if it keeps spinning or it falls he creates an inception on the viewer. Without saying anything, it makes the viewer wonder if it's real or if it's a dream. Genius.
WHY WOULD ALFRED DREAM UP SELENA KYLE. HOLY FUCK IT MAKES SENSE.
Because Alfred wants to see Bruce happy, duh. I don't subscribe to this theory, but it does make sense.
What do you mean why would he? He's basically Bruce's dad in their relationship dynamic and he wants to see his son happy and in love with a hot woman. Selena Kyle is that. Also, how the fuck is Batman going to stop being Batman and be some coffee drinking tourist? Same goes for Selena Kyle, that's not who those characters are so it makes no sense for them to end up like that. In addition, what, do they wait at that cafe every day hoping Alfred shows up and makes a slight nod at them? If they were really there, why doesn't Alfred go over and talk to them? Why is it just a slight acknowledgement? The whole thing doesn't make sense.
ThwartedVillainy really? This Bruce Wayne never wanted to do it forever. He eventually wanted to be with Rachael and be done. Alfred told Bruce where he vacations and the cafe he goes to, and told him of a hope he had when he was originally missing....of seeing him there and not saying a word. Just knowing he had made it and was happy. Watch the damn movie.
monokhem thank you, I thought I was the only one who thought the Dark Knight was ridiculous crap, riddled with plotholes and a boring storyline. But most for some reason think it's this centurys Citizen Kane and will argue vehemently this is the case.
If Ledger hadn't died, I think more would have seen through his act and realised it was okay at best (but ruined by a terrible script and directing that had to make every single scene he was in 'really cool and awesome'). as it is, everyone gushes about how awesome he was.
monokhem you have excellent taste my friend
In Inception the ending wasn't a dream. This is based on the fact that Cobbs' totem isn't the top; it's his wedding ring. He wears his ring during dream sequences in the movie and doesn't wear it in real life. He's not wearing it during the final scene.
"I don't know, do you?" Best review of 2001: A Space Odyssey ever.
+hafabee yeah that was a great ender fo sho
+hafabee I suscribed just becasue of that.
**10 Ambiguous Film Endings You Got Completely Right Unless You're an Idiot Who Thinks Deliberately Ambiguous Film Endings All Actually Have a Hidden Correct Interpretation
They often do, however. While some directors make ambiguous on purpose, some have a clear agenda, for example, in the Wrestler, it doesn't matter if he dies or lives, he's a one trick pony and can't get accustomized to ordinary life, it's a pretty clear point, and so is No Country for Old Men, it's literally in the title, the world became too brutal, violent and meaningless for that generation. Again, pretty clear point of the movie.
Isn't the title of this video an oxymoron?
ok i watched it! now gtf out of my recommendations!
+Sacha P-T Lol, totally. :)
+Sacha P-T lol you know thats like, the opposite of how it works, right?
agreed, I hate these fuckt up recommendations. until I found out bout the not interested button😃💯
Have all the likes
+Sacha P-T Right like wtf they really wanted me to watch this one.
i like how youre not afraid to say you dont know the answer to something. sometimes people forget to do that, and just pull things out their butt. good on you sir.
Space baby: a new beginning for humanity.
That's basically the way I saw it.
I read the book long ago. In the book, the space baby was moving towards earth and nukes were going off. A new beginning, but not without destruction...Just like the caveman monkey creatures discovering violence and how that marked a change in their development. Destruction=rebirth...something like that.
Also, in the special features for the movie, I believe they said that the monkey guy, the astronaut, the old man in the room at the end, and the space baby...were all related. Same string of DNA.
I first saw this film completely wrecked on LSD
That damn space baby had my jaw on the floor,
jfrsnjhnsn Well go watch 2010? It's pretty clear. David Bowman becomes a super being, though a baby in comparison to the beings that made him. At the end of 2001 he just arrives at Earth and sets off orbital nukes (vague), but in 2010 we learn that he's here to set Europans free.
The space baby theory I latched onto was that it represented the next step in evolution, the ability to transcend Newtonian Space Time, to comprehend the present, past and future at once
What about Smokey and the Bandit? Does the Bandit and the Snowman really go to Boston and get the clam chowder?
He's not in a dream in an inception. The top is a red herring and his real dream indicator (I forget what they're called) is his wedding ring which he doesn't wear in dreams. We can see him wearing it in the end. All in all though, video guy is right and it doesn't really matter.
on top of that when they do the parallel pan of the table and top with him in the background both him and us can see the faces of his kids
I believe you're wrong, the ring shows that he is married with Mal, aka when he's in a dream. But he lets go of Mal near the end of the movie. So in essence Mal is no longer attached to him and he's free of her, and the ring.
also his totem was corrupted when the Japanese guy touched it and then he was stuck in limbo with him
+Classy Freddy Blaise they also explain to the girl not to let anyone know what the totem is. it's not the top it's the ring
Yer MOM'S totem was corrupted . . .
The title "No Country For Old Men" Is what the movie is about.
+WiIdbiII So the title is about the movie?
Touche!
+WiIdbiII
Touche? Well played!
Touche, as in good point.
+WiIdbiII I thought they were both pretty much the same thing. as in your original point was on par.
The top doesn't freaking matter. If you want to know if he's dreaming or not, see if he's wearing his wedding ring.
J Donner Exactly, I forget what term the use, but each object is specific to the person, the top was not his, for him it's his wedding ring.
Not much of it matters. His wife's gone, and do his kids even know about the Inception that took her in the first place? ;o
J Donner dammit you posted before me lol
I'm feeling much better now Dave.
I'm sure 2001 is about Adam getting payback at Payback. #bx4life
#correctspelling4life
Quantum mechanics
Inception- The top wasn't Cobb's token.
2001- The space baby represents new life.
I remember reading "Shane" the book by Jack Shaefer back in Form 2 (Secondary School) and our teacher asked us to discuss the very ending. It really was a 50/50 situation, where some did say that he die later on due to his wounds, and others assumed he lived because his wounds could have just been a graze.
One theory was the Fletcher's hitman obviously died, but Fletcher was able to get a hit on Shane, which could have made him bleed out.
Another theory was that Fletcher was not that good of a shot, and in his panic (as the Hitman had failed), tried to take out Shane, but only grazed him.
One final theory was that the hitman actually hit Shane, and Fletcher missed (because he was a horrible shot).
To this day, most of my former classmates can have the same discussion, and I still have the original book I used in form 2...
(Edited from before. John Steinbeck wrote "The Pearl".)
How the fuck can you not like No Country For Old Men's ending?
agree. found it disturbing in a brilliant way.
Cormac McCarthy is great at that
Right? I'm tired of movies where the good guys win and the bad guy dies. Boring. This movie is much closer to real life.
It definitely reminds me of how Sicario is, and hopefully the sequel, Soldado. It all really makes sense.
I liked it but it bugged me because I have a thing about innocent/likeable female characters getting killed for no reason. The lesson of randomness cuts deep though, so it worked
how can you not get the ending of Clockwork Orange? It was obviously sarcastic
+Tea.Heich.Cee 420 It really was easy to understand that ending. I honestly don't get how anyone could be confused by it.
but that would mean a subjective morality and we can't have that
Many people don't recognize sarcasm. I got the ending wrong also.
I was about to say that as soon as the mentioned the ending of Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick was notoriously known for changing the feel of the written inspiration of his films.
I'm going to have to look at that... Ebert was just a hipster that spoke out about Horror films being "misogynistic", when in most horror films, the villain is defeated by a woman. He also said that "Citizen Kane" is his favorite film of all time. While it's a great film, it's not the best film ever made. I could go on for days about Ebert AND Siskel. Kubrick was a GENIUS. Most of his films carry on debates, still today about what actually happened, except, of course "A Clockwork Orange".
I watched the final 10 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey with the assumption that I had mistakenly took acid.
"mistakenly took acid"
If you read Arthur Clarke's book about the making of the movie--the writing of the movie script, he said "Stanley" was always drunk & just couldn't figure out what he wanted to do, & he, Arthur, stayed up a couple of nights & put together a script, with the journey inspiring everyone because it was so beautiful, so it filled out the time. A wonderful movie, because everyone who saw it seemed to "fill it in." Bravo, Dearest Artie. When will someone do "Childhood's End?" Love, Deirdre
The ending of Inception is explained in plain sight by a seemingly ambiguous character.
"No. They come to be woken up. The dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise, son?"
As said very nicely in this video, it doesn't matter whether he's asleep or awake, he's reunited with his kids and is happy.
Some say Michael Caine's character is trying to help Mol wake Cobb up. Lots of theories, lots of discussion, and this is what Christopher Nolan wanted.
yea people keep saying this as it means something. The totems works only in a way they know, so that they can tell if they are in someone elses Dream. BUT since Cobs wife is dead, he couldnt be in her Dream. so the totem still works.
If you understood everything about 2001: A Space Odyssey, we haven't done our job right. - Kubrick.
I've never heard someone who sounded so pleased with the sound of their own voice.
Every ending to every Cormac McCarthy book is depressing, just know that going in, like Hemingway.
The Old Man and the Sea doesn’t have that depressing of an ending
I love the ambiguous ending to the end of Ambiguous Film Endings You're Getting Totally Wrong... subbed just for that, lol...
No Country For Old Men was a classic!
Yes. But, at the end......where was the money? That's the real question. Was it in the car? Chigurh has to leave it if it is. Or, is it in a hotel room somewhere? And will Chigurh be able to retrieve it? And, will he once again self-treat? I suppose going to a doctor is out, but he's in pretty bad shape.
Waiting for a sequel, what happened to Chigurh ? He knew how to fix himself, broken arm, no problem :)
The ending of The Graduate was a result created by a stand in filmographer or video technician filming and not saying cut when the couple were happy, but the director liked how the actors just kind of slid into the "what do we do now that noone has said cut phase" and kept it, as he realized it added more ambiguity to the film and a better chance to end up on a list like this.
I seen this also and thought it was common knowledge
I doubt that. As the movie begins the main character has just completed a major accomplishment, yet doesn't quite know what comes next. So, the ending of the Graduate makes sense since it is in-line with the way this character has acted. When he get's what he wants, he begins to have doubts about whether he really wants it and where to go from there.......The ending is not simply some dumb accident.....geez.
This is absolutely false.
Sort of like God deciding having a Republican win the 2000 Presidential Election was a more interesting way to end the Second Millennium than the Global Nuclear War or World Wide Communist Revolution Hollywood Atheists had been telling everybody for the last century was it's inevitable ending.
Jim Scribner
Why would God give 2 shits who won a United States Presidential election in 2000? It wasn't God it was man that chose that action, not by popular vote but by a fabricated electoral college that makes it's own rules for itself. Are you arguing that G.W. Bush made the world great, or what is your point?
So glad you included the Graduate in this list. I have often explained to people that the ending is not as happy as so many think, that the reality of the future settles in and thus their smiles fade.
sorry but if u didnt get the ending line of Clockwork orange... idk what to say
It's not possible to get anything ambiguous, wrong. That's a complete paradox.
+bard icus "if the multiverse theory is right, then there will be an universe were it isn't" - some floating post I saw on tumblr
our minds love turning onto paradoxes and paradoxal situations
+bard icus Yep. Bad writing.
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the baby is David Bowman, the main character. In the books he is turned into an energy based, eternal Star Child so that he can travel through space forever.
+asmiskelley Its in the book and its sequels
+asmiskelley Yeah, reading the book gives a lot of insight. At the finale, once you are past Jupiter's moon, as far as the movie goes, your guess is as good as mine. You could say that he becomes the Star Child, and I agree with that, but the movie, leaves you hanging....
I want to make a joke about david bowman sounding like david bowie and space oddity but I got nothing...
And the books say he was saved inside the black monolith like a computer program, so it's a new David, a new age of man. Birthdays are featured in the movie several times.
I thought David Bowie was the space baby and the band was the Spiders from Mars.
You've provided absolutely on clarity regarding these endings.
lol, unexpectedly good ending Adam 😂
"I don't know and I'm probably wrong ..." what a refreshing change of tune in a sea of know-it-all TH-camrs. Good job sir!
Even Chris Nolan says Cobb's no longer in a dream? Why is this still a point of contention?
It's click bait trash invented by the owner of this channel, they invent a title that encourages you to watch purely because they have arrogantly challenged you by saying you didn't understand the ending to 10 different movies.
Yet you still continue to NOT GET THE POINT. He literally says its not about the top and you still think the ending is about the fucking top.
You are an idiot.
The top doesn't matter because that is not Kob's totem, its his wedding ring. The top is Mal's totem.
+Jelly xT He's not even talking about the top, he's talking about how it's stupid that people still argue over the top when there is a definitive answer.
And YOU are missing the point, the top is a sign of whether the ending is real or entirely a delusion, something that matters to the plot and to the fans. Yet still you just repeat what the man in the video said because you can't think for yourself.
You are an idiot.
Severo Cairon Lol no, much like how Leo was uniterested in the top, so was the plot
Though "No Country for Old Men" pissed off many people (and left me wondering a bit) for having and ending that didn't give the simple, "and the good guy WINS in spectacular fashion!" that everyone expects, I think it made sense after I gave it a few thoughts.
The clue is in the title, at least for my own interpretation. Most older stories (including TRUE stories) about good guys/bad guys cat-and-mouse games seemed to be "cleaner", simpler, with a strong line between criminals and those who chase them. Whenever I heard or read about "bad guys" from pre-1980's or further in the past, there seemed a clear-cut difference between them and average law-abiding folks, and if I knew somebody causing trouble, they either got arrested, killed, or went downhill fast somehow. The cops, rangers, sheriffs, etc... didn't even have much reason to look over their shoulder, and the bad guys were obvious targets.
THESE days, you can be an officer searching for some weird dude cutting people up, or you can be a citizen avoiding involvement (!) and in the process easily get gunned down accidentally by some stupid gang members like in the film's ending, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It can be horrible, tragic, gut-wrenchingly meaningless, and nightmarishly confusing to live in these times where the odds of being killed from some unrelated bullshit are much greater. In the wrong town or area, or... "country".... that bullshit is very likely nowadays, and the "....Old Men", formally die-hard warriors standing up for what's right are now scratching their heads about it, feeling maybe they'd better retire after all.
I had trouble getting into a movie about a serial killer on a rampage who is only being chased by one country cop... Try and redo what he did and you would have the FBI working alongside multiple police agencies trying to catch you. Not one country cop who spends more time drinking coffee thinking about philosophical questions instead of actually doing his job...
The film is set in 1980, just two years after people like Ted Bundy got captured and exposed. The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime in the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit wasn't even created until 5 years later. In the film, the state police and the county sheriff never sync up because they never make the connection between the random murders and the drug enforcers, because of no federal crime database, no internet, no dna science...the list goes on and on. Very accurate. All of those these things came later.
It was No Country For Old Men indeed, because old methods were completely ineffective in catching modern criminals.
JJ, That adds some interesting historical detail to the story but honestly I found it so bleak and nihilistic that all I could think about afterwards was the spectacular cruelty of Chigurh. It's hard to see it as historical fiction when the dramatic deaths overwhelm you but the tension certainly was effective and it kept my attention. Can't say its a movie I will want to watch again though.
AEA don't forget the writer was Cormac McCarthy... A consistent theme over many of his stories is that sometimes good things happen, and sometimes bad things happen (and good people lose). It ends up feeling very realistic... There isn't necessarily a rhyme or reason, things just are as they are. I find that it actually makes me really appreciate small kindnesses and occurrences when they happen in McCarthy's stories (and maybe in real life too).
I love his work. Between Blood Meridian, The Road, and No Country for Old Men, he has earned a place as one of the great American authors of our time.
Love that for 2001 you presented that we are all wrong, you are wrong, everyone is wrong cuz who the heck knows?! Great vid regarding all these movies!
I read "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale", the short story by Philip K Dick that "Total Recall" was inspired by (a *lot* of films are based on his writing) and at the end was left thinking, "WTF?"
That's the thing about his work, he did a lot of drugs and was intrigued by the nature of "reality".
Yeah I always found it confusing when Dicaprio spun round the space baby which showed that it wasn't still a dream but really it was designed by those brain butchers at Recall, which meant that glance he gives in the taxicab mirror meant that he was ready to flip again at any moment and impulsively get married. I always interpreted it to mean that the cowboy really was a child abuser, so that's why he rode off into the sunset to escape from the neutron bomb, and that's why Alfred was pleased to see Javier Bardem at the cafe being "cured" of his inability to close his eyes. Now I see I got it wrong. Thanks for clearing it up!
+The True Fizz didn't hid wedding ring tell whether he was in a dream or not?
+Lemonjamin that's what I understand too. The top was Mol's totem, and the totem is supposed to be specific to the individual that carries it. The wedding ring was his totem, which can be seen throughout the movie, but never discussed.
Tim Markiewicz well dats ok
+The True Fizz Add this to "10 Ambiguous Comments on this Video You're Totally Getting Wrong"
In Inception, whether or not he is in the dream certainly IS the point, to have the audience question that. But it's also the point that he doesn't care, which is why he walks away from the top.
Well I found that rather more interesting than I thought I would. And well presented to boot. Thank you.
regarding 2001 ''My God, it's full of stars"'
I always thought 2001, the baby was the next step in human evolution. Man has conquered earth and was now taking it's first steps to conquer space.
+Jack Warner Well IIIII think it's about a time-travel paradox. So there! :)
2001 is about giving Ric Flair an entrance music.
+Lunar Dancer damn right
+Lunar Dancer Great comment
In the movie Inception he wasn't dreaming at the end. His totem isn't the spinning top. It's his wedding ring. Watch the movie again. You can thank me later! lol =)
woooooooooooooooooh! -Ric Flair
Nobody thought Travis found happiness
Or that The Graduate's ending was positive. The title of this video should be "10 Ambiguous Film Endings It's possible to find some mentally challenged people on the internet Getting Totally Wrong
"
But I'm Inception the spinny top wasn't even his totem. It was his wedding ring.
Exactly. he even explains it in the movie but no one pays any mind
Manich324 Yeah. His wife's. Not his.
not the point. point is that we know the totem and how it is checked. we the audience dont get to see whether or not it falls. cobb knows his ring totem and from his reaction you can tell its legit. the mission was accomplished.
So the whole movie was mols dream about her husband living moving on and living without her because she is crazy, and she knows it and thinks he would be better off without her?
@Liam, No, she's really gone. She gave him her totem because she didn't care what was real anymore.
His totem was his wedding ring, he wears it in the dreams. He's not wearing it in the last scene, so we know it's real and not a dream.
2001 is about consciousness. They found that space had it and that their minds could not handle the growth in consciousness without being overtaken by it. The baby represents the astronauts mind as it's gone full circle and now understands time and space as it reflects on it's own existence.
I'm afraid I learned nothing there.
People always say that inception is confusing, have you guys seen shutter island?
SI's ending is not ambiguous. The director lets you know exactly what is happening in that final scene.
I agree and it's brilliantly done.
have ye read Tsubasa: Reservoir chronicle? :D dang that ended up being confusing... originals are the parents of the clones that... oh fuck that...
Neither one of those movies are really confusing.
You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered that absolutely don't get that he's pretending to relapse so he can be lobotomized on purpose. I thought it was glaringly obvious, but there you go.
Certain directors(or the writers whose work the film is based on) intentionally want ambiguous endings because it's a declaration of the view that much in life is mysterious and unknowable with no clear cut, unequivocal answers.
Totally right about Total Recall! When I saw it a second time, I suddenly got the scene early on which mentions "blue sky on Mars" and I believe something like "he'll never want to come back".
"inside a dream...inside a BLOODY DREAM!" priceless.
The top is irrelevant in Inception. 1. That's not his totem, it's Mal's, so it's kinda useless. His actual totem is his wedding ring - On in the dream and Off outside the dream. 2. He doesn't care if this is real or not, it's HIS real.
+chiffmonkey The whole concept behind the top as a totem doesn't even make sense anyways. The point of the totems is that there's some specific detail about them that only the owner knows that it would be impossible (well improbable) for a dream architect to replicate, that way if suddenly that detail about your totem is wrong you know you're in a dream. Basically it's the same as in the beginning of the movie where the guy realizes he's in a dream because the carpet is wrong.
Yet the top works the complete opposite way, instead of having some special detail in reality that can't be accurately replicated in a dream, instead it has a special trait in dreams that it lacks in reality. It's function implies that every architect would decide to give the fake/dream top a clearly unrealistic trait, which would make about as much sense as putting a flying car in the dream and expecting nobody to figure out they're dreaming.
But then again, the concept of totems itself contradicts what the movie tells us. When Ariadne questions how she could ever achieve enough detail to create a convincing dream world, she's told that she doesn't have to create the details, just the broad structure and that the host's subconscious will fill in all the details. Which means that if your dream is being invaded your totem would be useless because YOU are the one who determines all of the details of the dream-totem, which means that it would match the real one anyways.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the premise of the movie overall, it just dropped the ball a bit on its movie-science.
+phiefer3 Totems are used by real life lucid dreamers, they just aren't always explicitely called such. You should do some research on the subject, quite interesting stuff. :)
+Moonstone Knight I think it's a deliberate ruse, so anyone watching thinks it's his totem when it isn't. Which is actually rather clever, because it makes his real totem less obvious.
The end of 2001 was designed for us to keep thinking and arguing with each other.Best publicity stunt ever as we debate and argue on and on and on.
I think it was 1969 and Kubrik was on lsd
did anyone speculate whomever built the spaceship just wanted the pilots cells to study life and rebirth their species?
You may know, but others may not: the markings on a tiger's face are as unique as a human fingerprint. 2001 is a film that rewards multiple viewings.
I'm pretty sure the reason the obelisk was at the end of the movie was because it was what started it all. With out it there would be no concept of god, evolution, or technology progressing through the ages
I think it was simply a planet-sized fetus, a birth defect. it happens. you're over thinking it.
I love this narrator's voice. I could listen to him all day.
Hey Adam you guys have the best video's on TH-cam! I love WhatCulture. Way better than the other one's I've subscribed to. Thanks.
The ending to No Country For Old Men is in regards to Tommy Lee Jones' character, who has spent his entire life waiting for life's great answers to reveal themselves or for everything to make sense. But, in the end, nothing reveals itself. It is an homage to existentialism.
+mark alan G. Or maybe his father is out there, waiting for him.
The dude in Clockwork Orange is not being sarcastic when he says he's cured. He's saying that his fantasies and desires now fit within society's norms, and therefore he is cured, but not in the usual manner. He has stayed the same (almost) and society has changed to tolerate (or embrace?) his twisted inner life as normal. It's a classic indictment of society. We must have fantasies just as sick as his, after all we just sat through a projection of his fantasies onto a movie screen, and we didn't leave, or try to rip the screen down -- instead we consumed it as entertainment. His fantasies are our fantasies; sickness is the new normal.
+Dan Lokemoen No no no no... he is saying that now the treatment has worn off. Society didn't change at all.
+Dan Lokemoen yes.
Thank you for the explanation of "doubt".
Re: Inception. I heard the final scene concluded with a cut away from the spinning top, only here the top fall just before the credits roll. It's been so long, I can't truly say I heard it but you might want to look that up.
If I make a movie with just the letters ''W T F'' on screen for 5 hours, will that make me a genius?
+v1e1r1g1e1 That depends entirely on what font you use.
+v1e1r1g1e1 no m night shyamalan alredy made The Last Airbender
Hey! search "ASS" clip from Idiocracy! Completely in line with your comment lol & I highly recommend watching that hysterically brilliant movie in full!
Idiocracy is no longer a movie. It's a prophecy.
I agree that some directors use ambiguous endings as a defensive mechanism to convince people their movie is smart, and not a pretentious bag of air.
But if a movie is done well, you'll notice how air tight the logic is throughout the film, and realize that the ending, although ambiguous is truly the correct answer to the question you don't fully understand your first time watching the film.
If you haven't seen the movie Mr. Nobody, I suggest you watch it like 5 times.
The ending isn't really ambiguous, but the entire movie is, and it's a trip.
Who was confused about the ending to clockwork orange. Seems pretty obvious.
+Keith Sauve happy ending expectations warp our perception
wishful thinking and so like
"basically if you just scream 'BRAIN SCIENCE' into a bag filled with coins, you get inception."
I swear, "deadpan snarking brit" ought to be it's own article on tvtropes
Well done. Good balance of humor and intellect
I like how the final item on the list is basically just him saying, "The film is ambiguous"
"No Country for Old Men" the film left out a giant scene that was in the book. When Sugar held Woody's character at gunpoint, he explained why he let himself get arrested. He spoke about how if Fate meant for him to go to prison, then so be it, but he escaped. Quite easily. Then at the end he gets in a horrific accident and is seriously injured. It explains Fate once again. But you miss that in the film due to the missing scene.
Literally almost all of these were "that's not the point.," and #1 was "I don't know". Great job guys.
Inception ends when Leo is not in a dream. Spinning tractricoid top originally belonged to Mal, his wife and it was her totem. Leo's actual totem was his wedding ring. In the final seen he doesn't have it, while when he is in a dream he has it. Mindfuck right?!!
The totem of Cobb is the old Saito asking him if he is here to kill him. And it's way more complexe than that, so it's hard to explain. But Cobb was in the limbs, and the thing that save him is the movie itself with Saito as starting point and ending point. The last scene is the only thing that happen one time, but the all movie just goes in circle in his head while he wait in the limbs. For an infinite time, he just see the all thing again and again, and the movie we see is the last time ever he see all of that, and Saito asking him if he is here to kill him is the point that bring him back to the layer just above. After a certain amount of time, he can come back and not kill Saito this time, so they are all back, once and for all.
First of all, if the ending is ambiguous then you're not getting it wrong.
+Roger Hornaday Exactly. These are good films precisely because they are ambiguous. True art is 'ambiguously ambiguous'.
My explanation of "2001: A Space Odyssey", which I think is the most likely. The theme: Man vs. the tool - who is the master?
So in the beginning, we have some ape creatures. They're not doing very well as far as competition for food goes. Then they come across the first monolith... and they change. They now have knowledge of tool use. One of them fights off competitors from a choice carcass with a bone, then throws the bone in the air. We follow the bone (the tool, which the monolith has given these creatures knowledge of) up, up, up to the sky when suddenly the scene changes and...
... We're still looking at the sky, but now there is a ship (a tool, developed by the descendants of the ape creatures). We then meet a Dr. Floyd, who is boarding a flight to the moon for some secret. But what is happening? The gentle computer voice gives him instructions and he dully obeys, standing where he's told to stand, being still as he's told, etc. This is the first sign that there is a question as to whether man masters the tool or the tool masters man. And since the first monolith affected our evolution the first time, it would now be time for a test. We've now reached the moon and found the second monolith, which sends out a signal somewhere in space - we don't know it yet, but it's calling to the third monolith. It had been placed there (as is told to Dr. Floyd) four million years ago and we in the audience are left to guess, knowing about the first monolith which the characters could not possibly know about, if the first scene we saw also took place four million years ago. Perhaps some ancient intelligence wanted another intelligent creature to speak to and figured that once we made it to the moon, that might be an indication that we're ready. Ah, but the test is coming, and as the people on the moon cover their ears to protect them from the high-pitched sound the second monolith is making as it calls out into space, the scene changes and...
... We are now viewing a ship. On board the ship, there are some astronauts. The ship is being run by an advanced AI, who also happens to show more emotion than the astronauts themselves, seeming perhaps _more_ human? (Cue the Rob Zombie song.)
Now, a lot of people misunderstand what happens in this big, middle part of the story. They think HAL is insane. In fact, he is carrying out the instructions that humans gave him. When HAL says, "It can only be attributable to human error," he is completely correct and telling the truth. You see, the astronauts did not know what the true mission was. Only HAL knew that, but he was instructed only to tell them once they had reached Jupiter. As well, he was told that the second, secret mission was vital and must be carried out at all costs. This began the ultimate conflict of the film when HAL detects an equipment failure and one the two astronauts who are awake (there are three others are in cryogenic sleep) takes a pod outside the ship and retrieves the piece of equipment. Back inside, they find there's nothing wrong with it. HAL says to reinstall it and let it fail to find out what the problem is, but mission control back on earth has run tests with their two backup HAL 9000s and insists that their HAL must be wrong. HAL, however, says that the problem "can only be attributable to human error". And that's true! HAL has been introduced to lying: In being told to keep the mission secret and pretend that the red herring mission is the real one. He has no built-in way to handle this new concept, so he was trying it out when he reported a problem with the equipment. Concerned about his failure, the two astronauts get into a pod where HAL can't hear them and discuss shutting him down. But he reads their lips. More human error, followed by HAL needing to keep up the deceit, because if he is shut down, he cannot tell the astronauts about the true mission and they have to get to Jupiter for him to be able to. So when one of the astronauts goes back out to replace the equipment, HAL sabotages him, cuts off his oxygen and sets him adrift. The second astronaut goes out to try to save him. Alone with the three sleeping astronauts, HAL cuts off their life support, killing them, so that there is only that second astronaut, Dave Bowman, and himself left. He needs just one astronaut alive to finish the mission, but can't have more or they'll band together to shut him down. He begins to try to bargain with Bowman when the astronaut wants back into the ship, with HAL saying that he can't jeopardize the mission. Bowman manually reenters the ship and heads to the core of HAL to shut him down. HAL goes through various emotions trying to make Bowman stop and then finally accepting his fate. Now there is one man left to master the tool. But HAL still must obey his commands. Just as he is shutting down, he throws up the video that he was _supposed_ to show once they got to Jupiter, wherein Dr. Floyd explains the true mission. With no one left but Bowman, the astronaut decides to finish that mission and takes a pod to the third monolith.
Remember that the first monolith helped us evolve by giving us knowledge of tools. Now one of us has proven mastery over the tool and it is time for the new monolith to continue what the first one started. Bowman enters the monolith, where we see in a clever scene that he lives out the rest of his life until, old and decrepit, he lies on a bed and on death's door. He then dies, but his story isn't over. He is reborn (Religious symbolism! Religious symbolism!) as the Star Child, or "bigass, floatin' space-baby", a new form of human. Whereas the first monolith gave humans tools, this new one removed the need for them and a new era is born. Cue "Also Sprach Zarathustra".
And that is what "2001: A Space Odyssey" is all about, including the ending.
+Silas Mortimer Best explanation ever. thanks for taking the time! I still don't like the ending because of its too deep, hip, surreal late 60's style. I was around that time and you get sick of people trying to show they are clever by being deep, hip, surreal. Think Yoko. :)
didnt read lol
Saved you a click: Basically this video says, "You know that movie that had a weird and ambiguous ending? We don't know what it means either and, SURPRISE, it's up to your interpretation of it."
How can you get it wrong if it's ambiguous. What ever you believe and draw from it is correct for you, otherwise the film would explicitly tell you otherwise.
I always thought that last scene in Taxi Driver was coma dream of Travis while he was in a hospital bed slowly dying. There is no way he made a full recovery and faced no criminal charges, let alone being a hero and his dream girl coming back to him, seeing him as not a creep but a hero. It is too good to be true.
What a well put together piece of TH-cam!
No Country For Old Men was not only a great movie but an even better book. The book just does so much more justice for the characters. I highly recommend.
Finally an enjoyable narrator
DudeManBro full on rager
Me too
My son and I literally just watched Inception a couple hours ago, before I came on and watched this video. The slightly unstable top at the end started driving my son (13 y/o) nuts, until I reminded him that the top was never Cobb's totem. It was his wife's.
+Matt Johnston Exactly. Cobb's Totem was his wedding ring.
Yitzchak Epstein That's the dominant theory, yeah.
+Yitzchak Epstein You can't know that for sure. I prefer to see the ring as a manifestation of his subconscious. Like, in dreams he's still married.
+El Duderino that's the point. if it's a dream he wears a ring. if it's real he doesn't. the top spinning is not the thing that alludes to a dream, his ring is
+Jack Phillips It's plausible, but it's not conclusive. Like nothing in this movie is conclusive. The point of the totem is to know wheter or not you're in someone else's dream. So it has to be an object that behaves differently in the real world (the loaded die, the poker chip spelled wrong..), so if someone would replicate in the dream, you'll know its not your dream. Why would someone replicate his ring if he doesn't wear it in the real world? And why he never checks his ring at any moment of the movie if its in fact his actual totem?
I've seen Taxi Driver a bunch of times. What's being said he does make sense, because it fits the pattern. When he shot the robber, and the store owner covered for him, validation. When he wiped out all those perverts, saved Jodie Foster, validation. You can see his violence escalate in the movie, and every time, it was validated. It would make sense he'd do it again, and keep doing it until he was killed, or locked up. In a sense, he became a serial killer.
No Country for Old Men is a great movie! Anyone who doesn't like it should go watch some Transformers!
DarthChrisB Ending is terrible IMO, but the movie overall - I freakin' loved it!
Nope, the ending is perfect.
The restricted narration is amazing. When we suddenly find the Mexicans were in the room next door. What a great moment.
Agreed. But I thought this video would offer different explanations to some other endings. Many of these movie I already 'got' the endings. A bit disappointing, but I did enjoy having an excuse to re-watch(most of)these endings to 'real movies'. I'm sure the Transformers ending was real straight forward. No Confusions. Or need to think or debate.
DarthChrisB Or the Notebook. Not everybody likes the Transformers.
I believe that not answering questions at the end of 2001 was the most brilliant thing ever. Not only was he asserting that we are not alone, but humankind was taking the first baby steps into an existence so vast that the number of unanswered questions we could expect to be facing would be infinite.
For me "No Country for Old Men", the whole movie not just the ending, was about the theme of "there is no clean getaway."
+Fuzzy Wuzzy Except for Anton, it almost was exactly that. Yeah, he got pretty f'd up... but he got away and rather easily, with a ton of cash.
+Fuzzy Wuzzy This is a bit sideways, but if you want a really good 'there is no clean getaway', you can't do better than, er, "The Getaway" by Jim Thompson. Pretty certain that neither movie from this book came anywhere near the book's actual ending mainly because it is so freaking bizarre. It's the Twilight Zone version of 'there is no clean getaway'.
J Murrey A compound fracture though. If it's not set right it can grow crooked not to mention risk of infection. Not like he can do to a hospital.
b eep Cool. Thanks for the recommendation. Im always up for a good book
So.... basically you don't know either, and copped out with the whole 'the outcome isn't the point' deal several times.
Cool.
+Tessa Jalloh it's pretty valid for most of them but to put 2001 at the top of the list with that lack of explanation made me mad.
The best part about A Space Odyssey is the ambiguity. I love how it is interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people. Kubrick hit a home run in his adaptation of Clarke's novel.
'No Country For Old Men' was a work of art.
I can't believe you didn't mention "Donnie Darko". I thought this entire list was heading toward this movie. Oh well.
I know it sounds stupid, but when I saw the ending I was thinking that Donnie Darko was a super hero created by the comic guy.
could do do another one with American psycho in it
Exactly.
+jared tate Definitely.. Who cleaned up the apartment
+465marko no one. It was all in his head
+isaiah r Shockingly, the director of "American Psycho" insists she wasn't going for the "it was all in his head" ending, and what you see is what you get (she said so in an audio commentary). I prefer to think of it like you do, especially since it's closer to the actual book.
+isaiah r I thought that too because of how his lawyer acted at the end of the movie and like nothing was wrong at all, but the director of the movie had said that he left it unintentionally ambiguous and Bateman really had killed all those people. There's an interview somewhere online
That was truly a good video, thank you.
Spot on with Orange and Inception. Took me some decades to notice Alex's lead and final close-ups, but when I did I very nearly shouted out, "Stanley, you [son of a gun]!"
I "got" 2001 on first viewing...the "baby" very nearly shocked the marmalade out of me...but I'd long wondered how all concerned came up with the transcendent ending. That turned out to be far more a collaborative result than you'd think. Even Keir Dullea (Bowman) says he came up with "hotel suite" shots that ended up in the film. Granted, Clarke's novel that was reportedly written in parallel with the production tied things together beautifully.
I love the ending to No Country For Old Men. They left it real. They left it legitimate. To me, that was the point, it was a modern story in that sense, no sugar coating. Brave decision and in my humble opinion and enjoyment of it, huge pay-off
From memory, the last line was "then I woke up" which could be the most fitting end line of all time
+Rodgerinho The movie was based on a poem about the struggle of man against his own mortality. The bad guy got away because he wasn't actually out to be bad; it's just the way he was, like death itself. It's not evil, it just is. It's also inescapable and uncontested.
ItachiNai Interesting titbit. It stands alone as an artistic piece regardless, but that is interesting.
I'm sure Total Recall could be interpreted that way, but Philip K. Dick's 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' (what Total Recall was based on) was not based on a dream. They were trying to install memories of going to Mars because it was cheaper than actually going there. They had problems with the uploads because they found out that the guy had actually been there and had his own residual memories. They tried to escalate this, but it didn't work. Brilliant short story.
The point of true ambiguity in filmmaking is that it's up to the viewer so you're not really wrong unless you're just way off base.
Nice #1.... I will never understand but I love that film so much. "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave"
'No Country For Old Men' rocks! The dialog follows the book (nearly) word for word. The villain wreaks havoc, and gets away with it. All of the ""good-guys" are likeable people (most of whom end up dying in the end.)
I like this film because it breaks the preconceived (Hollywood) notion of "the bad guy always gets what he deserves."
+Blue From the film's ending and where the story & villain would continue for awhile more, he got some of what he deserved with the accident which was the beginning of his end, and lots more after the boys told where he hobbled off to.....tracked down & killed or caught and off to prison.
RockinProfessor
...no-one really knows what happened in the end... and that's the beauty of it.
The best is when Carla Jean refuses the coin toss -- proving that she is free in a way that Chigurh could never be.
It's odd though - because I think she's an idiot - I'd take the chance of getting to live even if it's random and has a fifty fifty chance of failure - at least it's a fifty fifty chance.
This is a complicated movie; I have had to watch it several times at least to compute all the details. A modern day classic for sure.....
I did not see why the film is apparently good, someone explain how it's a good film?
2001: A Space Odyssey is not ambiguous. Dave Bowman took the next step into human evolution by becoming the star child.
+MaxTheGreat14 exactly! i'm surprised that there's so much confusion. it's about human evolution, and the idea that there are intelligences that guide other species through the steps of consciousness evolution.
Exactly.
Yeah, I read the book first too. If I'd seen the movie first it would've made zero sense to me.
Love the reaction to no 10😂 idk... Do u????.Lolll
My father, as the president of the Ontario Science Fiction Club got to meet Arthur C Clarke soon after the film came out. Recall this was before the book was written. He asked Clarke 'what does the end of 2001 mean?' to which Clarke replied, according to Dad, 'I don't know, Stanley won't tell me.'