Movies with endings that don't resolve anything (SPOILERS SHOULD BE EXPECTED) (1 Viewer)

[Janna S]

Sayles' Limbo - the ultimate in unresolved . . . .

 

[Christopher B]

I think some movies are not about all of the details, they are about the story. Using Jeeper Creepers as an example, I don't think you need to have the origins of the creature. Would it make a difference in the story to know exactly where it came from? I feel it can sometimes be creepier not knowing things. I really hate it when someone in the movie suddenly knows all of the answers for no apparent reason just to try and tie up all of the loose ends.
As far as The Birds not being resolved, again that is part of the mystery of the movie. There is a scene in the diner which suggests a reason, where one of the characters is asking why the birds are doing this, and you hear the cook yell out an order for fried chicken or some other type of bird. Not everything in life can be explained, why do we want that in our movies?
I love it when you can debate whether or not something really happened, like Total Recall or American Psycho. It is especially cool when you interpret it one way, only to hear another interpretation, and both are possible. The latest movie like that for me is Dead Man's Shoes, which I recommend to anyone with a multi-regional player.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Nicole Kidman was not behind it all, since the assassination plot was obviously hatched before she even knew the president was coming to the UN. The main plot was the fake assassination plot to justify the president's dictatorship. Nicole Kidman was a wildcard, acting on her own.

Letting her go makes sense if the UN wanted to cover up the fact that they let an assassin get within a few feet of her target inside a supposedly secure room. Since she A) is no threat to anyone but a man going on trial for war crimes and B) didn't actually kill anyone, it was just simpler to kick her out of the country.

 

[Yumbo]

Jeepers 1 is explained in 2 if that's any consolation.

LIMBO was an ok tease.
biggest waste of time was War of the Worlds last night. couldn't care less for the dying.

 

[BrianShort]

Janna S said:

This was the first one to pop into my head too. Also, good to see a fellow Alaskan. I was just in Anchorage last week. I was even in the Barnes & Noble that lady drove her car into buying Memoirs of a Geish and A Feast for Crows.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

If you think the theater version was unresolved, imagine what Hitchcock's first idea (given up for lack of budget) would be like. He originally wanted the characters to escape from the seaside town and drive up the coast to San Francisco, where they would be safe in the big city. As they rounded a bend, the Golden Gate Bridge enters the frame - and it is covered with birds - THE END. I say it was brilliant and I cannot watch it to this day without thinking how good that ending would be if they only had the budget.

An other similar unresolved ending - The Thing. BTW, I like unresolved endings and think it is a great plot device for certain movies. Matter of fact, if The Birds or The Thing ended with a final resolution, they would be far worse movies.

 

[GeorgePaul]

This is a curious thread. Even Gone With the Wind has an unresolved ending. Does that detract from anyone's enjoyment of the film? It doesn't for me.

 

[Linda Thompson]

Exactly!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

This is a great point. I remember back in the "Mystic River" thread, there was a big debate between those who loved the movie and those that did not care for it. Most who did not enjoy it stated the fact it was not a very good "who dunnit" and the plot was never resolved at the end. The fans of the film (me included) dismissed this (valid) analysis because we did not see the film as a "who dunnit" at all. We felt it was a brilliant, almost Shakespearean, character study. Seeing a character study; i.e. more about the nature of the evil/destiny/choices of mankind rather than a series of clues which lead to a perpetrator/arrest/trial/resolution, led some of us to see things which the "who dunnit" fans did not. This does not mean the "who dunnit" fans were wrong. Actually, as a "who dunnit", "Mystic River" is fatally flawed indeed. But it just shows the various ways some people can see the same movie and come to vast differences in their enjoyment level.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Whoops, double post.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

whoops, triple post. A first for me.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Unresolved, yes. But unfullfilling? Not by a long shot. Everyone who ever sees GWTW knows Scarlett is going to get up "tomorrow" (after all, it is "another day") and be just as stubborn and bullheaded as she ever was. Whether she will chase Rhett or rebuild Tara or run for mayor of Atlanta, we do not know. What we do know is that she will survive, using every loathesome, cheating, underhanded or charming trick in the book. This is the duality of the Scarlett O'Hara character. While she is loathesome, she is still admirable because she is the only true survivor in the movie/novel. Everyone loses in GWTW, only Scarlett "survives".

 

[Dome Vongvises]

The matter of the unresolved ending for me depends on two things: the journey and the ending itself. The only film I can recall to mind in which I didn't like either is L'Avventura.

Otherwise, just because something is clearly unresolved doesn't make it terrible. Sometimes the guessing games and discussions that follow make it fun.

 

[MichaelBA]

Hmm.

Does GONE WITH THE WIND actually apply to the concept of this thread's discussion?

Not knowing what happens after a movie ends isn't exactly the same as when an essential aspect of the film remains always ambiguous and, within the context of the film itself, unresolvable.

What happens at the end of MANHATTAN? Do Ike and Tracy end up together? What about at the end of SIDEWAYS? What happens after he knocks on the door? Is our not knowing a fault of the film, or is ambiguity, is eschewing a neat wrap-up a positive quality?

Take BLADE RUNNER, for example. Is he or isn't he? If we could know for sure, would that add or detract from the film?

 

[MichaelBA]

Do the unresolved ambiguities of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY make it a lesser film?

 

[Paul McElligott]

Good storytelling allows for certain unresolved issues when the story is over, because that's just life. Nobody's problems are ever completely solved. I always admire a film or episode that has the guts to leave a few things up in the air rather than tie things up with a group hug just before the fade-out.

 

[Yumbo]

Mystic River was fine...it implied things.
It's the movies that cause you to say, "Is that all?", "What was the point of that?" that are an issue.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

More than a few in the "Mystic River" thread would disagree about anything being "implied". They felt the "resolution" was confusing and incomplete. Now, was it a bad movie because of that, a good movie in spite of that, or did it not matter at all because the movie was good, period?

What I'm getting at is different definitions of "don't resolve anything" exist and because of this, I find it a little harsh to count this "trait" as a definite negative critique of a film.

 

[Yumbo]

"Life is like a box of chocolates"

Finish it. How's that? :b

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Most recently...Broken Flowers.