The way I interpreted the ending was that Dennis had called the feds in advance and confessed to them what they had done. They were there to arrest Dennis and Rick Carver, or at the least, take them in for questioning. I do not recall seeing anyone dressed as "possibly could be feds" in any previous eviction scene, therefore, their presence in the ending scene made me think that they were there for a purpose. JMHO, but I am probably wrong!

It takes somebody with a simple mind to take the ending that way. That's why many films these days aren't as intelligent as they used to be.
The world sure has dumbed down.

LOL, all you would have to say is "Officer, I told that crazy man the first thing I could come up with, to calm him down and get him to drop that rifle! It isn't true, of course."
And the whole thing would be over. The police do not prosecute white collar crime.

I think you're right I said in my comments on this film, it presents a somewhat nuanced view of the "villain" but Laura Dern's character is unrealisticly wholesome. She's like Jimmy Stewart in some old Capra movie. This film essentially relies on the idea that we believe people like that exist in real life. Some people will definitely do unreasonable things, but mostly out of pride. There's no hint of criticism in the film that Dern's character is too proud. It's a major weakness, overly sentimental.
As far as the fact that Nash was arrested, I have to assume as somebody said above that these were federal cops who were perhaps already investigating his boss, and so they moved in when they had the opportunity. Could they have explained that? Yes. Could they have explained what happened to Nash's wife? Yes. Did they need to explain either of those things? Not necessarily. But there certainly are some things that are just hanging out there in this film, for whatever reason.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

Some people who behave according to a moral compass that points differently to yours. I'm not saying that her actions would be the most commonly-seen but they're not so far fetched. She's been hanging out in that hotel making friends with other evictees so obviously she's feeling some affiliation to them and hating the people that do the evicting.

That guy he stuck up forif the roles were reversed, would have kicked him out of his house and signed to paperwork to do so. He wouldn't have given a ratt's a$$ about him or his mom and kid. It's called reality. I've seen it and lived it. And the guy was eventually going to end up losing his house sooner or later. I've been there.when you're not paying on your mortgageI don't care what paperwork you file, unless you get the loan modified, you're going to have to leave sooner or later. So what did his actions do? Just screwed himself over, that's what. As someone who lost a house, it was like the message of the film was we should just let everyone not paying on their homes keep them. Don't shoot the messengers. I mean, they're not paying on their homeswhat do they expect? The message of the film was lost on meshame, as it was a decent movie with a horrible ending.

Completely agree with you.

If the shoe was on the other foot, all those people HE evicted would have done the same thing to him. Taken the work, taken the joband said "sorry bud." The guy offered him a damn good job, a way to get his house back and more, and he suddenly gets a conscience. Grow up. What did that ultimately do? What? The way his mom acted was beyond stupid and honestly, unbelievable. Nobody living in a motel is going to leave a nice house because their son now works for the guy that originally evicted them. I mean grow UP! You have a chance to move from the screwed or the ones doing the screwing and you suddenly feel obligated to stand up for some guy that in the real world would stab you in the back.
And The OP posted I doubt the cops would have arrested Nash on the spot. These are civil matters. For all they know he was saying that to diffuse the situation. Yes, falsifying documents is a criminal crime but beat cops wouldn't have known what the F to do in that situation

I wasn't aware he was arrested at all. He simply made a statement/confession that he forged a court document and was taken away to be further questioned, as you'd expect. The only oddity was that plain clothes detectives were suddenly on the scene when there was no evidence of their presence beforehand. It would have been better had he simply been taken away by uniformed cops.

yes that was what i found odd. was unsure where they came from

He wasn't arrested by the "average cop", they looked like feds. The question is, what were they doing at the scene? Perhaps they were already investigating Carver? Some explanations would have been welcome.

www.1up-games.com
Last seen:

Agree, it's a formality.. Also separating Nash from the situation. An armed man he admitted to 'delivering' the forged documents not forging them himself. It was Freeman and his boys. So Nash would be asked to give a formal statement and eventually testify. Also, to separate him from Carver, who seemed to be having a casual chat with the Detectives at the end as he had a good reputation with the police.
Why btw, two separate law enforcements show up? The Sheriffs dept doesn't have enough man power in Orlando?

That's very true. However, it's almost never well dressed middle aged white males in suburban neighborhoods.

They handcuff and put folks in cop cars for a lot less these days
"A distant ship, smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves."

Exactly !

I don't think they arrested Nash, they were just taking him in for questioning. I was left wondering if the men in plain clothes were already aware of the forgery and were at the scene to pick up Carver or if they were there because it's routine to send non-uniformed officers or Federal agents or whatever they were to that sort of armed stand-off situation.

@daredevil
"Creepy Arab child"? There was nothing "creepy" about that childwhat a silly thing to say.

HA! I hadn't noticed that, thanks. Lol

Agreed. It's forgiveable because we the audience know the truth, and it's 'fair' - even if fairness doesn't exist in the real world.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

Films, unfortunately, have to "wrap things up" in a quick action, which often means operating in a way that is not 100% realistic. It's happened on many films before.
I can forgive the filmmaker for that ending because I felt like the emotion was earned and the point was made.
Great film.
"The future is tape, videotape, and NOT film?"

Nothing was more unsettling than the last shot with the creepy Arab child staring eerily at Garfield not really knowing what his cue was supposed to be lol.

I also think at the very least, the detectives on the scene (whether at the time or shortly thereafter) would want him brought in since he just admitted he committed fraud upon the court. Not a stretch at all. As for the handcuffs, I don't know what normally goes on in Orlando. Not sure if the scene of Nash getting into the police vehicle was minutes after the standoff, or after detectives has questioned him for a bit.
I do agree that Nash wouldn't have much of a chance against Carver's word later on, unless he had some form of proof about how they ripped of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Or maybe the government didn't need a lot of proof in order to start ripping Carver's life apart.

The guys in suits who took Nash were FBI or detectives IMO. They would want to talk to him about fraud.

It was a standoff situation with an armed man. It can be argued that you can say anything, you can even lie if it helped de-escalate the situation so all anyone had to argue is that Nash just told the armed man what he wanted to hear - it doesn't mean it's the truth.
As for taking nash and carver in for questioning, that part didn't make sense unless there was already a case being built against Carver.