The undisputed definitive explanation to the end of the movie
-
lamont-hard — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 11:55 PM)
@jmrcCongratulations you said it better than anyone else on these boards you kept it simple I have not seen it yet and will watch it later today. I could not believe so many left out just what went on between her and her husband at the end, in all of these writings.
-
bill_onethroughfour — 14 years ago(January 12, 2012 08:49 PM)
Okay, I replied to the OP before reading jmrc's post, which would certainly better explain Hackmans confession. As it played out, I was wondering if he was confessing to protect her, because the whole movie I was thinking, surely shes not the killer.
In any case, it still does not seem very plausible to me that he was all of a sudden so convinced that she was the killer, that he would just start rattling off a confession. -
dootmoot — 14 years ago(February 16, 2012 07:07 AM)
@jmrc Are you recalling the storyline of the original French film? Because if you are summarizing THIS version, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that Hackman confessed because he wanted to protect his wife.
(In this version) you leave out that the girls were raped (from behind) before they were murdered; would it really be plausible, at all, that a lawyer would jump to such a ridiculous conclusion, that his wife would have gone through so much - luring girls, raping them with a phallic object that had a condom on it (remember the police could tell there were condoms used with both victims), killing them, then posing their bodies - to set up the husband on the off chance that he would be investigated the way he was? Remember, the movie starts out with Hackman's character asked to stop by the police station "for no longer than 10 minutes" to clear up his prior statement. Hackman would know that Bellucci's character had no way of knowing how the police would go about their investigation.
Hackman wasn't protecting his wife by confessing, he had become a broken, lonely man, who knew there was no one he could turn to for support, so he began confessing to a crime he didn't commit because he realized how much his wife truly despised him, and to make the interrogation stop. -
jreyes4949 — 14 years ago(March 28, 2012 11:31 PM)
at the begining they ask him about the dog because he says "we found the body", a couple other times in the movie he says "we" when referring to the crime (i believe even during the interrogation when they announce the other killer)
-
christophevictor — 13 years ago(May 05, 2012 06:41 PM)
Hackman and Freeman are/were not best friends. They knew each other for years, true, but the were not friends. Freeman was the young man who worked hard to survive and couldnt go to university, while Hackman was the golden boy who threw away money and had girlfriends on each finger. Hackmans character mentioned that and said Freeman was after him to take revenge for that.
-
rachel-filmer82 — 10 years ago(October 11, 2015 03:25 PM)
Wrecking a beautiful marriage? Of an old guy falling in love with an 11 year old and getting together with her as soon as it's legal? How beautiful.
This ending confuses people because the film is poorly written and directed. There are no scenes showing Hackman as a broken man. No scenes showing him being brainwashed. None showing him being confused about what happened. This ending could have worked well had the interrogation been intense and shattering enough that he started to believe he had done it, or he felt he had option. The ending felt tacked on, nothing to do with the film I'd just watched, and I found it infuriating. I felt tricked, it felt dishonest. It was just incredibly badly done.
