MovieChat Forums > Homicidal (1961) Discussion > Hated the ending and here's why

Hated the ending and here's why

posted 13 years ago by mercury4
15 replies | jump to latest

In the end, no one is held responsible for Warren. All the blame falls on him. In the end, Miriam says how Warren must've been insane. Gee, you think? The abuse he went through would drive anyone insane. I don't know about the justice of the peace, but I had no sympathy whatsoever for Helga. Helga abused Warren and was part of the whole masquerade. In the end, the real monsters were Helga and Warren's parents. It wasn't Warren's fault what he had become. But in the end, it's all his fault. His sister picks up the gun and shoots her brother without hesitation. Warren should have been taken alive. I don't think Warren should have died. This movie has been compared to Psycho. I felt sympathy for Norman Bates. Norman Bates was not a monster and a very sympathetic character. Warren was just as sympathetic. We never really found out why Norman Bates was the way he was, but we knew in Homicidal why Warren turned out the way he did. Norman Bates did not deserve to die and neither did Warren. As someone already stated on here, this movie should be remade. I implore the right filmmaker to come along and remake this into a better movie. They really messed up in the end with this one.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SimplemindedSociety 13 years ago

"I felt sympathy for Norman Bates. Norman Bates was not a monster and a very sympathetic character. Warren was just as sympathetic."
---------------------
aw..that's just because you thought Tony Perkins was cute.
So, you feel the same for Jeffrey Dahmer, a very mentally-ill young chap and a reason for being the way he was? Or if a given person did you or a loved one bodily(or lethal) harm?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nvasapper 12 years ago

To Della Robbia Blue:
Why? Because Dahmer was a very good-looking man and Gacy was a fat, ugly pig?

[–] nvasapper 12 years ago

To Merc:
Warren should have been taken alive? Are you kidding or what? He's armed with a razor-sharp surgical knife which he had just swung at Miriam, he was just about to kill her with it when the doctor walks in and Warren turns on him and tries to stab him with it. And you think Miriam was wrong to pick up the gun and blow him away? Are you serious? If he had killed the doctor, she was gonna be next. Don't you think she had a right to not only save her own life, but the life of the doctor who was about to be murdered? And just how would Warren be taken alive? The doctor was an elderly man. He wasn't strong enough to overpower him. I don't think Miriam saying to him "Warren- you're my brother and I love you. Put the knife down and we'll work this out" would have done the trick. Obviously he was completely messed up- but that didn't render him any less dangerous.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

No one is held responsible for Warren because they're all dead.

[–] Jim Sgambaty 12 years ago

A better plot, ending, or surprise twist would have been the following:
Unaware to the viewer early on in the film...the sweet and innocent Miriam Webster knew of the Warren / Emily relationship all along! Now secretly pretending to play the naive and charming half sister to Warren, Miriam plays it "straight" but becomes increasingly frightened and shocked by Emily's violent killing streak. Miriam is eventually revealed (to the viewer) to be a sociopath and vengeful woman out for her Father's large fortune! Years of jealousy and her Father's rejection for being born a girl, Miriam allows Warren to bring out Emily to kill his victims as played out in the movie, which in turn would send Warren to jail for life. As Warren fights with the Dr. Jonas at the end of the movie, Miriam has a better idea to kill Warren in self defense and to save the life of Dr. Jonas. Miriam is now free to inherit the ten million dollars promised in the will if Warren was to die before his 21st birthday.

BTW: The late Patricia Breslin had the most beautiful voice....love the way she says "Warren" throughout the film.

[–] renata77 11 years ago

I like your alternate ending! But Patricia Breslin really played it as a sweet character, who I felt would be incapable of such malice.

[–] Duragizer 10 years ago

I hated the ending due to how happy and chipper everyone was behaving at the end. Miriam, in particular, should have been in a sombre mood; after all, she lost a brother/sister who she clearly loved.

I'm Heather Langenkamp's husband in another universe.

[–] lavenderspirit2005 10 years ago

I just watched this again the other night and felt REALLY sorry for Warren/Emily. She/he (I use both, because she was obviously forced against her will into the male gender all her life when she obviously didn't want to be), cracked literally in two from the pressure...it's actually surprising she/he didn't have a mental breakdown SOONER. Helga still didn't deserve her horrible end, though...Warren/Emily didn't have to kill anyone to get his/her money, actually. He/she could've just disappeared with the cash and lived as the woman she'd always wanted to live as. But money wasn't the sole motivation for his/her actions...Warren/Emily had went plum crazy.

I know it's a kitschy horror flick, but the underlying themes, of abuse, misogyny (for none of this would've happened if Warren/Emily's daddy wasn't such a sexist prick), were pretty serious and actually pretty fresh, for a 1961 movie.

A remake would be stellar. I could see Milla Jovovich both beautiful lady and in male drag ripping this role up.

**********************************************************************

"Roll with the punches, Will Robinson!" - Lost in Space

My YouTube page devoted to all things NOSTALGIA
https://www.youtube.com/user/RETROGEMS

[–] HarlowMGM 10 years ago

I totally agree to you, there's more depth to this story than most notice, probably due to William Castle's rep as a maker of horror films that are more than a bit campy and cheesy.

Helga didn't deserve such a horrible death perhaps but I have no doubt she was more than a little vicious and sadistic to the child Warren/Emily to keep him in line and protect her position and was a large part of his being emotionally unbalanced.

I have to disagree about a remake though because this story would never work today, people are to "hip" to the possibility of this plot twist. One of the reasons it worked so well in 1961 that you never saw such a sexual/gender identity issue in a mainstream Hollywood 1960's film and that the role was played by an unknown actress whom the public didn't know thus couldn't recognize. I know from modern eyes people can perhaps reason Warren is played by a woman but I really believe back in the 1960's it was a total shock to the audience.

[–] lavenderspirit2005 10 years ago

You have a good point...perhaps the only way a remake could work is if a masculine-looking actress or actress who could convey masculinity flawlessly via makeup and mannerisms, played the role. I don't know, maybe. But I suppose the twist would be WAY less shocking than it was in the 60s. We are indeed more knowledgeable than 1961 audiences--I'm still surprised Castle had the guts to tackle such a controversial subject! But it sure made for one helluva thriller, LOL.

The one thing that would've added to the flick, and I think would have been fascinating, are more flashbacks to poor Warren/Emily's childhood. That opening scene of the unusual looking little boy stealing the doll really showed everything Warren/Emily wanted--identity, choice, honesty---without giving any of the story away. Great filmmaking.

********************************************************************

"Roll with the punches, Will Robinson!" - Lost in Space

My YouTube page devoted to all things NOSTALGIA
https://www.youtube.com/user/RETROGEMS

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

I thought the actress (Jean Arless/Joan Marshall) was really excellent. And when I first saw the movie in my twenties, I didn't realize (believe it or not) until near the end that Warren and Emily were being played by the same person.

It is obvious, right away, that something's up with Warren, if only because his lines are looped (would a slight level of reverb keep his dialogue from sounding like it was recorded in a sound booth?) and he seems like an oddball... Today, we'd assume he was gay. But audiences in 1961 weren't even anticipating things like that because movies weren't addressing such topics.

And, yes, the final scene should have stuck it a bit more to Helga and Daddy for having abused little Emily into psychosis.

That said, I actually find HOMICIDAL to be perhaps Castle's most polished work, despite being an obvious homage to PSYCHO, even though it isn't necessarily my favorite Castle picture. Contrast it with, say, STRAIT-JACKET, which, despite the presence of Joan Crawford with an axe (and how can you do better that that, one wonders?), delivers TV sitcom cinematography and direction/scripting/editing which are just downright sloppy, a C-plus production.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] JohnD61 8 years ago

A remake would only have a chance of working if a complete unknown was cast as Emily/Warren (just like Jaye Davidson in The Crying Game). No known actress would ever be able to slip by the audience, unless the makeup was so heavy as to make her unrecognizable. And that much makeup would not be realistic for an average person to be able to pull off.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 8 years ago

In the end, no one is held responsible for Warren.

It was the 1960s, and movies were still operating according to the Hays Code, in which the killer had to be punished and couldn't be seen as sympathetic.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=