The Ending? Help! (spoilers) - Les Revenants (2004) Discussion

[–] Hanktallica 18 years ago

Maybe I can help. So, she gets back in the car and asks the question. The husband gives her a look sort of implying defeat or something to that effect, and we can assume he gave up. The next bit is a little hard to follow, I thought; some building blows up, possibly the one where the dead had been congregating. Why? I'm not totally sure, missed something there I guess. Next, the military shows up as the dead are parading off. They start shooting missles full of those compounds they had synthesized, the ones that should put the dead into a coma or whatever. Then the soldiers come in, collect the bodies and return them to their graves. Instead of burying them, they place the bodies on top of the graves (to what avail I've not a mind), and the dead just sort of vapourize. Now, I believe this should all be taken as metaphor, as someone previously posted, but I do feel that the ending was a tad haphazard, rushed or sort of just tacked on to clean it all up. Next we see a mirror, coated with the steam from a shower. A hand wipes away the residue and we see the girlfriend or wife (whatever) of the dead architect. She is wearing a towel. I sort of think that might be a metaphor as well. Sort of waking from a dream, and having to start over. A new day, perhaps? I truly enjoyed this movie, it had some of the aspects of the old George Romero classics, dealing more with the psychology of it all, rather than pure blood and guts. Granted the end was a little fuzzy, but why the hell shouldn't it be? Aren't all dreams? Well, I hope this helped, me ratteling on and all.
Good day.

reply

[–] jjgirl13 18 years ago

actually, the old husband dies of shock (or a heart attack). If you
watch the movie, you can tell by his eyes that he's dead.

reply

[–] Charmles 18 years ago

You missed a few points in that explanation.

First, after the hunsbad dies in the car, you see a bunch of zombies climbing down into the tunnels. THen it cuts to the couple with the zombie boy. He's on the balcony looking out, and the parents are trying to figure out what to do. THe mother wants to let him go out because they can't keep him forever. The father thinks she's crazy. The boy gets a stool, climbs the balcony railing, and jumps off. THe mother watches this all happen slowly, but it's behind the father's back. He sees in her eyes something happened, and looks over the balcony, and the boy is face down on the concrete below. He looks at the mother, and he's pissed and sad at the same time. But then you see the kid get up and another zombie leads him away. I don't think the father sees that happen.

Then the scene with the military gassing the zombies in a field as they are trying to get away. The kid gets gassed.

THen it's to the architect and Rachel. He finds her in bed. They have a moment where he remembers what he did on his last day (went to find her in the car because he wanted to apologize for a fight), and he crashed. Then they both go down into a tunnel. She follows him for a while, then they have a tender moment where it's apparent he needs to go and she needs to stay. He goes. She stays. Where? Dunno. Why? Dunno.

THen it's pressy much as described. The military lays the bodys of the zombies they gassed on their graves, and the bodies disappear, including the boy's. Then Rachel wipes steam off a mirror, looks at herself, and the credits roll.

I have no idea what this movie was about. It was WAY too abstract to put it into any context, and I LIKE abstract. But this was kinda empty. I know that was the intent... but wow.

reply

[–] thingading 18 years ago

Nice summary, Charmles. I also enjoy abstract, but just because something is abstract doesn't necessarily mean it is good. In this case it ends up pointless. The ending dragged on waaaaaaaay too long, and not only didn't make much sense, but wasn't even very interesting. Some of the "dead" went underground, some were killed. Big freakin' deal. What's the point? This movie had a very intriguing and promising beginning, and then they just let it fall flat on it's face without even really trying. Too bad.

reply

[–] kayeanna77 18 years ago

Thank God someone else feels the way you do! I watched this travesty last night and I was so afraid that I was going to come on here today and find the same old crap. You know, how people are going on about how great the movie was and how it was the abstract nature of it that made it so cool....and yet, not one person could explain the freaking point of this movie because it was beneath them somehow to do that. I, too, like abstract, but dear God, being abstract just to be abstract and having absolutely NOTHING tying you to reality is useless!

I agree with you that the ending dragged on way too long, but I'd have to say that the whole movie did that for me. I kept screaming, "Damn you French and your 'suspenseful' pacing!" :) I was so aggravated and honestly, I'd have to say this is in the top 5 of the worst movies I've ever watched. Was this a dream? A metaphor for letting go? A strange zombie occurance unlike any we've come to know in cinema? Who the hell knows and honestly who really cares?! I wasted two hours of my life with this film and I don't even think the director knows what the hell his film was about! Argh!

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance -- Socrates

reply

[–] ProtoClone 18 years ago

I agree this movie lost me at the end, but I had to think about it realy hard to come up with this. The dead that got away were the ones that were let go, their loved ones let them go. the ones that did not get away, like the child, were not let go. Their loved ones would not let go of them like the child's father wouldn't let him go. So the ones that got away, moved on. the ones that didn't had to be forced back into their graves where they would not be allowed to move on.

That's my explanation.

reply

[–] gorilla_horse 18 years ago

I think you're dead on, ProtoClone (wordplay partially intended). That makes perfect sense (about the returnees who escaped being the ones whose loved ones had let them go). Thanks for posting your thoughts.

reply

[–] zombie3blows 18 years ago

The first hour was wonderful...got to the ending and indeed it was too abstract...my bf and I just looked at eachother and were like wtf? Don't get me wrong, we are smart people, who are addicted to George A Romero...but it was just far too abstract to be given credence.

reply

[–] theflamingtsunamis 18 years ago

i gotta agree with most of the posts in here, towards the end, about 2/3 into the film i had this fear that they weren't going to explain what was going on, but a bigger fear was that it was going to be some cheesy explaination like they were aliens or something to that effect, but i guess that would have been better than nothing. Sure the film defied conventions or whatever so i can applaud them for inducing frustration if that's what they were going for.

reply

[–] thingading 18 years ago

"I agree this movie lost me at the end, but I had to think about it realy hard to come up with this. The dead that got away were the ones that were let go, their loved ones let them go. the ones that did not get away, like the child, were not let go. Their loved ones would not let go of them like the child's father wouldn't let him go. So the ones that got away, moved on. the ones that didn't had to be forced back into their graves where they would not be allowed to move on.

That's my explanation."

ProtoClone, I can't remember which ones "got away" and "were let go by their loved ones" right now. And there's no way I could watch this movie again to find out without falling asleep while having to tolerate it once more. But, if that is indeed the case (the ones who were let go by their family were the ones who were able to get away and move on and not forced back into their graves) then great job - that's actually an excellent explanation. Don't get me wrong, I still think this movie blew, but at least it appears you have been able to give some sort of explanation for what the hell was going on at the end.

reply

[–] JohnnyFontaine 18 years ago

That moving on thing is really helpful, so is the waking up from a bad dream and wiping the mirror off explanation.

But I wonder if you guys are making a better movie than the Frenchies who thought they were Francois Trufault.

"Now, Olivier is in that one right?"

reply

[–] edlina 18 years ago

i've a few explanation abt the movie.. i thought i'd jus share it with everyone

firstly, i think the dead went into the tunnel because they have the sudden realisation that they are dead and they can never fit into the present society so they went into the tunnel and blew themselves up to get rid of themselves as they are the burden of the society? during 2 scenes, the dead shows signs that they knew that they are dead.

a) in the middle scene when the rachel saw mattieu's interview in the centre for the dead, mattieu said rachel wanted to change jobs 2 weeks ago when in fact he din see her for 2 years alr... so in the beginning he did not know he's dead but the doctor said something like "my interview with mattieu is longer than normal people because he is sharper than the rest who are very slow in response" when the doctor asked if he knew about the car accident he was stunned momentarily. but after that one scene when mattieu became a mechanic he suddenly remembered that he had an accident
b)the old lady martha finalli told the old man she's know she's dead already and she tells him she must leave and she hinted that he was going to die soon by said "you're ill/tired you must rest"

secondly, the ending featuring rachel wiping the mirror... the scene previously was rachel and mattieu in the tunnel and then mattieu pushed her away clearing telling her and she and him now live in a different world, she live on earth and they (the dead) literally lived 6 feet under so as part of the resolution to the plot they need to show that she's living life as per normal after the dead who were revived died again

thirdly, it was quite clear that mattieu knew they were a burden to society (but i don't know which part shows i jus got it as part of the film maker's intention), so he started building the tunnels for the dead to return. and clearly mattieu was one of the more awaked people inside the film where the rest of the dead were still quite stoned in whatever they do. because in one scene mattieu wasn't blindly walking into the tunnel he forgot to tell rachel he was sorry so he walked back against the crowd to look for rachel

fourth point, the dead aren't killed i think... they merely went back to where they belonged afterall that was where they were meant to be..

i only watched the movie once.. this is jus my 2 cents worth.. my senior however thinks that the bombings is a decoy for them to get into the tunnel where they'll disappear for good from the society without having the first aiders at the centre trying to get them back into the centre... haha

reply

[–] totallygloria 17 years ago

It's funny that you mention aliens because after we finished the movie my husband said the same thing!

I really liked the different endings for the three families we watch throughout the movie: the mayor died and went with his wife, the woman let go of her architect husband/bf and returned to normal life, and the parents had to go through the pain of "losing" their child again through what looked like suicide because they couldn't let go of him.

I also really like the idea that the whole movie was like a big dream or trip for the whole town and that some people woke up from it and were okay and stronger for having gone through the ordeal, and it broke others, those who hadn't dealt with the baggage from losing a loved one in the first place.

Unlike most of the other posters, I did not consider it a waste of two hours, I thought it was fab.

reply

[–] pamjp 17 years ago

I agree that it started out strongly and didn't maintain, although I wouldn't call it a travesty.

My interpretation of the ending (and I stress "my interpretation"): The dead don't want to be alive; don't want to mingle with the living. It's not their world anymore. Some have a base level of affection for the living but they're beyond that now, with different perspectives. However, they are tightly controlled and watched.

So they get together and plot to blow up a few buildings to provide distraction and probably also defeat the heat sensing balloons that are constantly monitoring the city. They go underground to just sit in the dark perhaps, so they can all be together and don't have to mess with the living who, while well-meaning, just don't and can't understand.

They want to be back underground again.

reply

[–] winterOfMyDiscontent 16 years ago

- zombie3blows and your fellow mates: I don't know whether I'm wrong, but actually the ending is quite interesting. The ones that haven't been gassed or held by their loved ones for too long descend to the tunnels, and will start a new sort of civilization underneath, sort of close to hell. By no means the zombies are good people, they are cold and stiff, and it is obvious they have been planning something, I speculate an invasion after the reunion and preparatives underground.This movie is the prequel of whatever movie about zombies would be.
that´s what I think.

"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe

reply

[–] aaouille 16 years ago

I also share Thingading's point of view, and not only about this movie but about almost every Sci-Fi French movie... And i know what i'm talking about being French myself!

If you've seen "Les rivières pourpres" with Jean Reno (1 film and 1 sequel) or "la moustache" with Vincent Lindon (and i could quote many other films like those), they usually have a great way of telling the story ("intriguing and promising" as Thingading said) and then at some point, it's like they have to end the movie, so they just add some "abstract" scenes (just to lose the viewer) and shut the curtains and throw the end title, at which point you feel you've been swindled at the very least!

We French have some good actors/actresses, and have a great way of anaalysing and describing relationships between people. That often makes our French movies "boring" to many viewers, but that's what we're good at. We're also good at typical French fun comedy, but that's not my topic today!

Anyway, i just wanted to say how shallow French Sci-Fi Movies are, and how angry that makes me when i get thrilled and then thrown away like this...

reply

[–] Mehki_Girl 12 years ago

I hate French films.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] edlina 18 years ago

anyway i've also notice a funnie phenomenon...

because i watched it in the theatre.. after the show i was sitting down due to my slow reaction in gettin up i notice all the rest of the people walking out of the theatre... for a moment it was like deja vu!!! it's like a continuation of "the dead walking down the road" scenes coming to life just around you... it's like bring the movie out of the screen into real life... it may jus symbolise that each one of us will eventualli walk the same path as the dead... well in the long run we're all dead right?? haha

reply

[–] fuzaborsky 17 years ago

I watched it twice and still don't get it. I'm obsessed with the explosions.
What was that all about??

Best part of the flick was the shot of all the camera ballons floating over the city. For me that image alone was worth the viewing of the movie.

reply

[–] andrew_trouble 17 years ago

I watched They Came Back one night, it started off cool, setting up the whole thing but then it just went nowhere. The french style with about a million scenes that don't last more than a minute was cool but it went nowhere. It got really abstract and I think just for the sake of being abstract. At the beginning, they set up the dilemma of people returning and then they just ignored it and focused on 4 people handling how a loved one has come back and it was just long and uneventful, even with the explosions. Despite it appearing that it goes through several perspectives, the bulk of perspectives seemed pretty similar. At the very least they could've shown us extremes to summarize the different feelings people would have, for example, someguy thinking it's a hoax or others being utterly devasted or someone thinking it marks some religious nutjob-thing. It took about an hour for someone to ask the dead a question I would've liked to have known the answer to: what happened when you were dead? and of course, there was no answer. I heard others here argue that the dead didn't know they were dead until people told them later and that does sound like a considerable point, I don't fully buy that. I'm not sure why but I think it has something to do with the boy. By the way, what was up with the concerned doctor guy popping up everywhere? I just feel they could've gone a lot further with this idea than 2 hours of torteise pacing. My fav scene was the mother letting the child jump off the balcony while the father was talking to her but yeah, I dunno, it was more so them trying to see how people would react to such to the returnees instead of showing us how it would be handled. There are even scenes where the people dont know what to do, well, we thought the movie was going to try and explain what they think they should do but no one says much and they're all just staring blankly. Not just the dead people, but the humans are also staring blankly. I thought the acting was cool but not really all that much emotion considering loved ones are coming back to life. Everyone was sort of just treating it as: huh, that's unusual...oh well... Yeah, not too impressed and the painfully slow pacing almost made me fight falling asleep several times. By the end of it, I had no idea what happened so I figured I must've missed some connection while I was dosing off so I went online to see what others thought and no, pretty much what I had already been thinking. The ending just seemed thrown together without explaination and yeah, oh well.

reply

[–] dplomin 17 years ago

Well....What can I say that hasn't been said better already?
I rented this movie on the box cover and interesting premise alone, and although I am an American classic cinema afficianado whose love of films like PORTRAIT OF JENNIE, THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE AND THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR and films of the "ethereal nature" found THIS film a bit confusing.
Don't get me wrong. It had its' intriguing moments, and the two characters from the dead that were compelling I thought were the old woman, and Matthieu, whose striking good looks and haunting eyes made his "romantic reunion" even more a combination of creepy and sexy. The young boy was strange, especially when he was knocking on the wall for an hour with the Father not hearing it, and the Mother berating the dad for NOT hearing it. Like parents I know with an autistic 6 year boy, he reminded me of that kid. The repetitious-ness of his behavior, his inwardness, etc...
I'm tired of the French and their "existential" way of explaining a film...or DOING a film like this instead of making a LESS confusing piece of art...I may be an American, but I see all kinds of films, including slower paced films, but MAN....THIS one FRUSTRATED the hell out of me...
If you are going to be artistic, you don't have to explain HOW the dead started walking again from INSIDE THERE GRAVES BACK TO THE LIVING??? HOW ABOUT IF THEY WERE EMBALMED??? CREMATED??? But those are the questions I wanted to know the answer to.....
I thought the ending kinda just ended too....
Could be worse, I suppose...Get some hack Hollywood type to do a remake! BLOOD AND GUTS EVERWHERE!

reply

[–] winterOfMyDiscontent 16 years ago

"Could be worse, I suppose...Get some hack Hollywood type to do a remake! BLOOD AND GUTS EVERWHERE!"

"I may be an American"

Yes, it seems you are, indeed.

"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe

reply

[–] Lone_stranger 16 years ago

I think it is a film about how mainstream society deals with groups they find unpleasant, especially minorities and the refugees in France. First they are put into camps, and it is said outright "the whole thing is being handled rather like a refugee situation". The government tries to integrate them, but it is shown they are a burden on the economy. Then they drug them to keep them from acting up. The dead apparently don't like this, and revolt. Finally, the government rounds up all the dead they can and "bury" the problem. It's warning us to watch how we treat people, because they might turn against us.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.

reply

[–] Vanarchy 14 years ago

but the dead did not turn against them, they simply left.

now if only.........(ah nevermind)

reply

[–] Vanarchy 14 years ago

I too had a difficult time tying up the end into something neat and understandable. So I did some searching and found only one cogent explanation by the reviewer at Cineadamerde, http://www.cinemademerde.com/.....

".....at the end you get no answers. I think that the reason there are no answers is that the movie is clearly trying to tell you that the answers aren’t the point—the exploration of the many issues that this film brings up IS the point. If I had to guess, I would speculate that it’s about the issue of immigration in France; do they have the right to work? Should we have relationships with them? Can they ever really be a member of society? Are they up to something sinister? Should we keep them under surveillance?"

If that's the real meaning behind this movie, then it really cheapened it for me by painting in with a liberal brush of handwringing and perpetual crisis drivin nothingness.

This is the first time I think Hollywood (given a serious director), could remake a movie well. Give it a serious ending, or even a mild twist (without adding one drop of blood).

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 14 years ago

It's a metaphor for memories. They come flooding back sometimes, like the zombies, whether you want them to or not. Then they can make you feel sad, happy, confused, basically everything the main characters go through when the zombie loved ones come back into their lives.

Then just as suddenly as they came, some simply go back into the recesses of your mind to maybe come back later (the zombies underground). And some simply fade (the ones on the graves or gassed), which is what needs to happen sometimes to move on... quite a beautiful film really...

"Look, Hank. Have you ever seen such a beautifully punted baby?" - King of the Hill

reply