MovieChat Forums > The Innkeepers (2011) Discussion > The last shot in the movie, what should ...

The last shot in the movie, what should we be seeing?

posted 12 years ago by deniro1
111 replies | jump to latest

I've yet to see anyone on here mention the final shot of the movie, where according to the two commentaries on the dvd, something subtle happens that is hard to see. So hard to see I have yet to find it. Even one of the actors says he's never seen it, even though it's been pointed out to him. But the others say, "there it is" the moment it apparently shows up. I'm pretty sure it's a ghostly image of Sara Paxton in some way, but I don't know where it is.

[–] Batmanuel1987 12 years ago

I didnt see anything either. I thought it was a jump scare for the audience that mirrored the jump scare for Sara Paxton's character when she looked at that video on the internet.

Time to hurt demon feelings!-http://tinyurl.com/2hxvv9

[–] OutlawsDeLejos 12 years ago

^this

This is what I was waiting for, I would have hated that. Though that last shot didn't do anything special for me either.
I understood the implication of it, I just didn't care for it.

[–] deniro1 12 years ago

There are two commentaries on the dvd, and in both of them they mention that the director put something very subtle in the last shot of the movie. It has nothing to do with the door slam. It's a few moments before that.

I just don't know where to look to try to see it.

Obviously the director made it WAY WAY too subtle because it doesn't appear anybody has seen it yet, as there had been no discussion of it.

[–] Batmanuel1987 12 years ago

I know that in the trailer the wallpaper in that scene warps a bit. Maybe the scene in the movie is significantly slowed down to be more subtle?

Time to hurt demon feelings!-http://tinyurl.com/2hxvv9

[–] afdrucifer 12 years ago

look in the curtains maybe ten seconds before the door slams( hint:it's a ghost)

[–] hauntingsummer 12 years ago

Claire's ghost is there, she's standing by the window. I just learned this and then watched to see for myself and she's def standing there and turns and looks at the camera and then the door slams. It's really well done and subtle, but once you see her it's very clear.

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

This would also explain why KM is staring out the window before then.

[–] VWstarwars 11 years ago

I just saw it. Yep, you see the very faint outline of Claire and she does turn towards the door right before it slams. I never saw it before. You really have to look.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

Actually, she turns toward the left. Her left. I apologize if someone already said this as I didn't feel like reading through ten plus pages of replies. Not that it matters, though.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] HombreOfAnotherEra 10 years ago

why isn't the plural of goose, not gice?
but then again, lice is lice either ways haha.

[–] Gabe1972 10 years ago

Surely! If it was Gice, you could put a diacritical mark over the e and make is sound French or something. Suddenly geese would become very popular with the uptown crowd, although I don't know if they would care. I think they would still poop on everything, which would eventually make them outcast with the uptown crowd, so they would be right back where they started... as plain old geese. LOL.

The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of goose is geese. Why is the plural of moose not meese?

[–] jmembleton 9 years ago

One louse. Two lice.

[–] Wayne_is_better_than_Eastwood 9 years ago

What the hell? You people are crazy. I just watched it intently three times in a row and there is NOTHING there.

[–] guardian_owl 9 years ago

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/1130
mouse on, mouse off to see what you're missing.

[–] NoseofNicko 8 years ago

Thanks a lot.

CG gore is the worst thing that has ever happened to the horror genre.

[–] matzernstmatzernst 8 years ago

yes there is. besides the curtains. a transparent shade, slightly moving.

[–] enjoiskaterguy 11 years ago

i thought this too. I thought the ghost or 'spirit' was going to jump at the camera.

[–] hauntingsummer 12 years ago

Claire's ghost is there at the end. I missed it twice and it was pointed out to me today and when I saw it I couldn't believe I'd missed it. She's standing at the window. When you first see the scene, when the camera enters the hotel room, you won't see anything but keep looking near the window, more to the right of the curtain rather than directly in front of the window and then she'll appear. It's subtle but you can clearly see her and she looks right at the camera while turning her head and then the door slams.

[–] andysa-1 12 years ago

The subtlety is ridiculous, rewound it 5 times before I could see it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ant41789 11 years ago

I just think you cant see it no matter how many times you try

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_f8ayQQx4I

[–] kelvynchin 11 years ago

It's defo there. But can't make it out to be Claire. I had to rewind it 4-5 times before seeing it. Look hard at the top part of the right curtains. About 5 secs before the door slams, you can see some slight movement right there, its the faded out image of a apparition, possibly short haired, may or may not look like Claire, looking at the camera.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaliParton 11 years ago

That was only the camera trying to compensate for the change in focus due to the door slamming shut close to it.

Yes... the camera knew the door was going to close and automatically compensated for it before it happened. You believe in time-travelling cameras, but you don't believe in something right in front of you. LOL

Here are two frame caps from the bluray - before the ghost and with the ghost. Just move your mouse in and out of the picture to switch between the two frames. If you still can't see the ghost - her entire body is manifested - then for all of our sakes you better not have a driver's license.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/1130

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

Excellent, thanks for this.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dave-3235 11 years ago

Wow, thanks a lot. It took me a while to see it even knowing when and where to look. A slight bit of contrast makes a big difference.

[–] Riotboy-1 11 years ago

@ DaliParton, thanks! Now I see the ghost. 4/10

Look at the night sky, where does it end?

[–] ajmal-m 10 years ago

a great comparison. thanks

[–] eru0527 10 years ago

Yeah the comparison again:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/1130

Draw your mouse over the picture, then look at the thicker curtain (not the see-through white one that covers the whole window, but the one which is beige and tied together. High up on the right curtain you'll see her face. Under her face is her body but that is almost impossible to make out before you have recognized the face.)
When you have seen it, draw your mouse out from the picture. And look where you found her face. And then draw your mouse over the picture again. The difference is clear as day.

But when you see the movie it's not. I thought the shadow on the right hand side of the lamp was a shadow of a sitting person. A person sitting on the bed, to be more exact, so I was looking over there.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

She actually turns to wards the camera right before the door slams. This is the only cool thing about the film though tbh...

[–] smerd_70 8 years ago

If you still can't see the ghost - her entire body is manifested - then for all of our sakes you better not have a driver's license.

Yes, because people will encounter seeing barely noticeable outlines while out driving. This obviously should be part of the eyesight tests.

I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.

[–] fabigail 11 years ago

Thanks to your comment I saw it. :)

your doctor who is just... jarvis cocker in space.

[–] raduz123 11 years ago

It is there, she fades into shot and is silhouetted against the window, she slowly turns her head towards the camera and the door slams shut.

[–] grrrdevin 11 years ago

I saw it just fine.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grrrdevin 11 years ago

To feel clever and add some depth to an otherwise flat ending.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] michellestreisand 11 years ago

It's there. You can just barely make it out. It's over the heavy curtain on the right side of the window. You just see the faintest outline of her. Took me four times until I finally saw it. She appears only moments before the door slams.

[–] JamesGreen8 11 years ago

this film is terrible but there is a head/face there on the right curtain -i thought when viewing it it was just the curtain moving but i defiantly saw something prior to looking here - i slowed it down to confirm it

[–] antsarago 10 years ago

Just watched this movie and I swear I expected something in that last shot so much that I closely watched every single inch of the screen and saw nothing. Then I read that you see her ghost in the curtain and I went back and sure enough it's clear as day. Don't know how I missed it the first time. It is definitely, 100% true, you see Claire's ghost looking out the window, and then she turns towards the camera and the door slams shut. No question about it. I imagine it might be harder to spot if you're watching on a small computer monitor or a tv that isn't 1080p, but yeah, she's there.

[–] tokie_mcbong 9 years ago

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img843/492/ghostky.jpg

It is there. I thought the same as you but thanks to that image I see it now. I thought maybe even that was just a coincidental pattern in the curtain, but it does turn right before the door closes and you can see it's her.

It is ridiculously faded though.

You Dare Agree With Me?!

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Watch an HD version, she is transparent IN the curtain and slowly turns to the camera right before the door slams. She isn't there at first, but slowly appears. We are NOT seeing things.

It's almost like the director did that on purpose so it wouldn't show up on anything but higher quality versions of the film. You watch it on Youtube or on a crappy free stream or something?

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

Yeah, and you can't really see it in still-frame / pause mode, b/c only the motion makes it clear.

She's very, very, very faint, really just a very faint outline. Just a tiny bit of haze.

[–] HarmenB 12 years ago

I got a digital copy and rewatched the scene a couple of times. When I sped up the video I finally saw it: the white silhouette of a woman appears against the right curtain. She looks out of the window and then slowly turns her head towards the camera, her expression neutral as far as I can see. Then the door slams shut.

It's very subtle, I doubt most viewers would see it without replaying it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deniro1 12 years ago

Heh, I was just coming on here to let everybody know my wife found it, but someone beat me to it. It is indeed a very slight ghostly image of sara paxton around the curtain area.

Really too slight, it should have been more obvious for the audience.

[–] HarmenB 12 years ago

Hmm, I didn't recognize Sara Paxton because of the pixels, and because the woman seems to be weariung a dress. In any case, it's way too subtle... unless the director just wanted to start discussions like the one we're having now ;).

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

Probably meant to be subliminal, just to make the final scene scarier, even if just subconciously.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Yes, similar to how Kubrick, when directing the Shining, would move furniture and picture frames just slightly to make continuity just slightly off between shots. Not in your face, but something that makes you feel uneasy throughout the film without knowing exactly why.

[–] always_keep_fighting 11 years ago

I agree...what's the point of putting something in a movie that only a few people can see, and has to be pointed out so much? Could've been a little easier to see, and been just as effective.

"What's that? Bag o' tricks?" Glory
"No. Bag o' knives." Willow

[–] estfletcher 11 years ago

Love your sig, Buffy fan =)

[–] always_keep_fighting 11 years ago

Thank you...I love Willow...So much so that we named our second champion Whippet after her! LOL My son knows Felicia Day, an actress who played one of the Potentials on the last season, and for Christmas, she got me an autographed photo of all of the original cast, including Angel. (I wrote her an email to thank her, and she wrote me back a lovely letter; she's a sweet young woman.) I nearly had a stroke when I opened it. LOL Can you imagine...a grown woman acting like a 13-year-old who just got a Justin Bieber calendar? LOL
Since you recognized it, I'm assuming you're a fan, too...sending you a "Buffy Rocks" wave. *G*

"What's that? Bag o' tricks?" Glory
"No. Bag o' knives." Willow

[–] davinci-tool 12 years ago

You right, but was is the point to make such subtle scene if almost nobody sees it?

[–] reeseslightning 12 years ago

Thank you! I was wondering if there was anything there, but the length of the shot told me there must be. It was obviously way too subtle.

They are but loyal - a quality you seem unfamiliar with - Spartacus

[–] PwnPocalypse 12 years ago

I think "way too subtle" is a good thing actually. It's like winning the lottery. If you happen to be one of the lucky few who actually noticed it, you'll be like "HOLY S%$# DID YOU SEE THAT?" Most others will look at you like you're crazy, but you saw it. Awesome!

Open the pod bay doors, Hal

[–] Daze36 12 years ago

It's kinda like what Luke was talking about when he was describing his fake encounters with Madeline, where it's like a fleeting occasion, where you're not sure whether you've really seen the ghost or not. The subtlety is pretty cool :D Took me a few tries before I noticed it but it was a cool effect. Much better than the door just slamming shut anyway.

[–] jamieevanson 12 years ago

it took me 3 times of rewatching to notice lol. at first i thought whats the point if no one can see it , then i read your post , summed it up perfectly .

[–] Lunaroseice 12 years ago

I knew exactly what I was looking for. The set up for it was so obvious. But I still couldn't see it and I disliked the movie so much to try to watch that part until it finally showed up.

[–] submachine 12 years ago

oh shlt you're right. There goes my theory about the dude drugging her asthma inhaler.

\\\ http://TheMovieGoer.com ///

///Twitter.com/TheMovieGoer\\\

[–] mrs_m_norris 12 years ago

I just watched that scene again, twice. It is extremely subtle, but a few seconds before the door closes, you can see Claire's head (all white) against the upper part of the right curtain looking out the window. Her face turns towards the doorway and then the door slams shut.

If you can't find a friend, make one.
-May (2002)

[–] Stryde22 12 years ago

took a few tries but i saw it. subtle haha.

[–] sponix 12 years ago

sounds scary, I usually enjoy scary movies but always fear at the beginning to watch them.

[–] atomic_cheez 12 years ago

Yeah i saw it. Think it's easier to catch it in Blu-ray. Honestly, the first time I couldn't watch the scene cause i was two scared. when i rewinded it i could see Paxton clear as day. She looks out the window and then turns to look at you and the door slams. Very chilling.

[–] andymillard 12 years ago

Had to play the bluray frame by frame to see it. This is too subtle for its own good - people seeing this at cinemas will miss it.

[–] burglarbil 12 years ago

I got the ghostly image but go back a few minutes when Luke is talking to the cop in the parking lot, wtf is hanging out of the third floor window behind him? It appears in two scenes and looks like a white figure leaning out of the window but I can't make it out.

[–] DaliParton 11 years ago

I got the ghostly image but go back a few minutes when Luke is talking to the cop in the parking lot, wtf is hanging out of the third floor window behind him? It appears in two scenes and looks like a white figure leaning out of the window but I can't make it out.

You are right, there is something totally weird on the window ledge. I think it is a cherub. It looks like it is made out of curtain blowing through an open window, but it does not move at all and no way would a curtain natural hang in that shape.

Here is a freeze frame from the bluray - I blew up that part of the picture and put in the picture on an empty part of the building's wall so people can see it better.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2938/innkeeperswindow.jpg

[–] gottfrid 11 years ago

yeah, thats not a curtain, no.

"It doesn't matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skyblazeeterno 10 years ago

wow - how could people miss that as its basically on the screen...but we are focussing on the actors...I wonder if there are other cherubs hanging around in the film

[–] masuka-fan 12 years ago

Haha, I couldn't watch it either, because I kept expecting something like the internet gag early in the film, even though I didn't really think West would do something so cheap and easy.

[–] mwr312 12 years ago

You see Claire's spirit. Look at the curtains.

[–] chassa-2 12 years ago

I cant find it :( Would anyone take a screenshot and post it? Much obliged.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chassa-2 12 years ago

Thanks, I can just faintly see her. :)

[–] IpsaThis 12 years ago

Thank for pointing that out, everyone. I didn't see it the first time either. Watching on fast forward makes it much easier.

[–] Acceler8 12 years ago

I finally saw it, but it was so faint I wouldn't have known it was Claire unless it had been pointed out here and in the DVD commentary. I would have thought it was just another appearance of Madeline O'Malley.

[–] JavierBoredom 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure I saw the ghostly image of 100 minutes of my life flying out the window.

[–] oystergirl94 12 years ago

I saw it! It looks like the wallpaper is waving. Kind of like a mirage does to the road on a hot day.

[–] looshkin 12 years ago

I'd love a screenshot too please! Ive just posted the film back to lovefilm and NOW found this out!!!!!

"Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion"

[–] Acceler8 12 years ago

Has anybody had a chance to compare whether it shows up better on Blu-Ray than on DVD?

[–] hauntingsummer 12 years ago

I have not but I can see it on my flat screen tv via and my computer in a tiny screen using amazon prime/instant, so it's gotta be clear enough.

[–] masuka-fan 12 years ago

It's definitely visible on the BD, though I had to look at it a couple times before I could see it. However once I did her face was very clear.

[–] hauntingsummer 12 years ago

This is hard to see but its there
http://forums.hipinion.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=89&start=6960

If you don't see it rightaway then follow my instructions

first look at the white lace curtain, now look slowly towards the lamp, see the lamp and look in between the curtain and lamp, now look up. about a half inch up in the photo from where the curtain on the right is tied you can see Claire's face and then once you see that you can see her standing there. She's right in front of that curtain on the right, just look for a minute:)

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 12 years ago

Thanks for that. I would've never seen it on my Media Player. For some reason you can't FastForward or Slow Down and watch at the same time.

[–] jjppcc_1 12 years ago

I just watched this movie and no denying she is there at the end, but still seems a weak ending, mostly relying on a loud slamming door for a cheap scare. I was hoping for more as the film makers and actors did a good job of building tension throughout.

[–] KaRa308 12 years ago

I can barely see an outline of her when I look at the photo but I feel like how would anyone see that? When I keep going back to the photo it still takes me a few seconds to even make something out.

[–] brandonlewislaw 12 years ago

Far too subtle for its own good. Being subtle and keeping the curtains back in a movie is cool. The people who are really invested in the movie get a nice little payoff. This last shot failed on every level though. Sure, its fun to find out about it and then go look for it. However, doing it to the point that nobody will ever know its there is just pointless, not creative or mysterious. I am highly suspect of anyone who claims they saw it the first time around.

[–] RHPSvegas 12 years ago

That was a really cheap, cop-out ending to a cheap movie. I can't believe I just watched that. It wasn't scary at all. I went back and rewound the DVD and they superimpose her in for the last couple of seconds.

Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/

[–] brandonlewislaw 12 years ago

Agreed, the movie was awful. Girl sees ghost, ghost kills girl..and (if you're a Where's Waldo champ) you might also find out the girl is now a ghost. What a bold and original ending!

[–] RHPSvegas 12 years ago

Seriously, the whole story was convoluted. Was the old man supposed to be the same guy that left the ghost? There's no resolution, no reveal. It's just random paranormal activity that's never explained. It was an obvious rush job with poor writing. Even watching the special features, they admit to having limited time to get the film done simply because they wanted to use the location.

Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/

[–] brandonlewislaw 12 years ago

That makes a lot of sense because it did feel like a total rush job. For example, when they're about to take off and the girl suddenly remembers the old man is staying upstairs. I had forgotten, she had forgotten, and I think the director had forgotten too.

[–] LordChristo 11 years ago

Well, that makes a lot of sense, since. . . the director had the girl go and find the old guy. Almost like it was part of the effin' plot. That director sure as hell forgot about it, since it is included later in the film. That he's directing.

I saw a movie once.

[–] NoodleLizard 11 years ago

You do know that films are written out, planned and not shot in sequence, right? You make it sound as if they all just got together and started filming a story as they went along, and then he went "Oh wait, you should probably go find that old guy now". Not how it works. If she went back too late for you, that's the way it was planned. Nobody "forgot" anything.

These bastards!