The film would have been fare better if they had put the scene with the killing of the other inmate at the end, because then one would not have know why he was acting the way he did after he return home. But it was still a good movie.
I kind of felt the same way while watching, but I think now that it was actually Michael's emotional outcry (an outcry of true remorse and regret beyond misguided rage), and not the reason underlying it, that we were waiting for. The ending, for me at least, was thus very satisfying.
Oy, gehl goat glassed. Now nae cahnt leaves here till we find oot whae cahnt ded eht.
i don't think such a change would have supoorted the story.
i felt so strong emotions during the movie because i knew what he was hiding and dealing with. it what not at all the message of the movie just to find out what he had done.
Sorry for what I say, but putting that scene at the end would've given a touch of 'Wild Things' or M Night Shyamalan. A Hollywood touch, where everything has to be explained, where there's no difference between regret and remorse, where the fear plays a bigger role and where the surprise factor means MONEY.
I like the movie as it is.
Besides, with the end it has, the viewer has the responsability of creating an own story-ending, a big achievement from both director and screenplay writer.
I agree 100%. I have had enough of the twist-endings and wait-til-you see what happens now type endings that would have ruined a movie like this. Having it play out in a linear fashion was a good choice.
shareI kinda agree with those who think it would not have made it any better (would have been a different kinda movie, in fact) if what he did was hidden from us as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think the killing needed to be shown out of sequence - this wasn't some kind of Holly Wood mystery thriller that demanded a twist.
"People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul" - C.G.Jung
Why don’t they just kill both of them?
Why offer Michael the choice?
Or they just kill one of them.
Or did I miss something?
I’m not for death or anything; this struck me as a plot contrivance.
Why don’t they just kill both of them?
Why offer Michael the choice?
Not a plot contrivance at all. Sure, they could have killed Niels themselves, but by forcing Michael to do it, look at the emotional devastation it wreaked on him. It was a way of torturing Michael.
And like the others, I disagree with the OP that the scene in which this happens should have been moved to the end. It was powerful seeing it when we did, and the following scenes were more powerful for knowing what had happened. As someone else said, this is not a mystery movie or a "twist" movie; this is a study of people and their relationships with each other.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Thanks for the spoiler in the headline.... *sigh*
shareYeah that was totally uncool of the OP. Plus he was also wrong to suggest that the scene be shown at the end of the film. It was far more meaningful to have known that the brother had lost his humanity once he killed the other soilder. As another poster also said this was not some supernatural mystery thriller that needed a big reveal at the end.
So that person is an idiot on many levels and it doesnt surprise me he is the type that would post a major spoiler in his thread topic. But still a good film and worth watching even with that knowledge.
There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.
My husband says that thie scene is so implausable in real life. A soldier is so bonded with his fellow soldier that he would never do that in war.
shareThe inmate wasnt really a "fellow" soldier. In real life soldiers would not kill people in their same battalion or squad, but the radar technician was not really a soldier he was just a technician...When it comes to life and death, many people would do anything to live.
shareyouaregay moh-1, are you a serviceman? I am an Army Brat and Army wife. I assure you a cook, a radar technician, a 1st Cav and 4th ID, a linguist, a radiology technician, a supply clerk are all fellow soldiers! There is a saying that every job in the Army is the most important job in the Army! Many people will do so much to live, but in times of theater, it is implausable to put soldiers under duress and expect them to behave like this. THey are more likely to die by friendly fire, or perhaps kill or maim in domestic abuses later after theater, due to PTSD.
shareThe Onion AV Club did a piece a few months ago about how trite it is becoming to do this, that is, to "hide" a crucial element of a character's backstory for all or most of the film for no good reason.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/hey-screenwriters-enough-with-the-backstoryrationi,33239/
Given that, I disagree with your suggestion.