The little girl was killed! There is no doubt in my mind that he shot the little girl. Her body was lifeless in her Daddy's arms and she was crying just before the shot, then there was silence. The father was obviously not the one who got shot and shooting the gun at nothing, just doesn't make any sense. I think he felt that this girl will never have a good, normal life and he mercy killed her.
shareYes, this seemed obvious to me.
share[deleted]
I like my ending better. Besies, you are guessing as well as I am. No one knows anything for sure because they don't clearly show you or spell it out for you. Either it was sloopy film making or they wanted to be clever and let you decide.
share[deleted]
Plus (and I could be wrong) but I thought I saw her moving... hugging her father. Yes... no?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Actually, as the camera pans back to the girl and her father (I guess that's who he was), you can clearly see (and hear) that she's still turning the handle on the music box. He didn't kill her. :)
shareWee Jock Poo Pong McPlop
i thought it was the owner of the house who aimed a shot in the air or something..
the girl is alive...you see her hands moving when taken to the car
Here's what I think:
You definitely see the girl's hand still turning the crank. So, she's not dead.
The guy carries her to the car. So, he's not dead.
Paul is obviously not dead.
There are two conclusions you can come to and they are:
Either the homeowner fires a "alright-everybody-drop-'em" shot into the air and takes control of the situation.
Or, and this is the one I like to believe.
Paul shot to the side of the man (returning the favor because the man could've easily shot Paul but chose to only fire a warning shot) The WHOLE film is about making decisions. Why wouldn't the climax/conclusion contain a big decision also? And this one makes sense to me.
Or, maybe the writer/director wanted to include the viewer and devised a "what would YOU do" scenario for the end.
"Looks like Torgo's been hittin' the thigh-master."
You said "Paul." You mean "Norman." Paul was played by Gary Oldman, and he got killed earlier.
shareI don't see the point in shooting the girl. That's just cruel, she's already lived a horrible life. The only part of her that seemed deformed was her hands and surgery could fix that. He should have shot the father. That would have been justice for locking up the girl to begin with and killing Paul.
shareI don't see the point in shooting the girl. That's just cruel, she's already lived a horrible life.
The only part of her that seemed deformed was her hands and surgery could fix that.
Guys come on! Yeah the ending is weird but he didn't shoot her. He didn't shoot anyone. You can still see her arm making the "winding" motion of the music player thing after the shot is fired. She is just so enthralled with it she sort of forgets what is going on. Like when she sees the moon for the first time and acts sort of wacko. We don't see where the spray from the shot gun hits, but I'm pretty sure he just fires in a different direction.
sharejust watched it in slowmow.
1) the trigger is defenitely pulled.
2) the girl moves her hand while sitting on her fathers leg after the shot/thunder.
well he made 2 shots with the gun: the rapist and the young brother. assuming that he didn't reload it, the gun could have been empty. he didn't seem to have any new shells with him. dunno, one would have to go through the whole movie again to prove that.
[deleted]
I heard the shot. The girl did fall silent. I have to agree with you.
shareFirstly. I don't actually think Paddy's character fires his gun a third time. We see him checking the gun before the stand off with the Grandfather, but we don't see him reload it. He certainly pulls the hammer back prior to the confrontation, but when he pulls the trigger it coincides with a crash of lightening and thus gives the impression for a few seconds that he actually fired the gun. However when the the camera returns to Paddy we can clearly see that the end of the gun is not smoking, which it surely would after firing. It really isn't as complicated as some of your posts would make out.
Secondly. Is he really gonna blow away a small child with a shot-gun?
I think what Paddy does at the end is more about his relationship with his wife. She's basically left him and he knows it. He's also lost a child in miscarriage. The only thing he can control at this point is the outcome of this night they're having. So he grabs the girl away from the 2 women and tries to save her. After he sees that his gun is empty, the only thing he can do is face down the older guy with the shotgun and get him to give up first. Which he does. So in some small way he wins.
I think it's particularly telling when he sarcastically says to his wife as he's leaving, "Everything alright Lucy?". After being henpecked by her the whole movie, he was done with her.
That's my take too. He pulls the trigger and we see the hammers fall, but the noise was definitely thunder. He had an empty gun. I don't think the home owner would have been so calm if he'd just witnessed a little girl get blown away.
share