Movie endings, they're usually pretty straight forward right? Everything pays off, the main characters learn something, and our heroes ride off into the sunset. Sometimes though, we don't get the typical ending from a movie, we get something much more nuanced, complex and open ended. The kind of endings that leave things up in the air for all of us to debate and theorize on until we're blue in the face. With Movie Endings Explained, we aim to delve into some of the more ambiguous and mysterious endings to films that have left audiences scratching their heads for years, and to attempt to explain them. In most cases, a definitive answer isn't really there, so we definitely want to hear from YOU on how you interpret the various endings we'll be discussing with this series.
Previously on Movie Endings Explained we tackled two films from the director Denis Villeneuve, namely ARRIVAL and BLADE RUNNER 2049. This time though we turn to another masterpiece from his recent filmography, far removed from the science fiction grandeur of those two works. 2013's PRISONERS, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, is a tightly wrought crime mystery thriller, following the abduction of two children and the hunt to catch the kidnapper. While there is an element of the mystery being solved by the film's close, there is a lingering sense of ambiguity over the fate of a major character. So in this episode we explore the ending of PRISONERS, the steps that may have been put in place to prepare us for that final shot, and the screenwriter's perspective on extra material that was shot for the finale, but not used!
The comment section exists to allow readers to discuss the article constructively and respectfully, focused on the topic at hand.
What’s Not Allowed