MovieChat Forums > The Drop (2014) Discussion > The ending: so far, no one has gotten it...

The ending: so far, no one has gotten it yet - Spoiler!

posted 10 years ago by alevine1
87 replies | jump to latest

Yes, technically it's left ambiguous for fun by the writer, so those so inclined can choose a "happy ending," but I think the intent is actually pretty clear:

REMEMBER: Her assurance at the murder scene that she will not talk is an acknowledgement that she is the only witness!

Monster-sized clue is the NEXT TO LAST SCENE: The cop whispers to Bob "They never see you coming, do they?"

LAST SCENE: Bob, by all appearances the kind-at-heart dog-rescuer with the pup in tow, approaches Nadia in front of her house and sweetly offers to walk away if she wants him to. She half-smiles at his seemingly warm and innocent offer...thinks a moment...and takes the bait. She tells him that she will get her coat: she will go with him.

i.e. Her days are numbered, folks. She never sees him coming!

[–] binaryvegeta 10 years ago

I thought the ending was more inclining that he is still in that crime lifestyle.

Dude, that was SO not extreme!

[–] user-15159 10 years ago

he'll kill her for sure

[–] Lilporkchop420 10 years ago

Never thought that was a indication he was going to murder her .

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9013316) 10 years ago

If he had really wanted to kill her he could have at the bar. There is no reason to let her go if he was going to do it anyway plus he knows she won't talk so again there is no point to kill her.

Believe in yourself and create your own destiny.

[–] ritzmaz85 10 years ago

This.

Bob doesn't want to be alone. You can hear the despair in his voice in that last monologue when he's talking about God denying him final true happiness. That's what Nadia and rocco are for him at this time; happiness.

Although, that dark unsuspecting murderous intent is pretty dark and awesome too, lol.

[–] mizwright 10 years ago

Agree with Carcrafter!

[–] AntonioDaniels 10 years ago

Right. Bob seems to kill only if he has to kill, not because he likes doing it. She would've been dead already if he felt the need to kill her.

[–] haggar 9 years ago

Carcrafter7, I agree completely. He knew the Chechens would clean up any and all bodies that resulted from saving the money from being stolen, so if he wanted to pop the girl, he could have done it knowing he would not even have to worry about hiding the body.

[–] toddt07 9 years ago

Agreed.

[–] HunterSVonnegut 9 years ago

Bingo

The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

[–] RumiLover_K 10 years ago

The ending is she still wanted to be with him despite seeing all she did but she understood the reason behind it. They're bonded much like him and the dog he needs to protect. He won't harm her. He loves her. And the dog. She and the abused put have given him purpose and redemption. So he's another secret. She's in on it too so that seals their deal in my opinion. He was truly very happy she got her coat and come back into his life. She got it.

[–] titans13 10 years ago

Sorry but I don't see what you saw. He's not planning on harming her. JustMeForHimForever nailed it IMO.

[–] lilac526 10 years ago

^^^Agree

[–] alevine1 10 years ago

Dream on.

The ending isn't spelled out, so pick what pleases you, but as a writer I can tell you that a director or a writer does not by accident create a penultimate scene with the cop whispering to the murderer "They never see you coming" and immediately segue to the final scene with the murderer asking the only witness to the murder to go for a walk with him. That's not how a writer or director hints that they live happily ever after. Quite the opposite.

If you're blinded by the sweetness of the scene, you may be easy prey in life as well - exercise caution! :)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] you-people 9 years ago

Oh, ok. Are people supposed to know who you are?

[–] RumiLover_K 10 years ago

Sorry but I don't see what you saw. He's not planning on harming her. JustMeForHimForever nailed it IMO.

Thanks but I've more to add.

Dream on.

The ending isn't spelled out, so pick what pleases you, but as a writer I can tell you that a director or a writer does not by accident create a penultimate scene with the cop whispering to the murderer "They never see you coming" and immediately segue to the final scene with the murderer asking the only witness to the murder to go for a walk with him. That's not how a writer or director hints that they live happily ever after. Quite the opposite.

If you're blinded by the sweetness of the scene, you may be easy prey in life as well - exercise caution! :)

We will, dream on. What part don't you get? Its original title alone suggests a positive, "Animal Rescue". Bob is rescued himself through the unselfish act of taking on a commitment, a full-on one, with a dog. The dog, bare with me, has been given a bad rap by society as "dangerous" when in fact it is its owner that 9 times out of 10 manifests the breed to be so. It's a guard dog. Much like Rotties back in the day or Doberman's too. They're guard dogs. One big, massive and quiet. It lets you in the junk yard but won't let you out. Pinchers are slick, fast and will come after you. A Pit Bull is a guard dog. It will, and take my word for it, serve and protect Bob and Nadia fiercely to its death if need be. Dogs, by DNA, are loyal and never forget. Rocco won't forget who pulled him from the garbage can. Never. He won't forget Nadia's voice while mending his wounds either.

Back to the ending. When he leans in and says, "They never saw you coming." I feel he means him, the detective.

What he doesn't catch on to is the fact Bob came up in the neighborhood and knows how to blend and keep his nose out of business that doesn't concern him. Some people like that... especially those gangster types.

Another thing the neighborhood never saw foreign takeovers coming either. The "All American" bar is now owned and operated by a third-world thug. Imagine the humiliation and self-loathing Marv silently suffered. Yet, he was willing to steal from them for his family as well.

No, he didn't want to tour the world. His world is that neighborhood where he felt safe. He isn't equipped to handle a world tour of other countries, peoples, languages is he?

If you're blinded by the sweetness of the scene, you may be easy prey in life as well - exercise caution! :)

Kinda scary, man. Who you running from? You know what I got to say back to this, man? Let me be prey. If falling in love and starting over makes me prey, so be it. My vote is for Bob, Rocco and Nadia making it. His getting his own bar and becoming even more successful than he already is. Plus, he's got his 10K still too. I see a simple, but loving life being built between the three survivors.

[–] RumiLover_K 10 years ago

Emotional detachment in the second sense as seen in this film is a decision to avoid engaging emotional connections, rather than an inability or difficulty in doing so, typically for personal, social, or other reasons. In this sense it can allow people like Bob to maintain boundaries, psychic integrity and avoid undesired impact by or upon others, related to emotional demands. As such it is a deliberate mental attitude which avoids engaging the emotions of others.

This detachment does not necessarily mean avoiding empathy; rather it allows Bob the space needed to rationally choose whether or not to be overwhelmed or manipulated by such feelings. Examples where this is used in a positive sense might include emotional boundary management, where a person avoids emotional levels of engagement related to people who are in some way emotionally overly demanding, such as difficult co-workers or relatives, or is adopted to aid the person in helping others such as a person who trains himself to ignore the "pleading" food requests of a dieting spouse, or indifference by parents towards a child's begging or a pups whelping. He doesn't. He is clearly in the NOW. So he's never without hope.

Emotional detachment also allows acts of extreme cruelty, such as torture and abuse, supported by the decision to not connect emphatically with the person concerned. Social ostracism, such as shunning and parental alienation, are other examples where decisions to shut out a person creates a psychological trauma for the shunned party.

What all happened to Bob to do this? His murdering the guy 10 years back? As a result, the decision as to whether emotional detachment in any given set of circumstances is considered to be a positive or negative mental attitude is a subjective one, and therefore a decision on which different people may not agree.

His rationalizing might be off in our day-to-day society but this fits in easy enough in Bronx it appears where people pop up, then go missing often.

Please for give the psychobabble. It came to me this morning so I thought I'd use it.

[–] SiriusGrande 10 years ago

It's a guard dog. Much like Rotties back in the day or Doberman's too. They're guard dogs. One big, massive and quiet. It lets you in the junk yard but won't let you out. Pinchers are slick, fast and will come after you. A Pit Bull is a guard dog.

Actually, pits are not considered good guard dogs, and it is not their instinct to be guard dogs. They are naturally people-friendly (bred into them), and are animal aggressive. They were originally bred as hunting dogs for dangerous game, and as with all bully breeds, they were originated from dogs used in bull-baiting/fighting. Their courage and toughness is paired with the tenacity and prey drive of the terrier side of their breed (remember, they are American Pitbull Terriers). All of these traits combined made for excellent fighting dogs (unfortunately). But Pitties are not even on the top ten list of guard dogs. They only hurt people if they are mistreated or poorly trained. A lot of misinformed owners think they are guard dogs, but it's these misunderstood animals who have their fear and suspicion of humans confirmed and fostered by ignorant owners who then become dangerous to all people including their owners.
Even Pits bred for fighting have to be very human-friendly, else they'd be unmanageable.

Bob, like a Pitbull, is docile and harmless...until he's mistreated or threatened. He's lost trust in the world, and so he's isolated himself, much like an unsocialized, misunderstood, mistreated Pitbull.

[–] RumiLover_K 10 years ago

I stand corrected about the dog and all you shared makes a lot of sense. they have those powerful jaws that seem to lock when the clamp down on something and do not drop it unless ordered, if trained, or not, if not.

We have a pit bull in my neighborhood that is The sweetest dog imaginable. Her name is Mabel. Brown and white 100% (somewhat stubborn) sweetheart, but then so is her owner.

Bob, like a Pitbull, is docile and harmless...until he's mistreated or threatened. He's lost trust in the world, and so he's isolated himself, much like an unsocialized, misunderstood, mistreated Pitbull.

Exactly, only until pushed does he react, and react he does.

Just read the short story, placed at the Butler thread, but why's so locked-in? Had he high hopes of leaving the neighborhood? It isn't really clear.

The movie adds on to the short in characters and circumstances.

[–] SiriusGrande 10 years ago

My new puppy is part Pit (along with Boxer and Lab), and he's the sweetest little guy. I have friends with full-blooded Pits who adore them. They are so people-oriented that a bad owner can ruin an otherwise lovely dog. Of course, that's true of any dog, but Pits are more likely to fall into bad/ignorant hands than others due to their "tough" factor. Morons who use them to look tough are the problem.

I think the author extended the short story to a novel since the movie came about. It was originally a (failed) novel, then short story, then screenplay, and rereleased novel (I think). I'd be interested in reading that. Bob is a very likable character in the story, and I'd enjoy spending the length of a novel with him.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] immarktalbot29 9 years ago

I just loved reading all your posts, glad someone had the same optimism as me at the end of the film. Thank you for your explanation.

[–] lasums 10 years ago

Um, wrong! A more important line was "He was gonna hurt OUR dog." He couldn't kill her anymore than he could kill himself. That line meant that he understood that he wasn't alone...which was his greatest nightmare. You don't say 'our' if you think you are all alone in the world.

[–] carrps 9 years ago

Yes! It was almost a throw-away line, but it was so important. That was a very significant adjective.

[–] kenneglds 10 years ago

>>> But as a writer I can tell you that a director or a writer

Well, I'm a writer too. And if you are a writer, then you should have a better understanding why a writer chooses an ambiguous ending. It's because he/she wants to allow for the possibility of multiple endings. It's because the writer doesn't want to have a clearly defined ending. The writer deliberately wants to be unclear about it. It's because the writer wants the audience to make up their own mind.

>>> does not by accident create a penultimate scene with the cop whispering to the murderer "They never see you coming and immediately segue to the final scene with the murderer asking the only witness to the murder to go for a walk with him.

I would grant that there is nothing a good writer does by accident, but what the writer deliberately does with the sequence you mention, is create reason for the audience to think that there is a POSSIBILITY Hardy is out to kill her. The writer also created reasons for the audience to decide that Hardy was not out to kill her. What the writer did was very deliberately and skillfully create an ambiguous ending. Which by definition means the writer wanted to give no clear or definite answers as to what was to happen. He wanted each audience member to fill in the blanks, and come up with their own ending.

>>> That's not how a writer or director hints that they live happily ever after.

You seem to think that there are some rigid rules/formula that every writer automatically and inevitably follows, and abides by in this regard. Only hack writers rigidly follow the rules/formula you are suggesting. And this story was not written by a hack.

[–] Ghost0101 10 years ago

Not to oversimplify things, but I'm pretty sure he said "They never see you coming" because, hmmm, I don't know, maybe to reveal the cop knew it was him all along. I see what you're getting at, but you are seriously reaching. The people he killed he had purpose to kill. Knowing that he legitimately liked Nadia, and that she wasn't in any way the type of person who would talk, there is no reason for him to do it.

[–] JustLove_ok 9 years ago

I really hope that you're just a goofy troll. You got quite a few chuckles out of me. Everything in a movie isn't a conspiracy theory. The cop tells Bob that to let him know that HE knows that Bob is the killer. But with the facial reaction and just sipping on his cup of coffee, you can see that Bob thinks that there is no way to prove it. I think that if Nadia had asked Bob to "walk away" he just would have left and like several people have commented, why not kill her at the bar? You don't have to over think everything.

[–] MNPhatz 9 years ago

This sums up my thoughts regarding the OP's theory.

[–] jville2 9 years ago

"Overthink"?

I think that you're giving the OP too much credit. 😀

[–] I_Created_U 9 years ago

Dream on.

The ending isn't spelled out, so pick what pleases you, but as a writer I can tell you that a director or a writer does not by accident create a penultimate scene with the cop whispering to the murderer "They never see you coming" and immediately segue to the final scene with the murderer asking the only witness to the murder to go for a walk with him. That's not how a writer or director hints that they live happily ever after. Quite the opposite.

This is totally wrong and to such an extend that it makes me wonder if you really are a writer. This scene was as clear as day, there was nothing deeper to it.

The cop says that uniquely and solely for the purpose of showing Hardy he knows exactly who the real killer is, namely him. It was also some kind of compliment to Hardy for his incredible ability to hide his true nature behind this seemingly innocent behavior. He might not be able to prove Hardy's involvement - reason why the cop tells him - but he wanted him to know he may have everyone fooled, but not him. It was the cop's ego talking, plus a tad of admiration. Actually, it was the cop admitting defeat while giving credit where it is due, nothing more.

As for the girl, it makes absolutely no sense to let her leave the bar only to go pick her up the next day in broad day light in front of her place in order to go kill her somewhere else. If he wanted to kill her, he would have done it at the bar the night of the robbery because, as some other poster rightfully mentioned, he knew that the mob would take care of any dead body related to the attempted robbery of that night. He could have said she was in on it and since she happens to be Deed's ex-GF AND she showed up with him that night - which anybody could confirm - nobody would have questioned his word.

If he ever wanted her dead, it was now or never. It would literally make no sense at all to miss this perfect opportunity to get rid of an annoying witness and on top of that take more risks the next day to eventually kill her.

You seem to see plot devices and hidden clues where there are none at all and this is what makes your first and last sentences even more painful to read...

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] crt-strucl-2 9 years ago

So the guy lets her walk out of the bar not afraid she's gonna talk. But after she doesn't talk, he decides he will kill her, because she might talk? This just isn't logical. And detective Torres pointed out, that they just don't see Bob coming. Meaning that there is a lot more to him than meets the eye, so he isn't some dumb kid who doesn't know what he is doing. And besides why does he have a smile in the end? What I heard in the end was a woman walking towards Bob (you can clearly hear the heels).

[–] I_Created_U 9 years ago

So the guy lets her walk out of the bar not afraid she's gonna talk. But after she doesn't talk, he decides he will kill her, because she might talk?



Good one! LMAO

It perfectly sums up the absurdity of the claim.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] Korios 9 years ago

Your points make no sense. The cop said that quote to let us know that he got him, but he could not prove it of course. The next scene is irrelevant to that. If he wanted her dead why did he protect her from the Chechen mob boss?
Your "as a writer" quote is an inappropriate argument from authority fallacy, you can do better than that. I also write and have published some stuff; so what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Ost-of-Perdition 9 years ago

"I'm a writer"... Haha! Are you? Are you really? What have you written?

[–] akkratte 9 years ago

Too bad for you the director said it was happy ever after.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jpkrunch 9 years ago

Well, by all means, do tell! You being a big time "Writer" and all is very impressive! I am sure you know what every other writer intends.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

[–] pankoeken 9 years ago

The ending isn't spelled out, so pick what pleases you, but as a writer

 Yeah kid sure you are. I know you're trying REALLY hard to be clever and impress strangers on the internet but your theory is wrong and your smug comments to people who disagree like

If you're blinded by the sweetness of the scene, you may be easy prey in life as well - exercise caution! :)

make you look like an even bigger jackass.

[–] gortx 10 years ago

As I posted in the other "the ending" thread (although by now, there are probably others since nobody seems to moderate these imdB boards), there is no need to decifer those last few moments frame by frame like the JFK Zapruder film. This isn't a puzzle film like INCEPTION, THE CONVERSATION or 2001. The ending is the ending.

And, if makes the OP feel any "better", it is quite clear that the detective is on to Bob, so his life won't be all peaches, Noomi and cream.

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

Actually, she walks away to get her jacket and then we don't see her again.

We hear -footsteps- coming back to him.

Are we sure those are -her- footsteps?

My sense is that someone else is watching the two of them and might off her. Or him.

OR... she may agree to go with him for the same reason she went along with Eric... fear. She may totally fear Bob.

That's why I love this movie.

[–] JustLove_ok 9 years ago

I also love this movie.

Why insist though, on trying to make the ending so complicated? When the ex is in the house waiting for her, the character acts scared. Her body language, her face, everything about her shows her fearing Eric. When Bob comes around, she is clearly not scared. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in her demeanor shows fear. She seems relaxed and actually glad Bob is there. When he tells her he'll leave if she wants him to, she has the chance to tell him to leave. She very clearly told Eric this despite being clearly terrified of him when she asked him to get out of her house.

Also, who has a good reason to, as you say, off her or him?

Sometimes, an ending is just an ending.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 10 years ago

Makes no sense. If he wanted to kill her, he would have done it when he killed the dude. Also, a big reason for committing the first murder was to protect her, so why would he then turn around and kill her? Again, makes no sense.

Man is least himself when he talks as himself.Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth-O Wilde