MovieChat Forums > Boy Wonder (2010) Discussion > My understanding of the ending..thoughts...

My understanding of the ending..thoughts?

posted 11 years ago by dee-604-450512
8 replies | jump to latest

I havent read all the posts, so sorry if this theory is already out there, but here goes..

So what we can be pretty sure of is that Sean's father covered up for Larry Childs when Sean as a boy identified him from the mugshots.

So then cutting to the end with a calm Sean receiving the red stamp of a non guilty dad, I had to think about it for awhile and then... I realised that Larry Childs was now dead because he didn't split on his mate.

Therefore the fact that Sean killed his dad was right (to him) because he was punishing him for protecting Larry for killing his Mother, therefore you can then deduce that he realises Larry Childs wont break the code of silence either and subsequently kills him for protecting his Dad. And the reason they cant break the code of silence is because each will bring the other one down with him.
We know that Larry has done a deal with the DA with his recent conviction so he's quite happy to bring the house of cards down if he gets a good deal.

Sean is depicted throughout the movie watching other people in conflict and we get glimpses of what 'he sees' as if he is trying to see the 'ones who should be protected' not in the middle of conflict, or perhaps an exaggeration of the conflict..I may be reaching here..but the point is protection and trust.
The co dependent relationship between Dad and Larry, e.g if one splits he'll bring the other one down with him is what this film is about..protection and trust. Trust and protection between 2 killers that is dishonest, trust between the retired Chief and Teresa (whom threw the gun/evidence away for her kid and her own protection) and Sean that is also dishonest..so in theory are they not all the same??
Sean is eerie at the end, perfectly calm and measured as is Teresa I wonder if they realise the line they crossed was to the side of what had started this terrible tragedy.

[–] Slammer01 11 years ago

Very interesting to see all the theories on the end of the movie. Ok, my turn!

Father was guilty of domestic abuse, although never convicted, but clearly abused his mother and son. He was also an alcoholic.

Sean saw the killer. He pointed him out right after the murder on the mug shot. This was after three hours of looking through mug shots. It was clearly Larry Childs.

Father told son he was wrong, threatened him with "consequences".

Father wanted out of *beep* hole where he lived. He made that clear to the café owner.

All the above are facts, not opinion.

So now the opinion.

Larry was going to die period. Sean knew he was guilty. So, the envelope and both stamps had the Tricelaron (poison) on them. Larry was dead.

Now for the father. He was an alcoholic BECAUSE he didn't make enough money to get out of the slums he was living in. He needed money. There was no mention of debts, although I suppose that is possible. There was also no mention of the Father having a job, again the reason for drinking and needing money.

OK, so it's pretty clear that the motive for the killing was insurance money. Second, if the Father wasn't guilty he should have been killed along with the mother and the son. But the father wasn't and the son wasn't. If it was a carjacking, then the carjacker "Larry" would have gotten the car with NO witnesses. But that wasn't the case. The father was clearly in on it.

So why the RED stamp. Clearly Larry was a scum bag, and wasn't going to give Sean any satisfaction. He most likely knew about the Father being killed by a "burglar", they were friends right, and news like that travels quickly in prisons. So Larry thought screw you Sean, no way do I implicate my friend and give you any satisfaction, regardless of your sob story (the letter).

Anyway, that's it . . . .guilty guilty guilty.

Very enjoyable movie btw. Gave it five stars .

Absolute truth is an objective reality that exists independent of what anyone thinks

[–] DarkEqualizer 11 years ago

It's left open ended on purpose I think so you dont really know what happened , and that is the thing that is drving Sean to become more and more unhinged.
It's pretty clear that Larry did kill the mother I think but his father's involvement is less clear. We just dont know how he was involved with Larry, and I think the film is ment to leave us without a clear answer, to try and put you into the head of Sean who has had to live with this for such a long time. You could argue that what reason would larry have to tell Sean his Dad was innocent if he wasnt, which makes me think he was innocent of directly having anything to do with it. However his involvemt with Larry and the dispute they had I think indirectly lead to the mothers murder. Maybe because he owed Larry money or something, we just dont know. But I quite like the fact we dont know. It gives you a good sense of the hell that Sean must go through in his mind

[–] dalpaugh-65-39391 11 years ago

I agree; I think it is supposed to be somewhat ambiguous, leaving the audience with an unsure feeling, just like Sean must have. It's like he - and we - are trying to convince ourselves that the father was guilty and deserved to die. But was he?

[–] aimeeandevan 11 years ago

there was mention of debt. larry said something like you've taken too long.

§ Al-Qaeda, Jihad, Great Satan, bomb, explosive, death, Allah

[–] superbeefy2050-1 11 years ago

I loved, loved, loved this movie.
However, I would've enjoyed the movie even more if we never saw what stamp was on the envelope. We see Sean sitting on the couch with the letter and the camera zooms in on it, but cuts away to credits before we see the stamp.

Your theory is definitely what I took from the movie and the idea that we never see the stamp would make it even more true.

[–] OtisLovesUs 11 years ago

Larry did say something to the dad about being out of time or something right before he got pistol whipped. My theory is that money was owed, the dad couldn't pay it, and it was Larry who had the insurance idea.

Basically: "You pay me the money by X or I'm killing your wife. Then you can pay me what you owe with the insurance money."

So his dad wasn't exactly "in" on the murder, but his failure to come up with the money, or get his family out of town, led directly to his wife's murder.

As for the stamp color, I go with the idea that Larry wasn't ever going to admit to involvement in that crime, simply because there was no upside for him. He was a sociopath. He wouldn't give a crap about whether or not the kid forgave him.

Good movie.

[–] chrislwmn3 9 years ago

I think you have just stated the most likely scenario.

I don't think the father wanted his wife to be murdered. If so, why would he go through the trouble of visiting the grave and giving up alcohol? Costing the grave could be attributed to guilt, but not being sober. Also, the part of the film where the father puts on the gloves seemed more than just him channeling his boxing past. I think it was him pretending the bag was Larry for killing his wife because that was as close to payback as he would ever get.

[–] yvesyves (630) 2 years ago

''you can then deduce that he realises Larry Childs wont break the code of silence either and subsequently kills him for protecting his Dad ''

The kid doesn't kill Childs because he won't rat on his dad , the kid kills him because the guy was a career criminal who had shot his mom in the god damn face in cold blood, and he had been looking for the culprit for the last ten years!!! Whether the dad was involved or not didn't change the fact that the kid wanted to kill his mom's murderer.

Also, Childs was never investigated for the mom's murder the cops had no idea it was him, so why would he confess to a murder simply in order to rat on the dad?