The Ending *SPOILERS*
-
alicecbr — 18 years ago(August 13, 2007 12:59 PM)
I don't think he EVER thought his wife killed those girls, I think he was just driven to distraction by the betrayal by his 'friend', the cop, and his wife, and his general frustration with life. Maybe also his own conscience hurt him, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." And he DID like young women/girls, as he said.
But he didn't kill them.
The illogical part is why a smart lawyer would let the situation get out of hand. When he first realizes his 'buddy' has done so much to investigate the case, he should have pulled in all the other lawyers.
"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin -
zoomusicgirl87 — 15 years ago(July 13, 2010 11:53 AM)
I know this is old but it made me laugh that people watch something and don't understand it, yet post their version as fact anyway.
He didn't have the photos in his car, they were in the car of the real killer. Which is what the female detective was telling Morgan Freeman's character, and why they let Henry go. -
jgain — 19 years ago(May 14, 2006 04:44 PM)
I agree; that's the way I took it. Hackman was psychologically exhausted at the end, and he believed that he was guilty because everyone close to him thought so.
No lies to protect his wife, etc. He lied in the beginning because he didn't want it getting out that he was visiting hookers in the alley, and looking at young girls on the internet.
Hindsight being 20/20, if he had told the truth from the beginning it would have been better, but he thought he was going to be in and out in "10 minutes".. -
thornugc — 15 years ago(June 12, 2010 09:39 PM)
QUOTE:
this thread is completely OFF
Thomas never said anything that resembles "the wife told us where to find these." or whatevers
Henry confessed because he broke down through the interrogation and lack of belief from everyone around him.
and Henry lied at the beginning because he knew he had photos and some relations with the victims. and it will just complicate the matter. so a lie would make things a shorter process. well atleast he thought.
No it was not Thomas that said it, it was Morgan Freeman's character that said it. He said it as part of his ploy to pit the two against each other to get a confession.
Hackman did confess, not to protect her as one person offered, but because he was giving up. He was convinced that his wife's jealousy had caused her to set him up to prove a point. He says this.
I do believe that Hackman's character wanted children and loved children but not in a sick way. She thought he was a sicko with kids and she overreacted.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21312696 -
codebreaker2001 — 20 years ago(March 07, 2006 06:12 PM)
Actually Owens (Tomas Jane) said "One hundred beep percent guilty". The line that you are trying to associate with the character is from Victor (Morgan Freeman), who actually says, "You're wife was kind enough to bring these out of your dark room." (or something close to this). But the like "The wife told us where to find these" was not mentioned in any way.
But this one's eatting my popcorn! -
icebeast — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 08:09 PM)
while watching the movie i was initially excited that i had been caught so off guard. i thought the writer's blindsided me and that the wife had somehow set Henry up. i thought that Freeman's character was staring in disbelief at the wife, because he figured out that SHE had set her husband up and that she was about to be locked up. part of me wanted to have this ending, because the wife seemed so cold. i thought it would be fitting to have her switch places with henry and be thrown in the hot seat.
but by the time they sat on the park benches, i started thinking that the wife truely believe that Henry was a rapist/murderer. Henry truely believe that his wife had set him up. but he loved her so- that he confessed to the crimes.
when the pictures were (by my recollection) brought into the scene, it led you to believe they were found in HENRY's car. but then they explained it was in the "murder's" car. "they got him". if Chantel (wife) had been in on it, i do not think she would have had her accomplice rape and kill on a night that Henry was to give a speech in front of so many witnesses.
and, we never see anyone explain anything to Henry as to why he is released. maybe he is heartbroken that his wife had little faith in him.. or maybe he still thinks she set him up. -
albi_gjino — 19 years ago(June 04, 2006 11:32 PM)
He was heartbroken, thats obvious. Nothing there lets you think Chantel had anything to do with the murders.
Yeah, they should have told him why they released him. Now that I remember it, it was really stupid of the writers to release Henry like that. -
rocknviachicago — 19 years ago(June 06, 2006 02:19 PM)
I think some of you are missing the point when Henry says "I cant believe she would go to these lenghts". My intial response was that she was setting him up, but the murders are not what Henry is talking about. He is talking about Camille. Chantell has destroyed their marriage because she believed that Henry's relationship with Camille was inappropriate and she was jealous. She needs to have that jealously and suspicion justified, otherwise she is the one at fault for ruining the marriage. Thats the whole point. He is under suspicion by both his wife and his good friend for being nothing more than a man who is not getting any and loves children. The movie is about destroying a man through suspicion. It is also done visually as he enters the police station in a full tuxedo. Then the coat is ripped, he losses his hair, and eventually (as he confesses) he removes the tux. The major point is that Henry was already guilty before he stepped foot in the police station because they thought he was guilty. Victor thought he was guilty because he envyed Henry and wanted to destroy him. Chantell thought he was guilty because she was jealous of his relationship with Camille. And Opey thought he was guilty probably because he thinks everyone is guilty, lol. A very respected, upstanding, loving, gentleman had his life destroyed by suspicion from people with shakey motives. That's the message I got from the film, and Hackman even says that in the film very early when he's talking about why his neighbors would lie. It's laid out very carefully you just have to dig for it. Excellent movie, excellent performances, excellent message.
-
Miss_Lovely1 — 19 years ago(June 09, 2006 05:02 PM)
This is what i came away believing from the filmthat chantal hired someone to carry out the murders, hence her looking so pertrified when the female police officer said theyd caught the guy in the act, she was afraid so she thought about topping herself, but was too vain..thought she could go back to her husband, and at the very end where they are sat on the benches and henry and Victor look at each other, Henry realises this and so does Victor.
all very presumptious i know, but that was my honest feeling straight after watching it for the first time, have since thought differently after watching it a few times although have seen things too also confirm it. the films what you want it to be eh? -
TinaKimo — 18 years ago(January 25, 2008 09:49 PM)
I think some of you are missing the point when Henry says "I cant believe she would go to these lenghts". My intial response was that she was setting him up, but the murders are not what Henry is talking about. He is talking about Camille. Chantell has destroyed their marriage because she believed that Henry's relationship with Camille was inappropriate and she was jealous. She needs to have that jealously and suspicion justified, otherwise she is the one at fault for ruining the marriage. Thats the whole point. He is under suspicion by both his wife and his good friend for being nothing more than a man who is not getting any and loves children. The movie is about destroying a man through suspicion. It is also done visually as he enters the police station in a full tuxedo. Then the coat is ripped, he losses his hair, and eventually (as he confesses) he removes the tux. The major point is that Henry was already guilty before he stepped foot in the police station because they thought he was guilty. Victor thought he was guilty because he envyed Henry and wanted to destroy him. Chantell thought he was guilty because she was jealous of his relationship with Camille. And Opey thought he was guilty probably because he thinks everyone is guilty, lol. A very respected, upstanding, loving, gentleman had his life destroyed by suspicion from people with shakey motives. That's the message I got from the film, and Hackman even says that in the film very early when he's talking about why his neighbors would lie. It's laid out very carefully you just have to dig for it. Excellent movie, excellent performances, excellent message.
Thank you!!! This is the exact message I got from the film. Although I had to watch it about 4 timesLOL. After reading through the threads on this board, many people are getting things wrong. Many need to go back and watch the film a few more times. Thanks again! -
hogans2-1 — 18 years ago(March 05, 2008 11:53 AM)
I just finished this film and went to the computer as soon as the credits ran to see any discussion on ending.
All along, I felt that he's most probably covering up something for the wife. At times, I thought that the young cop might have been the rapist (and perhaps was even seeing the wife on the side). What get's confusing is that at one point Hackman said that it is "farsicle (sp?) how far she has taken this." He loves his wife so he gave in and confessed so she wouldn't get in trouble, despite knowing that she is the one setting him up. Then he would go to prison and she stays rich and can do whatever she wants.
But where I thought this movie REALLY fell apart is at the CD case. They make it fairly clear that it is Hackman's, but then a picture is found of a recent murder. They say they have the murderer downstairs, Freeman looks at Hackman's wife like she's been caught and his wife seems to agree with her eyes, then hangs her head in shame. All along, Hackman continues to confess and now I'm waiting to get some really cool answers.
Instead, the next seen shows her looking like she's going to commit suicide, but the very first question for me is why was she is set free. And then Hackman is set free into the crowd and yet he has lied throughout the whole movie and has pictures of each victim in his house. You'd think cops would detain him to make sure this guy downstairs is not his partner. So I'm getting a little more frustrated at the writing.
Then you see her and she didn't kill herself. Why are they both free? At that moment, the only good part for me was then he shunned her when she went in for a hug & kiss. That would have really pissed me off.
So now the credits roll and I feel very ripped off. I rewind to see the CD case part again. They don't say a name so I say to myself, maybe it it's the guys downstairs and not Hackmans. But I'm still feeling like both Hackman & his wife are guilty somehow. I get mad that this movie left me hanging so bad.
I'm an experienced movie watcher. At first I thought it was terrible writing and then thought about it and justified a few things in my head. And then I started thinking that this ending had a whole lot more genious then I gave it credit for. I had to really think it through because the ending changed everything. But, I've made my peace with it and do appreciate the writing now. But I still feel they should have clarified who's CD case that was. I can't help but think of poor people like my mom who watched this for the stars and were very disappointed with the end and never did really figure it out. I'm all for thought provoking movies, but they could have helped out the watchers just a little more on this one. I think they pushed the envelope to far and got too cute for they're own good. -
jolex_the_light — 17 years ago(August 09, 2008 03:09 AM)
it's clearly stated eventually that the cd case is someone else's, and that none of the protagonists did it but "the guy downstairs". That part is not ambiguous or anything, it can't be more clear.
The more intriguing part is that hackman probably says that he did it maybe thinking that he's protecting his wife. and that's a part of the awkward stares at the end, everybody gets that part, along with the one that they have forced it on him, but that's a minor one, he deserved it because of being such a prick during the interogation.
-
Guamley — 17 years ago(January 16, 2009 01:57 PM)
Reading some of the posts here, i'm amazed some of you can actually muster the brain power needed just to move your fingers across your computer keys.
He thought his wife did it so he confessed to protect her???
How on earth did you come up with that?
There was nothing ambigious about who the murderer was.
Its spelled out pretty clearly near the ending when the police woman tells the Captain they had him downstairs and he was caught in the act killing a third girl.
We don't actually meet the guy, but its pretty clear that niether Hackman nor his wife did it.
Hackman only admitted it at the end because he felt betrayed, first by Freeman, a supposed friend, and then by his wife.
He just didn't give a beep anymore. -
mdelvecchio — 14 years ago(August 06, 2011 10:59 PM)
I find it amusing that while you're criticizing the intellect of others, you fail to realize that Henry's character is completely unawares that the killer had been caught. he knows nothing as he's been in the room, being interrogated. dur.
-
gloves21 — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 06:33 AM)
I just saw the film for the first time. As far as I could tell, first let me dispel the notion that Hackman (Henry) or Belleuci (Chantel) are the killer. The killer is an anonymous character. He is mentioned briefly and it clearly is stated he was caught in the act, but they were too late to save the third victim.
The truth of Henry's character is ambiguous at best. The negative characteristics of Henry are mostly stated by Chantel.
It appears that Chantel suspected Henry was guilty. Mostly due to her interpretation of the innocent event with her niece Camille. Sticking with the theme and the title of the movie, she suspected him and that was all.
She knew the pictures were there and, she only reluctantly, after much convincing, allowed the police to search their home. It might be easy for one to assume she set him up. But I think the tears and her reaction at the end, when she finds out he is not the killer, she attempts to hug him show this not to the case. Henry is convinced she did set him up. Which is why he admits to the crime. He is heartbroken. Notice he did not give one detail about the crime that Freeman (Victor) did not bring out during the interrogation.
She suspected him of the murder and he suspected she set him up. The title and the theme rings true in a way which goes far beyond just the guilt or innocence of Henry of the murders.
The part of the story I have the most trouble with is it seems very convenient he happened to have known and taken pictures of the victims. Now we know he hung around the area both victims were found in. And he may have gotten to know them but I still have trouble with it.
If anyone has a better explanation for the pictures rather than happenstance and beyond the incorrect conclusion is wife set him up, let me know. It may just be literary license in order to tell the story, but it seems a bit thin if you ask me. Maybe there is something I am missing.
SJK -
lil_Nicky-94 — 16 years ago(November 09, 2009 07:55 PM)
And, as girls want powerful and economically secure men, men want young and fertile girls. Thats normal.
thaaank you.
Wanting older women is a fetish.
THAAANK you! yo, i laughed when i read this tho.
(_o)/
WHY EVEREH BODAY SO CRAZEH?!