The ridiculous twist at the end of this film undermines the whole story and ruins everything. But if you like laugh-out-loud stupid twists you might find it funny - it's certainly not what you expect from an old black and white film.
I suppose The Woman in the Window had a fairly lunatic surprise end too, but I quite enjoyed that. This one is just bloody twp.
Anyone agree with that? I'll come back in 50 years or so to see if anyone's said anything.
I don't think the ending is what ruined it at all, because it was about the only thing in the movie that wasn't hopelessly predictable. Even before watching it I read the plot synopsis and thought "so the guy who has to prove his innocence will die at the most inconvenient time". Even though the twist at the end was dumb, I at least appreciate that I didn't see it coming.
I think a better twist would have it turn out his father in law, Mr. Spencer, was the murderer and was framing him for the crime. Planning to throw away the proof and letting him get the chair. Granted this came out in 1956 so they'd have to give it a happy ending, probably involving his daughter discovering this, saving her fiance from death row, and then turning her father over to the police.
This is a movie that needed to have a twist at the end, because everything else was so predictable.
I assumed at first that the father-in-law would die at an inopportune time, but the red-herring clues to him being the actual murderer (principally his knowing the names of the girls in the club from their pictures and being flustered when challenged, but also his being a pipe-smoker) changed my mind. So when he did die, that was actually unexpected. But intriguing I suppose - because he'd died with the exonerating evidence while also being the murderer.
And it's true that I didn't particularly predict the main bloke being the murderer, but it was always a fairly cheap obvious option - 'innocent man is actually guilty' hardly throws away the rule book. And it can work in some films, but not this one because it was neither plausible nor satisfying. Er, what it was was I used to be married to her and so I killed her because she was a trollop and stuff. Presumably a triceratops trapping everyone in a giant cobweb before dying of yellow fever would also have been an unexpected ending, but I'm not sure how satisfying it would have been.
Abe_Raman -- You should have the sense if not the common courtesy to put SPOILER in your thread subject or at least blank out the sections in which you explicitly state what the twist ending is. It's pretty rude for someone who hasn't seen the film to read exactly what happens because you wouldn't blank it out.
I've seen the film several times so this isn't a personal complaint.
Sorry, but it's not necessary to use spoilers about this movie on this board.
This board is set up for discussion of the film. It's assumed that folks who are reading the threads here have seen the film. If they haven't, then they should expect to run across spoilers.
Besides, the thread is titled "nonsense twist ruins film". So the thread is going to be about the twist. If some folks haven't seen the movie, then they might want to think twice before reading this thread. The title makes it clear that there will be spoilers.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
That's what I thought, too. In fact, I had suspected his future father-in-law throughout most of the film. I thought that he was on his way out of the house to get rid of the proof, and then he was killed in the accident. I assumed that the evidence would be found and that the guy and gal would get together in the end.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I think the twist is very interesting and quite successful in terms of not being predicted by most viewers.
Having in mind that today's viewers are much more "educated" in discovering hidden messages and upcoming twists than they were in the 50's, I think it's very interesting that most of the people I've asked, had absolutely no idea of what was coming at the final scenes.
Even more interesting, however, is the fact that if you watch the film again, you find out that during the trial you are being given more than enough clues at least to feel that things may not be what they look like.
For example: The fact that Dana Andrews had withdrawn from the bank 3.000 dollars, two days BEFORE the girl was murdered, which obviously couldn't have been a part of the "plan".
I agree with JimmyCagney and disagree entirely with the OP. There is nothing "laugh-out-loud" about the ending, nor is it nonsense. It's entirely unexpected.
In fact, it's by far the most redeeming part of the picture. I do agree that much of the plot is predictable (the death of the only person who knows the convicted man is innocent just as he's on his way with the exculpatory evidence, which is also all destroyed), but the twist is novel and far from what you'd expect in a film of this sort in the mid-50s. It's too bad this wasn't a "bigger" film, where a twist of this kind would have stood out more.
I don't know. I had my suspicions that one of the main characters committed the crime, but I really thought that the future father-in-law had done it. I admit that his death was a bit unexpected to me. It shouldn't have been, but it was.
The twist here isn't that unusual. Think: Agatha Christie. Think hard. Harder. I'm sure you'll figure out what I'm talking about.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
so... this *isn't* the "driving miss daisy" board?
shareAbe_Raman says > The ridiculous twist at the end of this film undermines the whole story and ruins everything.The twist itself doesn't bother me at all. I don't think it's stupid, silly or funny. In fact, I thought it was very clever. I never suspected either of them of actually committing the crime so I never saw it coming.