can somebody please tell me what the suprise ending is?
i'd really like to know
shareAustin Spencer, who holds the evidence of innocence, is killed in a car accident before he can prove it was all a setup.
shareIf I remember, that is not the surprise. I wont tell you what it is, so you'll have to watch it to the end!
shareTurns out he DID kill the girl. He used the false evidence as a scam to get away with it.
shareJoan Fontaine questions him when he mentions the murdered girl's first name. it comes out that he did kill her but when she tries to call and tell the Govenor she can't do it. Then when he is in the Governor's office, the Governor has pen in hand to sign the pardon....the phone rings. She tells the Governor that he is guilty. They take him back to the cell....The End.
Fritz Lang had to fight to keep that ending instead of showing him being electrocuted.
Even so, he said that he hated the movie.
Glad to hear Lang hated it. I always thought this was his worst movie.
shareGotta love IMDB boards...a reply after 7 years.
Glad he was able to keep HIS ending in the movie anyway.
OK, I only saw the last ten minutes today. Why wouldn't he know the girl's name if he was tried for her murder?
The Virginia Weidler Remembrance Society on Facebook! Your place for all things 'Ginny'!
Because she had changed her name when she became a "dancer".
The only reason the investigators knew was because they interviewed the bartender/owner at the club she had worked at. They in turn told J.Fontaine.
The woman's real name had not been in the paper or in any public record. The only way he could have known her name was if he had known her pretty well and he claimed he didn't know her at all.
This was an experiment to prove that circumstantial evidence was not foolproof but when the guy was going to come with the proof it was an experiment....he died in the car wreck.
If you just saw the last 10 minutes; it probably was pretty confusing.
If Dana Andrews had been quicker on his feet, he could have told Joan Fontaine that the other dancers knew her real name was Emma and used to call her that to bust her chops. He just picked it up from there.
Funny, I just watched ' A Kiss Before Dying' and the same name slip tripped up the murderer in that one too; and with a fiancee yet!
corriganville,
You're right. He could have easily said that he got the name from one of the dancers.
Also, why in the world would Dana want to kill someone who had been his ex-wife. And then to compound the issue, he cooks up that scheme with Joan's father.
I have to agree: The film is quite outlandish. Perhaps my bias against the "justice system" has a lot to do with it, but I wouldn't put myself in his position if I was completely innocent, much less if I was guilty of murder. You'd have to be profoundly egotistical and sociopathic, not to mention narcissistic beyond all belief. Greatly disappointed by this but I look forward to Lang's other "talkies."
"Metropolis" owned balls.
There's no "Thumbs Up" button to click on so i must respond. If one were innocent, no way should he put himself in that position yet he is really the murderer.
shareKumpuat66 says > Because she had changed her name when she became a "dancer". The only reason the investigators knew was because they interviewed the bartender/owner at the club she had worked at. They in turn told J.Fontaine.I always thought that was a ridiculous way to find out he was lying. He had hung out with some of the dead girl's friends and roommate when he was trying to make himself look guilty. I can't see why the name would be that big a secret. They don't know that one of those girls hadn't told him after the fact.
The woman's real name had not been in the paper or in any public record. The only way he could have known her name was if he had known her pretty well and he claimed he didn't know her at all.
In order to seem guilty they supposedly did a lot of investigating and looking into things about the girl. The other side may have only recently found out but he could have played it off like he knew all along. That's not necessarily something the defense would have had to share with the prosecution. It's also unbelievable after all that time that he'd let her name slip out like that.
This was an experiment to prove that circumstantial evidence was not foolproofTheir little experiment proved nothing. Even though the guy turns out to be guilty, his conviction was completely based on circumstantial evidence. The trial and sentencing was long over when he decides to tell his ex-fiance the truth. All of the evidence could have just as easily proven an innocent man guilty of the crime.
when the guy was going to come with the proof it was an experiment....he died in the car wreck.We see the guy hurrying to the courthouse when he is tragically killed but maybe he had discovered the truth and was going to make sure everyone else knew to keep a guilty man from walking free. He had pictures but we don't know they were the one supposed to exonerate him. Naturally, he wouldn't have known he was going to die so he would have thought he'd have plenty of time to retrieved the originally letter proclaiming his innocence from his last will and testament.
If you just saw the last 10 minutes; it probably was pretty confusing.You're being way too kind. Anyone who sees the last ten minutes of a movie would be much more than just confused. There's no way they'd have any clue what the movie was about. In this case, even seeing half the movie might not have been enough.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
Why did Fritz Lang hate this film? I thought that it was very well done, but I had really hoped for a different ending. I had hoped that Susan's father was the killer.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
[deleted]