Time moving quicker in the human world than the monster world means that when Boo was trapped in the monster world she would've been missing for a very long time in the human world, yet returned as the exact same age she was when she left.
true. the only way I can think of that could work is that the monsters live a lot longer than humans so their perception of time is skewed in comparison. 80 years for the monsters isn't really that long to them
I didn't know the ending of Prisoners was considered a cliffhanger. I saw it some time ago, but as far as I remember, the ending clearly shows Loki turning around when he hears the whistle Keller was blowing on, from beneath the trapdoor. Given how Loki follows clues with the efficiency of a bloodhound, it was pretty obvious that he'd find Keller by following the sound.
Inception was never a debate for me, even leaving the theater after first viewing. The top perfectly and continuously spins in the dream world, never faltering. In the final shot, it wobbles, therefore it has to be real.
@@dreamlandnightmareIrrelevant. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind the second it wobbled. There's doubt because no one paid attention to the rest of the movie.
@@NottherealLucifernah, you don't get to say what should or shouldn't have happened in someone else's mind. This conversation was the entire point of that scene. Don't try to hand wave it away
@@joester4lifeit was supposed to show the audience is it a dream or not but it is a dream because he couldn't touch nor see the faces of his kids in the dreams.
With Inception, another piece of info I used to justify it being real at the end was, Cobb had said, in his dreams, he doesn't get to see his kid's faces. He wakes just before. Since he did get to see their faces at the end, I always argued that it was real.
I never for a second thought Tar's ending wasn't real. The point is that she's been banished from the high society of the classical world. She's not so rich that she can afford to never work again, but this is the only work she can get. The dark humor of the ending is that she's willfully deceiving herself by pretending that it isn't a fall from grace. That's why she's taking it ultra-seriously. Her pride won't let her admit how far she's fallen.
Seriously, who thought Tar's ending was a hallucination? That would have killed the point of the story. She ruined herself and took what she could get. She knows exactly what a mess she's in. She pretends that she doesn't, but her reaction to going to the message parlor and realizing that she's not actually at a massage parlor is where her fascade cracks.
Yeah, I don't get the whole "she would never step so low" My brother in Christ, she needs to eat! That's the whole point. Also is a very elitist point, implying that one's job is a punishment, but anyway.
I read the book American Psycho about 6 years before the movie came out. I always thought he really did it and the characters were mistaken about who they had seen and who they had lunch with. I figured it was the author's way of showing just how self-absorbed they were that they were. They weren't even certain of the person with whom they had interacted because they were so wrapped up in themselves. That's why Bateman's inner dialogue is always "I saw someone who looks like so and so" or "I had lunch with someone who looks like so and so".
I had a slightly different take. It bit like inception I dont think it mattered if it was real or not. The commentary seemed to be that all these people are so shallow, interchangeable and self absorbed that anyone can get away with anything. I mean, I know that's pretty much what you said but I just feel it doesn't matter. That there is no answer because we're asking the wrong question. (I'm not professing to know the question the story is asking btw x])
Except there's zero logical reason the owner of an apartment building would clean up a fuck ton of gore, overnight no less, and just say nothing to anyone about it. I've heard the theory that because they're rich and it would hurt the property's value if there was a murder there, she's covering it up, but that's just stupid. No wealthy person would risk their wealth and freedom to cover for a serial killer they don't even know. If these characters were close it could make sense, but they're just strangers, so it doesn't.
Yes, in fact that’s the entire point of the story. People who question whether it happened or even state it didn’t just don’t understand the story at all
@@NottherealLuciferyou’ve missed the entire point of the story. Check out some of Bret Easton Ellis’s other work: most of it revolves around very similar themes of elite young adults wasting away their lives in a shallow show of image rather than having any content. The difference with American Psycho is that the other works are straight forward story telling while American Psycho is an allegory: it is purposefully exaggerating to bring across a point. The real estate agent (the lady is not the owner) caring more about the property value and the effect on their reputation than about some ‘dead hookers’ fits perfectly within this allegory.
From the first time I saw the ending of The Dark Knight Rises, I thought it was pretty obvious that Blake becomes the new Batman, not Robin or Nightwing. (The whole "Robin" thing was just a nod to the character; otherwise, his real name would have been Dick Grayson.) The problem is he doesn't possess the years of intense, diverse training that Bruce acquired while traveling the world and joining the League of Shadows. Even with all the gear, I doubt he'll ever be as effective a Batman as Bruce was. Still, a beautiful and utterly satisfying way to end the movie and trilogy. I still get chills any time I see Blake standing on the platform as it rises up and wipes the screen to black.
I genuinely thought the point of American Psycho was that he imagined the whole thing! That was genuinely my takeaway from the movie. He thought he was such a bad, bad man, and yet he was really a pathetic little office drone whose worst crime was using an uninspiring font on his business card.
Poor Blake, you know he got killed the first time he went out Batmanning. Being a cop is not anywhere close to the training Bruce subjected himself to.
There is a clear cut ending for Total Recall. Something that I had noticed years ago but I doubt Paul Verhoeven did it on purpose. Quad's adventure has to be a reality based on typical corporate mindset and marketing. After Quad goes to Recall he sees an advertisement talking about how real vacations are much better than fake memories. There's no way that Recall would allow advertising for a competitor to be part of the implanted memory. I know according to the in movie logic, if this was a dream, Quad was making his own decisions in it however essential parts of the memory would still have been implants. This has always made me look at everything that happened to him after Recall as his reality and not a dream as that is just not how corporate mindsets work. Especially not in a world created by a staunch anti-capitalist like Verhoeven where corporations are all greedy thieves.
If I remember correctly there was an interview with Paul Verhoeven where he says he filmed in such a way that both endings are correct. If you think it was all a simulation then you are correct and if you think it was all real then you are correct. This is why the remake with Colin Ferrell wasn't liked as much as it could have been
This is a good point and one I didnt consider. I always assumed it was real because there were scenes without Quaid in them. A memory would only show events in the first person.
@@JosephDawson1986 Yes, he says it in the DVD Director's Commentary with Arnie. He says that the intent is for it to be whatever you want. His choice? It was a dream and Quaid died. Arnie's choice? It was real and Quaid lived happily ever after.
How many cliff hanger movies have Michael Caine in them? My gosh, the guy has an amazing filmography. (Yes, he's been in awful movies but Caine, for my money, is always worth watching.)
I always assumed the end of Inception was real since he’d mentioned not being able to remember what his kids looked like and that’s why they didn’t turn around. So when they did I assumed it was reality-but he’d also just gotten rid of Mal, who we knew was messing up a lot of his headspace, so maybe it wasn’t real? But glad Nolan let it slip lol
I love how everyone was so hung up on Cobb's wedding ring & the other totems that the answer was right there the whole time. Once you realize Miles is never in any dream sequences, it's easy to figure out.
Did Nolan let it slip or did he decide, since Michael Caine needed to act like he was real in every scene he was in, to simply tell Michael Caine a simple and straightforward lie to get the performance he wanted?
The real problem is that the question of “is it real or is it a dream” is kinda the wrong question. The point of the ending is that Cobb doesn’t care. Dream or reality, he’s not going to be obsessing over it anymore. If Cobb doesn’t care, why should you?
@@Jermbot15 Personally I think it was intentional - use the totems as a distraction so you won't notice smaller details like Miles. You're so focused on all the cool dream shenanigans & Mal/Cobb's relationship that you completely gloss over Miles not being in the dreams.
The "Total Recall" ending's ambiguity is like the short story it's based on, in which the memories the character is implanted with are what actually happens. Quaid has both the memory implated at Recall and having brought blue skies to Mars. However what I think debunks the whole "it was always an implanted memory" is when the movie cuts from Quaid to scenes exclusively about Richter and Cohaagen. Hearing the "Recall" jingle at the end of the credits was for the audience's benefit of now having memories of watching the movie for themselves.
I like the ending of _We Can Remember it for You Wholesale,_ Where they try to bury the memory of the Mars mission again, using an older fantasy, only to find that the alien invasion is being held off until he dies. While he's sedated for implantation they hear him say: _"They gave me a magic destroying rod but it only worked once. It's in the drawer at home. Why do you think they never found the body of the guy I was sent to Mars to take out?"_
I think it would have limited the film too much to see everything from Quaid's POV. I don't think we're meant to interpret those scenes as proving that it's real.
Surprised to see no-one in the comments claim that Ticotin's picture being used at Rekall proves it's real. It's a popular position, but forgets that Ticotin also plays the woman in the dream sequence at the start of the film, so you have to accept an extreme coincidence one way or another. In the script, the women of the three scenes -- dream, Rekall setup, meeting on Mars -- are merely meant to seem _familiar_ to Quaid, in an inconclusive way, but of course for a film it's simpler to just use Ticotin 3 times without even bothering to blur her image or whatever.
But the ending to Monster Inc clearly shows Sully walking in and she says "Kitty!" still as a little girl. So the plotline for Monster Inc 2 wouldn't have made sense unless they retconned that ending.
In the short story that Total Recall was based on, the main character actually WAS a spy but had his memories suppressed, then goes to recall to get a "vacation" and it unlocks his suppressed memories.
For me the problem with American Psycho was his rampage towards the end. The ATM scene and blowing up cop car with one bullet. That is what made me think he was imagining things, but no way of knowing what was imaginary and what wasn’t.
@@Skeletontiger-Exactly. Both the director of the movie, & the author of the book, have stated multiple times that the whole point of the ending is that while some of the things that happen are exaggerations in Bateman's head, the murders for the most part are in fact real, & everyone around him is basically willing to turn a blind eye & pretend not to see it because of their greed & selfishness, & so he gets away with it all. It's why Bateman's final line in the movie is "This confession has meant nothing", because he realises that no one will care, or even pay any attention to the fact that he's just confessed to being a serial killer.
Micheal Caine said Christopher Nolan said to him all the scenes with his character are real. So il take the word of Mr Cain over any fan fiction bull crap any day of the week.
While I agree, its not in the movie. So if its not in the movie, it isn't canon, no matter who says it, even if its the director. Again, I believe Caine, but "all of caine's scenes are real" isn't in the movie, so if it was canon it needed to be in the movie to explain it.
Um... No. That's what an AMBIGUOUS ending is. A cliffhanger ending leaves the fates of the characters or the development of the story unknown, but with the explicit intention of carrying on the story in the next film / episode. A film can be ambiguous without being a cliffhanger, but ambiguous endings are the ones where there isn't intended to be a clear answer, and it is up to the audience to decide for themselves how to interpret the ending. A cliffhanger (regardless of whether it is followed up) has a definite answer (or at the very least a general idea of "what actually happens next"). It's a subtle distinction.
Yeah..... The implications of that scrapped sequel to MI are horrifying. Boo wasn't just gone from her bedroom for a few hours, a day or so tops. She would have been missing for potentially months or years.
I always believed the end of Inception was real because before the movie ends you can see the top start to wobble. It wouldn't wobble and then go back upright.
it was also never shown to wobble during any sequence where it was confirmed to be a dream, so it stands to reason that the fact that it wobbled at all would point to evidence of it being reality.
*spinning top wasn't his totem *Couldn't see his kids faces cuz he would be forced to look away. Sees them at end *Michael Cain was told by the director that _every_ scene he was in, was 100% *real * , thus obliterating any uncertainty of the last scene (director was _REALLY_ not happy that Cain told people that info) *in the dream world,(even when used by Mal), the top always spun perfectly true, as if gravity has no effect on it(other than keeping it from floating away) The top damn near falls over I truly don't know how or why people are still debating, "wHat reALly hAPpenEd aT THe ENd" , or why they fervently deny that the answers have been available for over almost 15 years
@@coolguyhino92 the fact that you don't get it, means you just don't get it. One day you might, you might look back and say ,"OHHHhhhh, THAT'S why!" Like with the top. You said yourself, the top isn't even his totem, so why use that to prove something? Anything the director (or Caine) said wasn't IN the movie, therefore isn't canon. Yes, I believe Caine, and the director, and I believe its real. But the entire point of that ending is to make you think, to make you choose, to let YOU decide which edning you want. So just cuz the director says this, or Caine says that, doesn't mean shit honestly. And with his kids, you have to think cinematic, not literal. Just cuz his character may or may not have been seeing the faces doesn't mean WE did. WE are the ones that don't see their faces, specifically, in the movie. And WE did not see their faces in the ending. The characters did, but if it was a dream they weren't real anyway so there were no ppl to see the faces. There's a million reasons I could give on why the debate is still legitimate, even after Caine stating what the director had told him.
Didn’t the director come out and say that every time we see Cobb wearing the ring it means he is dreaming, and when he isn’t he is awake? The character makes a real effort throughout the film to not show you his hands, but in the final scene we see he’s not wearing it.
Michael Cain also came out and said, "I was told any scene I was in, was real(by the director)." Basically proving that the last scene is real. *also, the director got mad at Cain for telling that to everyone
This is the first time ever I’m thankful they went the prequel route (I don’t hate monsters u it was fine but I honestly I preferred leaving how Mike and sully met to the imagination). But yeah it’s 1000 times better than seeing that.
I had heard that in the ending up Inception the wifes totem is the spinning top. So doesn't really matter what happens with that. It would only continue to spin if she (not him) was spinning it. And that if he was not wearing his wedding ring (as mentioned), that means the ending was real. And apparently you don't see his ring at the end (Don't remember, it's been awhile). But interesting the Michael Caine angle. Did not think of that.
In my honest opinion, I think the only person that was killed in American psycho was the homeless guy in the alley. The reason why I think this is because of his reaction, which was far different from the other murders. He freaked out and seemed scared that he actually killed someone and then quickly fled the scene. Unlike the other times where he was very animated and cartoonish.
I thought in American Psycho that Bateman was a dissociative personality of Paul Allen. He said he was like him but better and his friends always called him Paul. I also figured his psychotic escapades were primarily delusional. I don't care how rich someone is, there is no way he could have gotten away with filling an apartment with bloody hookers, shot an old woman and blown up two cops.
Paul Allen called him Marcus, because he confused him with a coworker and he didn't give a crap about Bateman. The others always called him Patrick. If i remember correctly, it is less ambiguous in the novel, where his lawyer says something about cleaning up Patrick's mess once again.
@@Breexbloodlust exactly. Like Bateman was a second personality that was just out of control of Paul's body. But the lawyer said he spoke to Paul on the phone over seas. Maybe "Bateman" as Paul called him? I think my theory is more interesting than him just covering everything up. I mean, if someone was cleaning up Bateman's actions wouldn't it be easier to just make him "disappear?"
Recently a friend told me the ending in "The Thing" was unambiguous as well (as per John Carpenter), and pointed to proof in the previous scene... i was floored!
there's a simpler explanation for Inception: the ending takes place in the same 'level' as near the beginning of the film when we see Cobb's totem fall over. if it's reality when the totem first fell, then it's the same reality at the end.
Ultimately the film is all you have. An unanswered question (which is not the same as a cliffhanger, btw) isn't resolved just because an actor recalls the director saying something or because there was a line in the script that was cut, or a sequel that never got made. They're not part of the movie that audiences wound up seeing. Nolan has gone on record saying that it doesn't matter whether DiCaprio is in the real world or a simulation-the point is that he's with his family, which is all he ever wanted. I'm not a huge fan of the movie's ambiguous ending, but it is the ending the filmmaker wanted.
Pretty sure Nolan was pissed at Cain for telling people the ending was in fact real, cuz, "every scene i'm in was real" He's only ever said that he was unhappy that Cain had told people. Nolan could have EASILY stated that it was meant to be philosophical, or an internal motivation for the character. But even IF we take Cain's admission off the table, there is still _more_ than enough evidence to prove the ending was reality
People seem to forget the key factor of dreaming in inception. You never figure out how you got where you are in the first place. Sure you are now outside a café. Only when you start to consciously think on how you got there that you realize you have no recollection whatsoever.
Thats a terrible close to Sully and Boo's journey... yea its sad that time moves quicker in the human world so she's an old lady by the time they see her. What about Boo? She lived in the monster world for like a week. By the time she got back home her parents would be long gone, and she would be a 2 year old in her old house now owned by another family. I don't think they really planned that plot hole fix very well.
I was in physics one day and my teacher gave us the Italian job ending as a thought experiment. The solution was obvious to me but the rest of the class were at it for a bit longer before she told them the answer.
In Total Recall, when Quaid is sitting in the chair describing what kind of woman he likes, you can see Melina (the girl he meets latter) on the screen and tech mentions that the story involves a blue sky on Mars. I always took this a proof that he was in the dream.
I never thought Inception was ambiguous, the totem was slowing and he saw the children's faces. Tar wasn't ambiguous, I didn't even think it was meant to be, it wasn't the type of movie why would they suddenly put in realistic dream sequences at the end? And that explanation for Total Recall is worse than the actual ambiguous ending, I would rather it be up to the audience interpretation than that.
I was more…umm, critical of Leo in his early teen beat heartthrob days. But he definitely blossomed into a phenomenal actor. The scene in Inception at the end where he wakes up on the plane after the big heist, is magnificent. He pulls off a legitimate wtf is going on, right after waking up look for a few secs. It’s very specific and he nails it 👍
In the case of Prisoners, I'm not sure that a less ambiguous ending having been filmed proves that Keller was found. It proves that Keller was found in an alternate version of the movie. Villeneuve deliberately went away from that ending for a reason.
I have to say that explaination for Inception is brillant and simple at the same time. Any scene with Caine is real, period. Only question the scenes without him. Apply that to the movie and everything easily falls into reality vs inception scenes and it all makes perfect logical sense. Of course in a way the bad guys do win as they manipulate someone into breaking up a company for the benefit of another. But hey, he gets his kids so win!
Inception: he isn't merely checking if he's in the dream world, he's checking if he's in *his wife's* dream world. The real answer to the cliffhanger is: it doesn't matter to him any longer. If it's a dream, so be it.
Moviegoers don't get that comics don't end it's the entire point... Superheroes fight is literally called the never ending battle for a reason Blake becoming Batman proves that...comics just keep the Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, or Peter Parker name because it's just good business
I think you are confusing a cliffhanger with an ambiguous ending… A cliffhanger is when the story is left unfinished and you won’t find out what happens next until the next installment in a franchise/show, if ever. An ambiguous ending is when the story reaches a conclusion that can be interpreted in two or more different ways by the audience.
After I thought about the ending of Prisoners for a couple of minutes, I was pretty sure that Keller would be found. It was pretty obvious the cops were first going to make sure the girl got home safe, and it was late at night so they were going to go home for the night and come back probably the next day.
I remember listening to the commentary of Total Recall and, if I remember correctly, when they put Arnold in the chair right before they zap him to start his adventure, both Arnold and Verhoven discuss on the commentary that this was the only movie where the entire movie is explained in every detail (by the guy explaining Arnold's fantasy) and then it actually happens. I remember thinking at the time that that meant the entire movie after the zap was a dream but I may have misinterpreted.
His real memories start to surface before the false ones are implanted, so they stop the process. Everything he selected for his fantasy was based upon those suppressed memories. That's how it went down in the book too, except he didn't get out to Mars afterwards.
Yes, he'd been dreaming of mars and chose options for the package based on these desires. So it doesn't prove anything either way (of course, in the film the predictions are *too* perfect, but that's necessary to make it a movie...if the Rekall guy says even one thing which doesn't happen, there's no ambiguity in the ending...this way it's a stretch, but still possible to interpret both ways)
@@michaelrue1400That's what he's told. After he goes under to get implanted with false memories of being a spy. Convenient that no no, he totally is a spy! He was implanted successfully. Another happy customer
Inceptions ending is one of the best. I remember watching it with my wife recently joyfully waiting for the end to see her reaction. The top does wobble a bit but there was also more and more glitches as you're going further in. Mostly the top was perfectly spinning but the wobble gives hope that it's real. Also, the top wasn't his totem, his wedding ring was. I love that even if you believe he's not in a dream, there's still that 1% doubt that the movie leaves behind.
With inception there is one area I always noticed but no one bring up. In the scean where Cobb is testing out the tranquilizer is being tested for the first time. Cobb wakes up and goes to a sink to test whether he is dreaming or awak with bis Totten he is in such a freaked out stake he never let's the Totten stop thus verifying if he is awake or asleep. From that point on you have to ask for the rest of the movie is he awake or asleep at the den where the chemist monitors every one who uses his drugs.
I was gonna say I wanted to know what happened to Samuel Sterns in the Incredible Hulk as he was teased to become The Leader, but he never showed in any other movies. But I just looked it up and he was taken into custody by shield apparently during the comic series "Fury's big week".
Ive just realised the last shot from The Italian Job was shot backwards. Just at the end look tonthe right and you can see a rock fall upwards. Never noticed it before.
I wonder if Up would have hit as hard if the original Monster sequel had come out. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been good all of a sudden or anything, it just would no longer have been the first time that the soulmate died, as opposed to the typical parent or other family member
American Psycho is so interesting because throughout the movie it plays with identity. Patrick Bateman gets mistaken for Marcus and Paul Allen and a few others. They are all the same person and they are all nobody. They dress the same, go to the same barber, have the same job titles, have almost identical business cards, eat at the same restaurants, etc. Paul Allen is dead but it doesn’t matter because they are all Paul Allen.
I will always think Inception was still dreaming at the end. The time where he was calling his kids his daughter got on and talked and she sounded nearly a damn teenager at the time… but at the end she was still a little kid. So I refuse to believe otherwise.
Seen Prisoners multiple times, and no matter what the writer and/or director aimed for it definitely should be assumed that Keller was found. No way a detective like Loki is going to have a look like that on his face and not check it out...
Yeah, I always knew John Blake became Batman. The scene that so many people try and point at with Bale and Hathaway at the café table as proof he lived was just Alfred's dream that he described earlier in the movie of his hope for Master Wayne's future. Wayne died in the atomic bomb and Blake took over as Batman. That's how the trilogy ended. It was obvious to me but so many Batman fans were mad that he died. The end Scene of The Incredible Hulk made total sense to anyone who was a comic fan. It was an obvious start up of the Avengers.
Let's also remember that the name of the movie is "The Dark Knight Rises." And what is the last thing we see in the movie? John Blake...in the Batcave..RISING out of the shot.
Total Recall was definitely an implanted memory or "dream". The program, titled on a monitor in the background when Arnold is initially prepped, Blue Skies Over Mars. Arnold chose his female lead and selects a generic secret agent mission, could be coincidence/memory/dream based on events. He is never told or given an option to select/remember "Blue Skies Over Mars". That is too much to be coincidence. It's not a memory or chance, then it's a dream. He wakes up at Recall with only a matter of minutes having passed. That is just my opinion, but I will die on that hill.
How did anyone watch Tar and come to the conclusion that the ending was anything other than her complete fall from grace? It's like whole trajectory of the film. I'm baffled that anyone thought it wasn't real.
I think that everyone misunderstood the thing with Michael Caine in Inception. I don't think that it meant that it was real, but for any actor whatever they are doing is real at that moment for that character. That's why Leonardo Dicaprio's character left before he saw it fall or not- he realized that what was important was what he experienced then.
But Christopher Caine said the director told him where the dad is present it's real, not where he is the scene is real, or am have I misunderstood what you're saying?
Well, they also told every actor in "The Usual Suspects" that they were Kaiser Soze, so what a director says to an actor to get a performance isn't a sure thing. That said, with Inception, I think that the top spinning as long as it does, yet Cobb doesn't wait to see what happens IS the point, he no longer cares if it is reality or not, he's just happy to be back with his kids. Everything he'd been focused on up until then was irrelevant, and in a way, I think that's Nolan's comment on the audience - does it really matter if it is reality or not, or do we just want a happy ending for the main character?
Some of these have conclusions that aren’t in the movie, only scenes not included or actors being told the ending, which isn’t something the audience is privy to. That means there’s no clear ending.
TL;DR "Prisoners" does not end with a cliffhanger. The final shot of Jake Gyllenhaal's face lets you know how it ends. I haven't watched the video yet, but I clicked on it because of the thumbnail. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about "Prisoners" because I think most of us "realized" it had an answer when we watched it. ("Prisoners" is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I've seen it a lot with a lot of different people.) People who want concrete answers will sometimes get frustrated with that ending, but they're just not paying close enough attention. The last shot of the film is Jake Gyllenhaal turning his head. It's small and subtle, but it's VERY deliberate. It's obvious that he hears the whistle. There would be no other reason for him to turn his head like that. (I guess you could argue that maybe he heard a deer or something, but...No. He heard the whistle.) I think everything about that film is brilliant and it is so underrated. One Oscar nomination is a crime! That film stars some of the most talented actors alive and Denis Villeneuve is a genius. Anyway...That was my long-winded way of saying that if you didn't understand what was happening with that final shot, you're just not very good at watching movies. LOL I don't know how else to put it. That film did not end on a cliffhanger. Unless you want to know what happened to Keller after, which is fair. There's no way they didn't send him to prison, but we don't know for how long. Would the jury have sympathy because of his situation? You can't take the law into your own hands and Paul Dano's character was a really messed up kidnapping victim who had been groomed and abused his whole life, he was not the villain, but...He did technically know where the girls were. Keller was never wrong about that. So were his actions kind of justified? I feel like a jury would give him some prison time, but go easy on him. But that's not a "cliffhanger" as much as it's just a debate about what happened after the events of the film. The whole thing started because Dano's character said, "They didn't cry until I left them." Can any of us really blame Keller for reacting the way he did after that?! Sorry for the long comment. I could talk about that movie all day. LOL
I'm very satisfied with the explanation of Total Recall, has always been one of my favorite movies and the scientific aspects of the answer absolutely is what I wanted to hear.
Inception was an overly complicated mess. After 30 minutes into the movie I couldn’t understand why Michael Cain couldn’t just bring the kids to their father.
This is a problem with audiences being unable to accept any ambiguity. It’s storytelling! These days it has to all be spelled out or you are in danger of being cancelled. By the way. Total Recall does give away the truth. Every scene is from Arnold’s perspective. Except one.
Was that the scene where richter and lori were talking? Though i dont recall them discussing his mental state though i guess that shows events quaid wouldn't be privy too and couldnt have halucinated. For me its the scene where the recall techs explicitly state they haven't actually given him the implant yet. I always found that scene in addition to him dreaming of melina prior to visiting recall where they didnt do the implant(meaning his dreams of melina had to be from latent memories of his hauser life) , indicated the reality is as the film unfolds rather than any sort of mental episode.
True. Gone are the days where you'd sit excitedly waiting for Studios to not be aholes and greenlight a sequel to a great cliffhanger, or just accept that a cliffhanger is what it is and the movie is still good regardless. The need to know has taken over, and what's sad is it often the ending is a disappointing and lack luster conclusion, instead of just letting us come up with multiple ending that better suit the story without feeling cheated out of something good.
wait did some people really think the ending to tar was a dream/hallucination?? seriously??? the only "cliffhanger" in that movie is to what extent lydia tar did the things she was accused of. it manages to stay ambiguous to that regard. was it a justifiable fall for someone who had systematically abused several women? or was she just an unlikeable personality who ended up the victim of cancel culture? you can lean either way, with neither being definitive. but a dream ending?? nuh-uh
I probably got one that you've never seen before, it's called Death Trap (1982), and it stars Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve. It's an amazing movie with a truly bizarre twisted effing ending you would never see coming unless you read or someone told youabout it. You might even be able to watch the whole movie on TH-cam.
What I always find funny about Inception is people dont seem to consider that Cobb was the mark all along. Watch it again and watch the Airport scene at the end. They are all seemingly looking at Cobb hoping their plan worked - including the mark. My guess is that everyone including the supposed mark in the film were in fact working together to help Cobb move past his block over his wifes death so he could have a happy life. It totally changes the whole narrative if Cobb is the mark but suddenly a few of the loose threads make total sense.
Tar is the ultimate satire of modern Hollywood and art scene in general. It should be up there with Exit Through the Gift Shop as one of the most biting indictments of vapid, commoditized commercial art and the industry behind it. Not to mention the despicable humans that seem to promote this self-aggrandizing nonsense.
There’s a beautiful analysis of prisoners somewhere on yt that explained how detective Lokis character traits is that he becomes obsessed with closing a case to the detriment of his own sanity. That being said, we the audience know that if Loki has a “hunch” or suspicion then he will follow his instincts until he finds the truth. Because of this, we know at the end when Loki thinks he hears a whistle,that alone is enough to spark his obsession. There’s absolutely zero chance that he left that night without finding the dude under ground first
10. Inception: it’s just annoying that you spoil the best part of the movie. Leaving the ending ambiguous was what made it interesting 9. American Psycho: anyone familiar with Easton Ellis’s work would know it’s ridiculous to speculate it was all in Bateman’s head. The whole story is an _allegory_ ! It makes non sense if it’s all in his head - the over-the-topness of people not caring, seemingly not noticing etc is the very _core_ of the story and its message 8. Prisoners: the version I saw actually had that scene in there 2. Total Recall: Verhoeven wasn’t saying both happened, he was saying he purposefully left it open. Unfortunately, when I first saw this movie I was too young to realize the duplicity in the story and ending. I just took it on face value.
In American Psycho I figured it was real and the guy at the end confused Paul Allen for someone else just as people confused Bale for other people. He got away with it becase he blended in so well in a social circle filled with everyone imitating each other to fit in.
Time moving quicker in the human world than the monster world means that when Boo was trapped in the monster world she would've been missing for a very long time in the human world, yet returned as the exact same age she was when she left.
true. the only way I can think of that could work is that the monsters live a lot longer than humans so their perception of time is skewed in comparison. 80 years for the monsters isn't really that long to them
She was in the monster world, so it should have been her parents who aged, not Boo.
@@LeMayJoseph That's what the comment is saying
probably why they abandoned that concept for a sequel
@@m4r1o148read it again
I didn't know the ending of Prisoners was considered a cliffhanger. I saw it some time ago, but as far as I remember, the ending clearly shows Loki turning around when he hears the whistle Keller was blowing on, from beneath the trapdoor. Given how Loki follows clues with the efficiency of a bloodhound, it was pretty obvious that he'd find Keller by following the sound.
I agree. It also fits perfectly with the theme of the movie, it was about having faith
It's really obvious. I don't know why it would be difficult to understand that at all.
I too saw it as a happy ending
Oh yeah whatculture is totally wrong here. The ending wasn’t even ambiguous, they just left the rescue part to your imagination.
@rantsofedub whatculture being wrong? Never!
Inception was never a debate for me, even leaving the theater after first viewing. The top perfectly and continuously spins in the dream world, never faltering. In the final shot, it wobbles, therefore it has to be real.
But it cuts abruptly enough that it leaves doubt in the audience's minds, an "inception", if you will.
@@dreamlandnightmare IMO the abrupt cut doesn't matter. The millisecond that top starts wobbling, the answer is given.
Exactly what my thoughts. It was so obvious, really.
@@dreamlandnightmareIrrelevant. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind the second it wobbled. There's doubt because no one paid attention to the rest of the movie.
@@NottherealLucifernah, you don't get to say what should or shouldn't have happened in someone else's mind. This conversation was the entire point of that scene. Don't try to hand wave it away
3:14 that pronunciation of “jake gyllenhaal” 😂
Glitterballs
"glill-en-hall" lol @@christiandemorro2092
The point to Inceptions ending wasn't that the top was spinning or not, it's that Cobb wasn't paying attention to it.
Exactly this. He just didn't care anymore and just wanted to see his kids.
The ending showed that he is back in reality by the fact he can touch and see his kids.
@@joester4lifeit was supposed to show the audience is it a dream or not but it is a dream because he couldn't touch nor see the faces of his kids in the dreams.
How can he be in reality if the kids haven't aged or grown?
Yep. Morons are gonna moron.
With Inception, another piece of info I used to justify it being real at the end was, Cobb had said, in his dreams, he doesn't get to see his kid's faces. He wakes just before. Since he did get to see their faces at the end, I always argued that it was real.
Spot on! I noticed this too.
I never for a second thought Tar's ending wasn't real. The point is that she's been banished from the high society of the classical world. She's not so rich that she can afford to never work again, but this is the only work she can get. The dark humor of the ending is that she's willfully deceiving herself by pretending that it isn't a fall from grace. That's why she's taking it ultra-seriously. Her pride won't let her admit how far she's fallen.
Seriously, who thought Tar's ending was a hallucination? That would have killed the point of the story. She ruined herself and took what she could get. She knows exactly what a mess she's in. She pretends that she doesn't, but her reaction to going to the message parlor and realizing that she's not actually at a massage parlor is where her fascade cracks.
Yeah, I don't get the whole "she would never step so low"
My brother in Christ, she needs to eat! That's the whole point.
Also is a very elitist point, implying that one's job is a punishment, but anyway.
I read the book American Psycho about 6 years before the movie came out. I always thought he really did it and the characters were mistaken about who they had seen and who they had lunch with. I figured it was the author's way of showing just how self-absorbed they were that they were. They weren't even certain of the person with whom they had interacted because they were so wrapped up in themselves. That's why Bateman's inner dialogue is always "I saw someone who looks like so and so" or "I had lunch with someone who looks like so and so".
I had a slightly different take. It bit like inception I dont think it mattered if it was real or not.
The commentary seemed to be that all these people are so shallow, interchangeable and self absorbed that anyone can get away with anything.
I mean, I know that's pretty much what you said but I just feel it doesn't matter. That there is no answer because we're asking the wrong question.
(I'm not professing to know the question the story is asking btw x])
I like that the movie is ambiguous. I don’t think the director made a mistake in my mind. I think it makes it more interesting.
Except there's zero logical reason the owner of an apartment building would clean up a fuck ton of gore, overnight no less, and just say nothing to anyone about it. I've heard the theory that because they're rich and it would hurt the property's value if there was a murder there, she's covering it up, but that's just stupid. No wealthy person would risk their wealth and freedom to cover for a serial killer they don't even know. If these characters were close it could make sense, but they're just strangers, so it doesn't.
Yes, in fact that’s the entire point of the story. People who question whether it happened or even state it didn’t just don’t understand the story at all
@@NottherealLuciferyou’ve missed the entire point of the story. Check out some of Bret Easton Ellis’s other work: most of it revolves around very similar themes of elite young adults wasting away their lives in a shallow show of image rather than having any content. The difference with American Psycho is that the other works are straight forward story telling while American Psycho is an allegory: it is purposefully exaggerating to bring across a point.
The real estate agent (the lady is not the owner) caring more about the property value and the effect on their reputation than about some ‘dead hookers’ fits perfectly within this allegory.
From the first time I saw the ending of The Dark Knight Rises, I thought it was pretty obvious that Blake becomes the new Batman, not Robin or Nightwing. (The whole "Robin" thing was just a nod to the character; otherwise, his real name would have been Dick Grayson.) The problem is he doesn't possess the years of intense, diverse training that Bruce acquired while traveling the world and joining the League of Shadows. Even with all the gear, I doubt he'll ever be as effective a Batman as Bruce was. Still, a beautiful and utterly satisfying way to end the movie and trilogy. I still get chills any time I see Blake standing on the platform as it rises up and wipes the screen to black.
I genuinely thought the point of American Psycho was that he imagined the whole thing! That was genuinely my takeaway from the movie. He thought he was such a bad, bad man, and yet he was really a pathetic little office drone whose worst crime was using an uninspiring font on his business card.
right
That should be the point of the movie.
That would be the ending I'd prefer.
It is the ending, this video was written by someone who writes a dozen of these a day and is making it up off the top of their head.
All you guys completely missed the point... the restaurant is the main villain (doorcia)?
Poor Blake, you know he got killed the first time he went out Batmanning. Being a cop is not anywhere close to the training Bruce subjected himself to.
I ain't even think about that. Bruce was a literal f*cking ninja😂
With Bruce's genius. He could have easily created programs to train Black the same way he was trained by the League.
Yeah and how the hell did he know how to use all that tech? Remember he had a guy teaching him and telling him and showing him
There is a clear cut ending for Total Recall. Something that I had noticed years ago but I doubt Paul Verhoeven did it on purpose. Quad's adventure has to be a reality based on typical corporate mindset and marketing. After Quad goes to Recall he sees an advertisement talking about how real vacations are much better than fake memories. There's no way that Recall would allow advertising for a competitor to be part of the implanted memory. I know according to the in movie logic, if this was a dream, Quad was making his own decisions in it however essential parts of the memory would still have been implants. This has always made me look at everything that happened to him after Recall as his reality and not a dream as that is just not how corporate mindsets work. Especially not in a world created by a staunch anti-capitalist like Verhoeven where corporations are all greedy thieves.
If I remember correctly there was an interview with Paul Verhoeven where he says he filmed in such a way that both endings are correct. If you think it was all a simulation then you are correct and if you think it was all real then you are correct.
This is why the remake with Colin Ferrell wasn't liked as much as it could have been
This is a good point and one I didnt consider. I always assumed it was real because there were scenes without Quaid in them. A memory would only show events in the first person.
Quaid not Quad...
@@JosephDawson1986 Yes, he says it in the DVD Director's Commentary with Arnie. He says that the intent is for it to be whatever you want. His choice? It was a dream and Quaid died. Arnie's choice? It was real and Quaid lived happily ever after.
Those pronunciations of “Jake Gyllenhall” and “Denis Villanueva” are astounding
It all sounds like she's drunk
@ to be fair, I’m a big fan of Jake Gillenhole and Dennis Vil…Villanuvian?
Same with how she pronounces ambiguity and several other words throughout, I think they need an editor!
How many cliff hanger movies have Michael Caine in them? My gosh, the guy has an amazing filmography. (Yes, he's been in awful movies but Caine, for my money, is always worth watching.)
I was just thinking the same thing! He made 3 appearances on this list. Impressive, Michael. And yet.... (my attempt at a cliffhanger reply)
Adding the plot twist that he just invented the explanations for the endings for fun
@@RazielBRMischief, rather than fun! 😂
And otherwise, the house that the money bought that he made on the movie is worth watching. It’s beautiful!
I always assumed the end of Inception was real since he’d mentioned not being able to remember what his kids looked like and that’s why they didn’t turn around. So when they did I assumed it was reality-but he’d also just gotten rid of Mal, who we knew was messing up a lot of his headspace, so maybe it wasn’t real?
But glad Nolan let it slip lol
I love how everyone was so hung up on Cobb's wedding ring & the other totems that the answer was right there the whole time. Once you realize Miles is never in any dream sequences, it's easy to figure out.
Did Nolan let it slip or did he decide, since Michael Caine needed to act like he was real in every scene he was in, to simply tell Michael Caine a simple and straightforward lie to get the performance he wanted?
The real problem is that the question of “is it real or is it a dream” is kinda the wrong question. The point of the ending is that Cobb doesn’t care. Dream or reality, he’s not going to be obsessing over it anymore. If Cobb doesn’t care, why should you?
@@Jermbot15 Personally I think it was intentional - use the totems as a distraction so you won't notice smaller details like Miles. You're so focused on all the cool dream shenanigans & Mal/Cobb's relationship that you completely gloss over Miles not being in the dreams.
Did the kids age?
The "Total Recall" ending's ambiguity is like the short story it's based on, in which the memories the character is implanted with are what actually happens. Quaid has both the memory implated at Recall and having brought blue skies to Mars.
However what I think debunks the whole "it was always an implanted memory" is when the movie cuts from Quaid to scenes exclusively about Richter and Cohaagen. Hearing the "Recall" jingle at the end of the credits was for the audience's benefit of now having memories of watching the movie for themselves.
False the technician said “we haven’t implanted it yet” therefore he never got the implant and everything was actually happening.
I like the ending of _We Can Remember it for You Wholesale,_ Where they try to bury the memory of the Mars mission again, using an older fantasy, only to find that the alien invasion is being held off until he dies. While he's sedated for implantation they hear him say: _"They gave me a magic destroying rod but it only worked once. It's in the drawer at home. Why do you think they never found the body of the guy I was sent to Mars to take out?"_
I think it would have limited the film too much to see everything from Quaid's POV. I don't think we're meant to interpret those scenes as proving that it's real.
Surprised to see no-one in the comments claim that Ticotin's picture being used at Rekall proves it's real. It's a popular position, but forgets that Ticotin also plays the woman in the dream sequence at the start of the film, so you have to accept an extreme coincidence one way or another. In the script, the women of the three scenes -- dream, Rekall setup, meeting on Mars -- are merely meant to seem _familiar_ to Quaid, in an inconclusive way, but of course for a film it's simpler to just use Ticotin 3 times without even bothering to blur her image or whatever.
But the ending to Monster Inc clearly shows Sully walking in and she says "Kitty!" still as a little girl. So the plotline for Monster Inc 2 wouldn't have made sense unless they retconned that ending.
it depends what they had planned for the "time moves faster" ratio I think, and what excuse they were gunna have for Sully to be unable to see Boo
6:40 OH FUCK OFF, PIXAR!
Actually, wait, no. Good for them cancelling that. That's going way over the line of cruel emotional manipulation.
In the short story that Total Recall was based on, the main character actually WAS a spy but had his memories suppressed, then goes to recall to get a "vacation" and it unlocks his suppressed memories.
For me the problem with American Psycho was his rampage towards the end. The ATM scene and blowing up cop car with one bullet. That is what made me think he was imagining things, but no way of knowing what was imaginary and what wasn’t.
I think they're just saying the murders are real, not necessarily some of the weird things Bateman sees while on the run.
On the book, at the ending, a taxi driver recognizes Bateman as the one who murdered his friend and threatens to kill him
@@Skeletontiger yeh rich & privelaged people
@@Skeletontiger-Exactly. Both the director of the movie, & the author of the book, have stated multiple times that the whole point of the ending is that while some of the things that happen are exaggerations in Bateman's head, the murders for the most part are in fact real, & everyone around him is basically willing to turn a blind eye & pretend not to see it because of their greed & selfishness, & so he gets away with it all. It's why Bateman's final line in the movie is "This confession has meant nothing", because he realises that no one will care, or even pay any attention to the fact that he's just confessed to being a serial killer.
That’s bc they’re wrong, it was all in his head. Bateman didnt have a reputation and that was the point, he wasn’t as important as he thought
Micheal Caine said Christopher Nolan said to him all the scenes with his character are real. So il take the word of Mr Cain over any fan fiction bull crap any day of the week.
While I agree, its not in the movie. So if its not in the movie, it isn't canon, no matter who says it, even if its the director. Again, I believe Caine, but "all of caine's scenes are real" isn't in the movie, so if it was canon it needed to be in the movie to explain it.
Um... No. That's what an AMBIGUOUS ending is. A cliffhanger ending leaves the fates of the characters or the development of the story unknown, but with the explicit intention of carrying on the story in the next film / episode. A film can be ambiguous without being a cliffhanger, but ambiguous endings are the ones where there isn't intended to be a clear answer, and it is up to the audience to decide for themselves how to interpret the ending. A cliffhanger (regardless of whether it is followed up) has a definite answer (or at the very least a general idea of "what actually happens next"). It's a subtle distinction.
Not that subtle, but "what culture" aren't that smart.
2:06
They're aware.
They just want to interchange them, as 'cliffhanger' is more of a buzz word
Yeah..... The implications of that scrapped sequel to MI are horrifying. Boo wasn't just gone from her bedroom for a few hours, a day or so tops. She would have been missing for potentially months or years.
I will never forgive the pronunciation of "Jake Glin-in-hal" 3:15
Rushed to the comments
Den-NIS Villa-NOOV is the one that blew my hair back
I love that Michael cane is in like three of these lol
I always believed the end of Inception was real because before the movie ends you can see the top start to wobble. It wouldn't wobble and then go back upright.
it was also never shown to wobble during any sequence where it was confirmed to be a dream, so it stands to reason that the fact that it wobbled at all would point to evidence of it being reality.
FFS It's 2023 and people are still debating the Inception ending?
THE SPINNING TOP WASN'T EVEN COBB'S TOTEM!!
*spinning top wasn't his totem
*Couldn't see his kids faces cuz he would be forced to look away. Sees them at end
*Michael Cain was told by the director that _every_ scene he was in, was 100% *real * , thus obliterating any uncertainty of the last scene (director was _REALLY_ not happy that Cain told people that info)
*in the dream world,(even when used by Mal), the top always spun perfectly true, as if gravity has no effect on it(other than keeping it from floating away) The top damn near falls over
I truly don't know how or why people are still debating, "wHat reALly hAPpenEd aT THe ENd" , or why they fervently deny that the answers have been available for over almost 15 years
@@coolguyhino92 the fact that you don't get it, means you just don't get it. One day you might, you might look back and say ,"OHHHhhhh, THAT'S why!" Like with the top. You said yourself, the top isn't even his totem, so why use that to prove something? Anything the director (or Caine) said wasn't IN the movie, therefore isn't canon. Yes, I believe Caine, and the director, and I believe its real. But the entire point of that ending is to make you think, to make you choose, to let YOU decide which edning you want. So just cuz the director says this, or Caine says that, doesn't mean shit honestly. And with his kids, you have to think cinematic, not literal. Just cuz his character may or may not have been seeing the faces doesn't mean WE did. WE are the ones that don't see their faces, specifically, in the movie. And WE did not see their faces in the ending. The characters did, but if it was a dream they weren't real anyway so there were no ppl to see the faces. There's a million reasons I could give on why the debate is still legitimate, even after Caine stating what the director had told him.
Didn’t the director come out and say that every time we see Cobb wearing the ring it means he is dreaming, and when he isn’t he is awake? The character makes a real effort throughout the film to not show you his hands, but in the final scene we see he’s not wearing it.
Wasn't it also stated that the top was his wife's totem and the ring was his.
Michael Cain also came out and said, "I was told any scene I was in, was real(by the director)."
Basically proving that the last scene is real.
*also, the director got mad at Cain for telling that to everyone
Isn't Michael Caine's character is supposed to be Mal's father, not Dom's in Inception.
I AM SO HAPPY THAT MONSTER INC SEQUEL DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! WTF?! 😭😭😭
This is the first time ever I’m thankful they went the prequel route (I don’t hate monsters u it was fine but I honestly I preferred leaving how Mike and sully met to the imagination). But yeah it’s 1000 times better than seeing that.
I had heard that in the ending up Inception the wifes totem is the spinning top. So doesn't really matter what happens with that. It would only continue to spin if she (not him) was spinning it. And that if he was not wearing his wedding ring (as mentioned), that means the ending was real. And apparently you don't see his ring at the end (Don't remember, it's been awhile). But interesting the Michael Caine angle. Did not think of that.
How do you confuse the word "ambiguous" with "cliffhanger"? And how the hell did nobody notice?
2:06
They're aware.
They just want to interchange them, as 'cliffhanger' is more of a buzz word
In my honest opinion, I think the only person that was killed in American psycho was the homeless guy in the alley. The reason why I think this is because of his reaction, which was far different from the other murders. He freaked out and seemed scared that he actually killed someone and then quickly fled the scene. Unlike the other times where he was very animated and cartoonish.
Besides. Bateman as Walter Mitty is honestly a stronger final result.
In the book he laughs and breaks the dog’s front legs.
More importantly, you’re missing the point of the story: it’s an allegory
I thought in American Psycho that Bateman was a dissociative personality of Paul Allen. He said he was like him but better and his friends always called him Paul. I also figured his psychotic escapades were primarily delusional. I don't care how rich someone is, there is no way he could have gotten away with filling an apartment with bloody hookers, shot an old woman and blown up two cops.
Interesting. I always thought it was delusions but I never figured another personality was added to the list.
Paul Allen called him Marcus, because he confused him with a coworker and he didn't give a crap about Bateman. The others always called him Patrick. If i remember correctly, it is less ambiguous in the novel, where his lawyer says something about cleaning up Patrick's mess once again.
You obviously have never been in possession of information that implicated the Clintons.
Hmm that adds a twist to the mix. I always thought those were him wishing what he could do, like intrusive thoughts
@@Breexbloodlust exactly. Like Bateman was a second personality that was just out of control of Paul's body. But the lawyer said he spoke to Paul on the phone over seas. Maybe "Bateman" as Paul called him? I think my theory is more interesting than him just covering everything up. I mean, if someone was cleaning up Bateman's actions wouldn't it be easier to just make him "disappear?"
Recently a friend told me the ending in "The Thing" was unambiguous as well (as per John Carpenter), and pointed to proof in the previous scene... i was floored!
there's a simpler explanation for Inception: the ending takes place in the same 'level' as near the beginning of the film when we see Cobb's totem fall over. if it's reality when the totem first fell, then it's the same reality at the end.
Ultimately the film is all you have. An unanswered question (which is not the same as a cliffhanger, btw) isn't resolved just because an actor recalls the director saying something or because there was a line in the script that was cut, or a sequel that never got made. They're not part of the movie that audiences wound up seeing. Nolan has gone on record saying that it doesn't matter whether DiCaprio is in the real world or a simulation-the point is that he's with his family, which is all he ever wanted. I'm not a huge fan of the movie's ambiguous ending, but it is the ending the filmmaker wanted.
Can we be sure that Nolan said the truth to Michael Cane or he was just trying to make things simpler to the actor?
That was always my understanding. Caine wanted to know how to play the role and Nolan directed him.
Pretty sure Nolan was pissed at Cain for telling people the ending was in fact real, cuz, "every scene i'm in was real"
He's only ever said that he was unhappy that Cain had told people.
Nolan could have EASILY stated that it was meant to be philosophical, or an internal motivation for the character.
But even IF we take Cain's admission off the table, there is still _more_ than enough evidence to prove the ending was reality
People seem to forget the key factor of dreaming in inception. You never figure out how you got where you are in the first place. Sure you are now outside a café. Only when you start to consciously think on how you got there that you realize you have no recollection whatsoever.
First whatculture video I’ve had in my feed in easily 2 years
Thats a terrible close to Sully and Boo's journey... yea its sad that time moves quicker in the human world so she's an old lady by the time they see her. What about Boo? She lived in the monster world for like a week. By the time she got back home her parents would be long gone, and she would be a 2 year old in her old house now owned by another family. I don't think they really planned that plot hole fix very well.
Probably one of the reasons why the movie never came out
I thought she was in the monster world for a single night, tops
I was in physics one day and my teacher gave us the Italian job ending as a thought experiment. The solution was obvious to me but the rest of the class were at it for a bit longer before she told them the answer.
In Total Recall, when Quaid is sitting in the chair describing what kind of woman he likes, you can see Melina (the girl he meets latter) on the screen and tech mentions that the story involves a blue sky on Mars. I always took this a proof that he was in the dream.
I never thought Inception was ambiguous, the totem was slowing and he saw the children's faces. Tar wasn't ambiguous, I didn't even think it was meant to be, it wasn't the type of movie why would they suddenly put in realistic dream sequences at the end? And that explanation for Total Recall is worse than the actual ambiguous ending, I would rather it be up to the audience interpretation than that.
I was more…umm, critical of Leo in his early teen beat heartthrob days. But he definitely blossomed into a phenomenal actor. The scene in Inception at the end where he wakes up on the plane after the big heist, is magnificent. He pulls off a legitimate wtf is going on, right after waking up look for a few secs. It’s very specific and he nails it 👍
In the case of Prisoners, I'm not sure that a less ambiguous ending having been filmed proves that Keller was found. It proves that Keller was found in an alternate version of the movie. Villeneuve deliberately went away from that ending for a reason.
huh? i just watched it on Prime. Loki clearly hears the whistle as they are digging up the Aunts grounds.
is that not the theatrical ending?
First time I saw the Italian Job, the gold fell out. I'm glad to hear that ending was filmed because I was beginning to think I imagined it.
I don't think the end of Tar could have been more clear
I have to say that explaination for Inception is brillant and simple at the same time. Any scene with Caine is real, period. Only question the scenes without him. Apply that to the movie and everything easily falls into reality vs inception scenes and it all makes perfect logical sense. Of course in a way the bad guys do win as they manipulate someone into breaking up a company for the benefit of another. But hey, he gets his kids so win!
Or Nolan just wanted Caine to play every scene as real.
Inception: he isn't merely checking if he's in the dream world, he's checking if he's in *his wife's* dream world. The real answer to the cliffhanger is: it doesn't matter to him any longer. If it's a dream, so be it.
Moviegoers don't get that comics don't end it's the entire point... Superheroes fight is literally called the never ending battle for a reason Blake becoming Batman proves that...comics just keep the Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, or Peter Parker name because it's just good business
I think you are confusing a cliffhanger with an ambiguous ending…
A cliffhanger is when the story is left unfinished and you won’t find out what happens next until the next installment in a franchise/show, if ever. An ambiguous ending is when the story reaches a conclusion that can be interpreted in two or more different ways by the audience.
After I thought about the ending of Prisoners for a couple of minutes, I was pretty sure that Keller would be found. It was pretty obvious the cops were first going to make sure the girl got home safe, and it was late at night so they were going to go home for the night and come back probably the next day.
Sulley: "How'd you know I'd come back?"
Boo: "Because my friend promised me"
I remember listening to the commentary of Total Recall and, if I remember correctly, when they put Arnold in the chair right before they zap him to start his adventure, both Arnold and Verhoven discuss on the commentary that this was the only movie where the entire movie is explained in every detail (by the guy explaining Arnold's fantasy) and then it actually happens. I remember thinking at the time that that meant the entire movie after the zap was a dream but I may have misinterpreted.
His real memories start to surface before the false ones are implanted, so they stop the process. Everything he selected for his fantasy was based upon those suppressed memories. That's how it went down in the book too, except he didn't get out to Mars afterwards.
Blue sky on mars ? That’s new … off to dream land …
Yes, he'd been dreaming of mars and chose options for the package based on these desires. So it doesn't prove anything either way (of course, in the film the predictions are *too* perfect, but that's necessary to make it a movie...if the Rekall guy says even one thing which doesn't happen, there's no ambiguity in the ending...this way it's a stretch, but still possible to interpret both ways)
@@michaelrue1400That's what he's told. After he goes under to get implanted with false memories of being a spy. Convenient that no no, he totally is a spy!
He was implanted successfully. Another happy customer
Inceptions ending is one of the best. I remember watching it with my wife recently joyfully waiting for the end to see her reaction. The top does wobble a bit but there was also more and more glitches as you're going further in. Mostly the top was perfectly spinning but the wobble gives hope that it's real. Also, the top wasn't his totem, his wedding ring was. I love that even if you believe he's not in a dream, there's still that 1% doubt that the movie leaves behind.
With inception there is one area I always noticed but no one bring up. In the scean where Cobb is testing out the tranquilizer is being tested for the first time. Cobb wakes up and goes to a sink to test whether he is dreaming or awak with bis Totten he is in such a freaked out stake he never let's the Totten stop thus verifying if he is awake or asleep. From that point on you have to ask for the rest of the movie is he awake or asleep at the den where the chemist monitors every one who uses his drugs.
That's really interesting! I'll definitely have to watch it again.
I was gonna say I wanted to know what happened to Samuel Sterns in the Incredible Hulk as he was teased to become The Leader, but he never showed in any other movies. But I just looked it up and he was taken into custody by shield apparently during the comic series "Fury's big week".
Can’t wait to see where Jake Glynninhaal’s career goes.
Thought i was the only one who noticed
@@doomismo97 It's no worse than the way everyone usually pronounces it wrong: Jill-in-hall.
@@mimcduffee86Then how is it pronounced?
Conan says it properly in an interview.
Ive just realised the last shot from The Italian Job was shot backwards. Just at the end look tonthe right and you can see a rock fall upwards. Never noticed it before.
I wonder if Up would have hit as hard if the original Monster sequel had come out. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been good all of a sudden or anything, it just would no longer have been the first time that the soulmate died, as opposed to the typical parent or other family member
American Psycho is so interesting because throughout the movie it plays with identity. Patrick Bateman gets mistaken for Marcus and Paul Allen and a few others. They are all the same person and they are all nobody. They dress the same, go to the same barber, have the same job titles, have almost identical business cards, eat at the same restaurants, etc. Paul Allen is dead but it doesn’t matter because they are all Paul Allen.
I will always think Inception was still dreaming at the end. The time where he was calling his kids his daughter got on and talked and she sounded nearly a damn teenager at the time… but at the end she was still a little kid. So I refuse to believe otherwise.
Quick question how do you show the top not falling over?
I think what we've learned here is that if we are confused by a movie ending we should probably ask Michael Caine since he probably knows.
Seen Prisoners multiple times, and no matter what the writer and/or director aimed for it definitely should be assumed that Keller was found. No way a detective like Loki is going to have a look like that on his face and not check it out...
My assessment:
Total Recall: real.
Inception: dream.
American Psycho: delusion.
And nothing anyone says will make me change my mind.
Yeah, I always knew John Blake became Batman. The scene that so many people try and point at with Bale and Hathaway at the café table as proof he lived was just Alfred's dream that he described earlier in the movie of his hope for Master Wayne's future. Wayne died in the atomic bomb and Blake took over as Batman. That's how the trilogy ended. It was obvious to me but so many Batman fans were mad that he died. The end Scene of The Incredible Hulk made total sense to anyone who was a comic fan. It was an obvious start up of the Avengers.
Let's also remember that the name of the movie is "The Dark Knight Rises." And what is the last thing we see in the movie?
John Blake...in the Batcave..RISING out of the shot.
"The Consultant" is Marvel trying to retcon previous post-credit scenes. It wasn't planned.
Total Recall was definitely an implanted memory or "dream". The program, titled on a monitor in the background when Arnold is initially prepped, Blue Skies Over Mars. Arnold chose his female lead and selects a generic secret agent mission, could be coincidence/memory/dream based on events. He is never told or given an option to select/remember "Blue Skies Over Mars". That is too much to be coincidence. It's not a memory or chance, then it's a dream. He wakes up at Recall with only a matter of minutes having passed. That is just my opinion, but I will die on that hill.
How did anyone watch Tar and come to the conclusion that the ending was anything other than her complete fall from grace? It's like whole trajectory of the film. I'm baffled that anyone thought it wasn't real.
After watch the original Italian Job god know how many times. I have never noticed until this video. At 13:43 there id a "rock" rolling uphill.
I think that everyone misunderstood the thing with Michael Caine in Inception. I don't think that it meant that it was real, but for any actor whatever they are doing is real at that moment for that character. That's why Leonardo Dicaprio's character left before he saw it fall or not- he realized that what was important was what he experienced then.
But Christopher Caine said the director told him where the dad is present it's real, not where he is the scene is real, or am have I misunderstood what you're saying?
If you read the Jurassic Park novels, some of the dinos had already escaped to the mainland, I wish the movies hinted at that more.
Prisoners' ending killed me, not knowing if he got found. Such a thriller movie.
Well, they also told every actor in "The Usual Suspects" that they were Kaiser Soze, so what a director says to an actor to get a performance isn't a sure thing. That said, with Inception, I think that the top spinning as long as it does, yet Cobb doesn't wait to see what happens IS the point, he no longer cares if it is reality or not, he's just happy to be back with his kids. Everything he'd been focused on up until then was irrelevant, and in a way, I think that's Nolan's comment on the audience - does it really matter if it is reality or not, or do we just want a happy ending for the main character?
I always wondered about the Unfaithful movie.
These aren't cliffhangers by any sense of the term. These are ambiguous endings deliberately left open to interpretation.
I thought the point of American Psycho is that it doesn't matter if it was in his head or not. Both scenarios are equally nuts
Some of these have conclusions that aren’t in the movie, only scenes not included or actors being told the ending, which isn’t something the audience is privy to. That means there’s no clear ending.
Cancelled sequels such as Monsters inc 2 should not be considered canon in any sense. Hence, why they were cancelled
I had no idea Tar was ambiguous. It seemed obvious she had been reduced to doing what she did at the end.
TL;DR "Prisoners" does not end with a cliffhanger. The final shot of Jake Gyllenhaal's face lets you know how it ends.
I haven't watched the video yet, but I clicked on it because of the thumbnail. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about "Prisoners" because I think most of us "realized" it had an answer when we watched it. ("Prisoners" is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I've seen it a lot with a lot of different people.)
People who want concrete answers will sometimes get frustrated with that ending, but they're just not paying close enough attention. The last shot of the film is Jake Gyllenhaal turning his head. It's small and subtle, but it's VERY deliberate. It's obvious that he hears the whistle. There would be no other reason for him to turn his head like that. (I guess you could argue that maybe he heard a deer or something, but...No. He heard the whistle.)
I think everything about that film is brilliant and it is so underrated. One Oscar nomination is a crime! That film stars some of the most talented actors alive and Denis Villeneuve is a genius.
Anyway...That was my long-winded way of saying that if you didn't understand what was happening with that final shot, you're just not very good at watching movies. LOL I don't know how else to put it. That film did not end on a cliffhanger.
Unless you want to know what happened to Keller after, which is fair. There's no way they didn't send him to prison, but we don't know for how long. Would the jury have sympathy because of his situation? You can't take the law into your own hands and Paul Dano's character was a really messed up kidnapping victim who had been groomed and abused his whole life, he was not the villain, but...He did technically know where the girls were. Keller was never wrong about that. So were his actions kind of justified? I feel like a jury would give him some prison time, but go easy on him. But that's not a "cliffhanger" as much as it's just a debate about what happened after the events of the film. The whole thing started because Dano's character said, "They didn't cry until I left them." Can any of us really blame Keller for reacting the way he did after that?!
Sorry for the long comment. I could talk about that movie all day. LOL
The short story that Total Recall was based on was wilder by far!
Bloody Michael Caine & his cliffhangers! 😂❤
Paul Verhoeven's answer is really worthy of a (loose) adaptation of a Philip K. Dick story.
I'm very satisfied with the explanation of Total Recall, has always been one of my favorite movies and the scientific aspects of the answer absolutely is what I wanted to hear.
Inception was an overly complicated mess. After 30 minutes into the movie I couldn’t understand why Michael Cain couldn’t just bring the kids to their father.
This is a problem with audiences being unable to accept any ambiguity. It’s storytelling! These days it has to all be spelled out or you are in danger of being cancelled.
By the way. Total Recall does give away the truth. Every scene is from Arnold’s perspective. Except one.
Was that the scene where richter and lori were talking? Though i dont recall them discussing his mental state though i guess that shows events quaid wouldn't be privy too and couldnt have halucinated. For me its the scene where the recall techs explicitly state they haven't actually given him the implant yet. I always found that scene in addition to him dreaming of melina prior to visiting recall where they didnt do the implant(meaning his dreams of melina had to be from latent memories of his hauser life) , indicated the reality is as the film unfolds rather than any sort of mental episode.
@@branbroken Yep that's the scene. It's the only time in the whole movie the camera pulls away, and there is a conversation Quaid is not involved in.
True. Gone are the days where you'd sit excitedly waiting for Studios to not be aholes and greenlight a sequel to a great cliffhanger, or just accept that a cliffhanger is what it is and the movie is still good regardless. The need to know has taken over, and what's sad is it often the ending is a disappointing and lack luster conclusion, instead of just letting us come up with multiple ending that better suit the story without feeling cheated out of something good.
wait did some people really think the ending to tar was a dream/hallucination?? seriously??? the only "cliffhanger" in that movie is to what extent lydia tar did the things she was accused of. it manages to stay ambiguous to that regard. was it a justifiable fall for someone who had systematically abused several women? or was she just an unlikeable personality who ended up the victim of cancel culture? you can lean either way, with neither being definitive. but a dream ending?? nuh-uh
Michael Caine is in so many movies with vexing endings.
I probably got one that you've never seen before, it's called Death Trap (1982), and it stars Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve. It's an amazing movie with a truly bizarre twisted effing ending you would never see coming unless you read or someone told youabout it. You might even be able to watch the whole movie on TH-cam.
@@ItsFreakinHarding. oh I loved that one. I was raised on their movies. We would always follow that up with Somewhere In Time.
What I always find funny about Inception is people dont seem to consider that Cobb was the mark all along. Watch it again and watch the Airport scene at the end. They are all seemingly looking at Cobb hoping their plan worked - including the mark. My guess is that everyone including the supposed mark in the film were in fact working together to help Cobb move past his block over his wifes death so he could have a happy life. It totally changes the whole narrative if Cobb is the mark but suddenly a few of the loose threads make total sense.
Tar is the ultimate satire of modern Hollywood and art scene in general.
It should be up there with Exit Through the Gift Shop as one of the most biting indictments of vapid, commoditized commercial art and the industry behind it. Not to mention the despicable humans that seem to promote this self-aggrandizing nonsense.
It was not Nolan who came up with the idea that anyone could be Batman. That was already batman himself.
There’s a beautiful analysis of prisoners somewhere on yt that explained how detective Lokis character traits is that he becomes obsessed with closing a case to the detriment of his own sanity.
That being said, we the audience know that if Loki has a “hunch” or suspicion then he will follow his instincts until he finds the truth.
Because of this, we know at the end when Loki thinks he hears a whistle,that alone is enough to spark his obsession. There’s absolutely zero chance that he left that night without finding the dude under ground first
I need the answer to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels! Been haunting me for years now lol
10. Inception: it’s just annoying that you spoil the best part of the movie. Leaving the ending ambiguous was what made it interesting
9. American Psycho: anyone familiar with Easton Ellis’s work would know it’s ridiculous to speculate it was all in Bateman’s head. The whole story is an _allegory_ ! It makes non sense if it’s all in his head - the over-the-topness of people not caring, seemingly not noticing etc is the very _core_ of the story and its message
8. Prisoners: the version I saw actually had that scene in there
2. Total Recall: Verhoeven wasn’t saying both happened, he was saying he purposefully left it open.
Unfortunately, when I first saw this movie I was too young to realize the duplicity in the story and ending. I just took it on face value.
The monsters inc. Cancelled sequel was sad.
In American Psycho I figured it was real and the guy at the end confused Paul Allen for someone else just as people confused Bale for other people. He got away with it becase he blended in so well in a social circle filled with everyone imitating each other to fit in.