so...what had he done? - Blood River (2009) Discussion

[–] fieldofglass 14 years ago

I really liked the way it ended. I find it much more interesting that we're allowed to draw our own conclusions to what he had done. Kind of makes it more disturbing that way.

Anyway, my guess is that he had sexually abused the little boy. Which also makes the angel telling Summer that deep inside she knew that Clark was a bad man but didn't do anything about it make sense.

I don't however think that he killed the little boy (though it most certainly is he who is in the trunk of the car). Perhaps that was just the angel trying to make Clark feel guilt so that he would ultimately admit to what he had done. Also when the angel gives Summer the photo of her son in the end he is probably telling her that her son is alive and ok.

reply

[–] DrProfessor 14 years ago

There was no one in the trunk when he opened it to change tires. Joseph put the woman at the motel into the trunk which is what freaked out Clark.
I think Clark slept with her while Summer was sleeping that night which would account for the 'second secret' Clark was keeping from Summer. You recall how she was hitting on Clark when the checked into the motel.

reply

[–] ssimon55 11 years ago

It was not the clerk from the hotel. Clark had checked the trunk earlier for a spare. There was really no one in the trunk, but he was seeing the body of the little boy.

reply

[–] Strawberry_Typhoon 14 years ago

Adam confirmed that he did not in fact kill bennie. This is hinted to, as when he gives her the photograph back, his face is no longer smudged out. While The director also states that whatever clark had done is up to you, as they were writing the script, he kind of assumed that clark had abused bennie.

reply

[–] davieswan98 14 years ago

See its simple.......

It doesnt matter what he had done...whatever you decide he did ..then thats what he did.

he had to come to terms with his darkest crime, which had to do with her child but what exactly he did ..is whatever you choose

what he saw in the trunk would most certainly have been either his innocence or the kids innocence

Im hoping we aint that dumbed down yet where we need life in black and white print with balloon notes everywhere

signed
Billyray-lee chuck bob junior
"Quick ma!!....funniest home movies is on :)

reply

[–] shuairan 14 years ago

spoilers ahead btw...

he had done nothing. the strange cowboy guy wasn't an angle, he was actually a demon making the wife believe her husband did something wrong and ultimatively getting her to commit the ultimate sin - killing her husband. you get hints on that when listening to the speech from the record player right before the wife discovers the room full of photos.
just like the cowboy deceived the wife, the movie deceives its audience as well. if you would *read* the husband's script lines for the scenes where he's being asked about what he had done, they actually would come across like he doesn't have a clue what the cowboy is talking about. however, in the movie those lines sound much more like he's defending himself. that may be on purpose or due to bad acting.
you think i'm wrong? you're probably right!

anyway... the movie was very disappointing for me. i expected not so good actors and a rather cheap production. i watched it for the dense atmosphere and music, but both of them kinda failed for me. and this one intense song from the trailer hasn't even been used in the movie at all (ok, its motife was played occasionally).
but most of all: the mariticide in the end wasn't convicing at all. it's just one huge "wtf, b itch?!"

reply

[–] lsmkenpo-1 14 years ago

No, you obviously did not understand the movie at all, he was an avenging angel of God. The woman at the hotel was a whore, Clark was a child molester and Summer was in denial about what Clark had done to Ben, and she did nothing to stop the abuse.

reply

[–] shuairan 14 years ago

bah... bollocks. way too easy. gimme proof. how do we know he's a child molester? how do we even know the lady at the hotel was a whore?

reply

[–] lsmkenpo-1 14 years ago

Seriously? there were plenty of hints all throughout the movie, about everything I said.

At the Hotel the woman was openly flirting with a married man in front of his pregnant wife and was dressed like a whore, once they were in the hotel room the dialogue between the couple pointed it out, if you missed it when they checked in. Than she started flirting with Joseph when he arrived.

How did we know he was a child molester? because there were subtle hints dropped throughout the movie about what the man was hiding that he had done wrong,what he did was so bad it was nearly unspeakable, The child was mentioned quite often in the movie, he was established for a reason. It was also established that Clark would lie or hide the truth about certain things from his wife. At the end when the woman has the gun pointed at Clark he could not bring himself to say what he did, because it was so bad. Joseph than tells Summer she knows deep in her heart what he did wrong, and she does know, she was just in denial, this is a common occurrence in relationships. She than shoots him in the head, because she knows in her heart what happened she just wanted him to say it. I think it is pretty clear at that point.

This is not a popcorn flick, if you don't pay close attention to all the details you miss what is really happening in the movie.

If you watched the movie for a second time I think everything I claim would become quite clear by the end.

reply

[–] shuairan 14 years ago

it noticed this details. however, they are not really what one might call proof. you only can assume based on that knowledge that he is an angel. and i don't like the angel theory, because it's so simple and too clichée. well... after all it's just a mediocre movie with some pretty clichée shots and lines anyway.

reply

[–] gerbells2000 14 years ago

What kind of demons say hail mary's? he was an angel this was made most obvious at the end when he stood praying to god and his fingers were given back to him how he could be a demon ill never know!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ogidok 11 years ago

What kind of angel puts a revolver in your hand teaching you how to fire it? what kind of angel curses and spits blood in your face? what kind of angel smokes, drinks, flirts and sleeps with whores?

it is better to be at the pub thinking about god than being in the church thinking about the pub.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 7 months ago

He was teaching Summer how to fire a gun for self-defense since she was being left alone for a day, which doesn't sound evil to me. He smoked and drank as a cover. Since he's a spiritual being, these things wouldn't harm him (remember, he was able to disappear and reappear at will). The cursing would also be a cover. I don't remember him having sex with the loose bartender; although I'm sure she went to his motel room thinking he was going to fornicate with her. He behaved in certain dubious ways to slyly draw out people's hidden sins as God's "angel of wrath" or whatever, which leads to the person's own (self) destruction. Remember the proverb, "they waylay only themselves" (1:18).

reply

[–] sandrock41 12 years ago

The fact that Clark "Can't tell" her what he did to her son, proves that he is in fact a killer.

reply

[–] The_Optimist 11 years ago

Exactly. Not to mention the fact he said "Benny's gone".

reply

[–] thory-1 14 years ago

You make a lot of loose assumptions. No hints should lead anyone to believe he was a child molester. It's actually quite creepy, in my opinion, that you drew that conclusion.

reply

[–] gerbells2000 14 years ago

I came to all the exact same conclusions as him because that's what they were getting at the whole way through the film so maybe you shouldn't think its creepy.

reply

[–] songod-95003 8 years ago

What hints? The script was a *beep* mess. Even repeated itself! The scene on the highway where Clark says "You know nothing about me, man" was played out TWICE! Once with Joseph screaming all the s**t he knew about Clark and his type and then again about five minutes later only without the screaming. So was that an alt take that somehow ended up in the final edit?? Who knows!

That we are here debating this POS is the sad thing. I am here mostly because I am pissed that AGAIN another horror movie ended with no ending and was looking for other viewers who were as put off by that as I was.

My take and not only this film but the zillion others nowadays that end without really giving the audience any answers? The writer, producer, director themselves DO NOT KNOW the answer!! They have no ending and so make it look like it is an artsy choice rather than lack of talent and imagination.

This director has a catalog of films listed here that all average about 3.5 stars. He uses the same actors frequently. He is one step up the cinematic food chain ladder from Ulli Lommel.

Clark did nothing or murdered\raped Bennie. The wife was apathetic and let him get away with the rapes or also did nothing. Victims of a demon. But even proposing that kind of dichotomy in the story is giving this mess more credit than it's due.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 7 months ago

The scene on the highway where Clark says "You know nothing about me, man" was played out TWICE! Once with Joseph screaming... and then again about five minutes later only without the screaming.

Reiterating points can be an effective device in storytelling, debate or teaching. Besides, the two scenes weren't identical; the second time was subdued; a good way to finish the sequence and move on.

I am pissed that AGAIN another horror movie ended with no ending

It's not a horror flick, but rather a psychological drama in a survival setting with potential fantastical bits. Sure there's some horror, but not enough to classify it as a horror movie; at most it's a subdued crime thriller.

that end without really giving the audience any answers? The writer, producer, director themselves DO NOT KNOW the answer!

Why Sure! Writer/director Adam Mason respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces of the puzzle together without spelling everything out. That's part of the fun of a film like this. The answers are there for anyone who cares, but those uninterested in psychology and biblical spirituality will likely find the flick dull or annoying. And that's okay. It's the way it is with art and art appreciation.

He is one step up the cinematic food chain ladder from Ulli Lommel.

While hardly Francis Ford Coppola, Ulli has some decent stuff in his long low-budget oeuvre. So saying Mason is a step up from that isn't much of a put down.

Clark did nothing or murdered\raped Bennie. The wife was apathetic and let him get away with the rapes or also did nothing. Victims of a demon.

It wasn't a demon, but rather an angel of God's wrath concerning hidden, impenitent sin. Clark was guilty of molesting Bennie while Summer was guilty of turning a blind eye to it. Divine judgment fell on one and mercy on the other for another chance.

reply

[–] Strawberry_Typhoon 14 years ago

He was not a demon. I spoke to adam throughout my entire viewing of the film, and I asked him this very question. he said to look at him as an archangel, but still an angel none the less.

reply

[–] mjswooosh 14 years ago

I want to agree with shuairan, since the story would ALMOST be brilliant if this was in fact the case. It does seem to me it would make a MUCH better story if in fact the viewer is deceived along with the wifey by a demon and then made to live with her sin for being "apathetic" and "weak"...a la, she did exactly what the demon led her to believe. It would be sick but poetic justice for her to kill her own husband in such a way.

Unfortunately, I think the real truth about the story is that it is much more straight forward and a lot less intelligent than that. Joseph is an angel. We have an anvel dropped on our head in the trunk scene in which we are shown that Clark obviously has done something horrible. Clark then goes nuts with the finger cutting scene. Wifey realizes Clark is a sicko. Blows his head off. The end. Yawn.

I'm not really getting why so many people on here seem to think this is a "brilliant" plotline in any way. The way it's executed is at once so straightforward yet somehow not clearly done that it's mystifying and boring at the same time.

Yet, on several counts, I have to admit I loved the overall effort put into the film and generally enjoyed the film and the 2 male performances, even if it was a bit boring.

reply

[–] coccosoids 14 years ago

Maybe I should skim through the bible, but I don't think that celestial angels are allowed to deceive, tempt and devise manipulations of the will in the manner that the 'angel' in this movie did. The unfolding of the plot makes is rather plain to the eyes and to the ears... Added to that, the entire speech about him being the future of 'man', in the closing shots has to be one of the most obvious references to the antichrist...

reply

[–] smith2505 12 years ago

I thought the "future of man" reference was one of individual judgement, not macro-eschatology.

Other than implying that his truck had run out of gas up the road aways (and, really, do we know that his truck wasn't up the road aways on empty?) I can't think of him being purely dishonest. Except for "cock and squeeze" at the end, he wasn't a tempter - even "cock and squeeze" was his way of exacting judgement. Everyone's will was kept intact - as evidenced by the husband's refusal to confess whatever sin he has committed against his stepson to the very end.

reply

[–] coccosoids 14 years ago

Ah... finally some symmetry. Just one huge "wtf, b i t c h?!"

reply

[–] Clem_DeFontane 12 years ago

That "demon" theory is really interesting, actually. We don't know for sure that the woman in the hotel was a whore--all we know is that he got deep enough into her head that he convinced her to commit suicide. Then, he could have done the same to the couple. The whole first half seemed to be about him getting into both of their heads ("cock...and squeeze"). I had forgotten about the record player element until now--demon theory certainly gives that recording a place in the film.

So, his mission would be recruiting people into Hell. That would be why he let wife kill husband, and it's why the hotel girl was made to kill herself. Those are the damnable sins he could get them to commit. The husband definitely saw something that looked like his step son in the trunk of the car--he screamed "Benny" a bunch of times while he was crying, afterward.

That theory also makes husband's "I can't tell you" lines truthful, in the end.

Really cool thought. At first, I was in the "agent of God" camp. Now, I think "demon" holds up a little better. It also makes his "I'm the future of the world" line a lot scarier.

reply

[–] KillerK1991 13 years ago

Illusion or not, I'm pretty sure the kid was in the trunk, not the woman at the motel. didn't he yell out the kid's name? Anyways, what I got out of it is he killed the kid some time shortly before they left with his wife to make way for his new family with her.

reply

[–] spectrx 12 years ago

Yah I thought he definitely yelled "Benny!" when he opened the trunk and started freaking out. However, if he had killed Ben, why would he be freaking out like that, like he was all surprised?

Anyway, it would have been a better movie if it was about 10 minutes shorter. It took too long making it's "point" and at the end I was just like "ooooook??"

reply

[–] thatwhichisi13-302-586519 12 years ago

you guys, yeah the moment the film ended, i said, wtf, wtf. then, after a few minutes of thinking, thinking, (dam i was moved to thought! in this day and age?) i realized why.
one, the film did NOT have cliche dialogue..
two, i couldnt tell this was NOT a high budget film, it was clear, focused, proper use of props and color, cinematography spot on... you mean to tell me that because there were no explosions or crazy fx that it was low b? maybe it was low budget because they didnt require silly things to get this particular story told.. hmmm..
three, you guys.. i think that one of the main points of this F I L M is to create major *beep* question as to yes, what the hell DID in fact go on..? that is the true interaction factor for this story (in particular! as its a story of ethics!!) to be told! A STORY. BEING TOLD. to you, as is why no one will say 'hey this is what it is..' this movie is not only aimed to make you think, (a feat many directors only wish they had creative control enough to actually do) it was crafted in such a way as to manipulate the viewers mind in the direction the DIRECTOR wished it.. make them judge every character, as though they KNEW that were guilty, or innocent. making you rethink you own ability to judge more than one time.. guys, there is no right or wrong. in the bible the only one to say so was god, no one else. not even a viewer of a sin on earth. psychology aside, if you know about religions of the world, there are lots of reference to not just christianity, but even eastern religions. god is in the minds eye.. i see some awesome theories here, but i personally moreso agree about the sexual abuse when thinking about it, perhaps from the directors mind, not really ever meant to be revealed, only ONE theory in the universe of peoples' individual ideals of reality. (never crossed my mind till now..) but i bet every one of us thought the whole time that joseph was going to do some sort of physical harm to those people. well, fact. he did not. whether he was a demon, an angel, or perhaps some wrong turn shroom induced psycho similar to mr. charles manson, (no offense to shrooms, they are great, i think everyone could benefit from taking them) is not important. its your own reaction, what is incited within you, and if you have the eyes and ears to hear the true message of what you in fact know of mankind in yourself.
there was a lot of thought in this film, you can give it that respect.

reply

[–] vamp2syd 12 years ago

spoilers

The film leaves it up to us to decide which is great and I have no problem with that. I came away with this conclusion

1) He was a demon
2) Bennie was molested
3) Bennie is still alive (I believe it was the demon's intent to make it appear that Bennie was dead to cause the events in the end)

reply

[–] Brookic0 12 years ago

Spollers ahead

This movie Sort of reminded me of Beneath The Dark starring Jamie Lyn Sigler and Josh Stewart. I did like this movie! I wish a few more things had been revealed, but at the same time I liked how it was left to us to decide. Was Joseph an angel? There were a lot of hints that way, but then some things he did contradicted that. For instance, what kind of angel rapes a married pregnant woman? He did say now that I have planted my seed it will be like this is my child??? IMO that kind of sounds like fallen angels! So maybe Joseph was at one time an angel and now is a demon! There were hints to this as well such as the record player/ recording going on and on about demons pretending to be of God! Why randomly through that in there? So IMO there was not enough proof one way or the other to tell if Joseph was an angel or a demon. As for Ben being in the trunk of the car, well Clark did yell Ben and start crying so I'm sure that Ben was in the trunk. Now who put him there I don't know, Clark seemed surprised about it! It could of been an illusion concocted by the angel/demon! Did he molest the boy? That is my theory, but it never did say just said bad things! Clark did seem to be hiding something and then that whole "you don't know me" that he said and the way he said it before she shoots him is pretty telling! So while we have no real proof what Clark did, I feel there was enough proof that he did something to the boy and that it was not just made up by the angel/demon! It is possible that Joseph was the angel and Clark had a demon in him! It sure left a lot to the imagination! I would like to watch it again at some point and see if I missed anything!

reply

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 12 years ago

He did say now that I have planted my seed it will be like this is my child???

I don't think that's what he said. He touched her stomach then said something like "this is my child and your child, it's as though I planted the seed myself".

Conform or be cast out

reply

[–] zikejl 11 years ago

After viewing the film, I never considered that Clark molested Benny. It just hadn't crossed my mind. But those of you who raise that theory here make good arguments.

Assuming that is what Clark did, that could only be determined from subtle clues and hints throughout the film. Many posts before me pointed out some good examples.

I offer one more...and I cannot believe that I am even going there...but everything in this film seemed to hint at something, so here goes...

"Cock and squeeze". It comes up throughout the film, often when the gun is pointed at Clark. If Clark did molest Benny, then the words "cock and squeeze" take on a whole new meaning.

I know, I know, I am totally not that person who goes to the most perverse solution first, but after hearing the other clues that people offered, I thought that this one couldn't go ignored.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

reply

[–] juxtapose70 11 years ago

Joseph was an angel. Read your Bibles (but be careful, you're likely to lose faith0..;P There's been people here questioning "what kind of angel would do this bad thing or that bad thing?" But the angel of death is clearly laid out in the bible. An angel of death killed the first born sons of all the Egyptians. Angels are always doing dirty deeds in the "good book". It was an angel that came to tell Mary that god was going to "come over her" (yes, that's what it says) and that she would be with child. (i.e. god would rape Mary..no consent = rape). And who was the shill daddy to Jesus? Joseph.

reply

[–] yawkcorb 11 years ago

I agree with the angel theory. In the old testament, angels are allowed and commanded to do many bad things, including deceiving, tempting to sin, and killing. Why would a demon pray to God? Also, the sermons about demons could easily apply to the husband. Remember in the very beginning, it was Clark who wants to change the radio station while the sermon was airing, maybe it was making him uncomfortable? It could be a warning to the wife about her demon-influenced husband, which is why it plays again on the record, when only she can hear it.

As for what the husband actually did, I think it is clear he did something to Benny, but very open to what that actually is. Assuming the wife would notice if her child was murdered, I think it drops hints that she knew Clark had or still was molesting or abusing Benny, but did nothing about it.

reply