Ending - What's the conclusion`?
Hi All
Does anyone knows the ending?
hi, i'll send you a p.m. on this. thanks.
share
MovieChat Forums > Skew (2011) Discussion > Ending - What's the conclusion`?
[deleted]
quote by sensored:
Simon filmed himself in the little mirror so we are to assume he dies.
nope, it's left open whether he dies or not, since we don't know if he initially got a blurred face. share
**SPOILERS**
I don't think it matters? It was said that if he cared for someone, they wouldn't die. Well, he killed his best friend. Wouldn't that make him hate himself? So then he dies?
**SPOILERS**
I don't think it matters? It was said that if he cared for someone, they wouldn't die. Well, he killed his best friend. Wouldn't that make him hate himself? So then he dies?
*Spoilers*
I wouldn't say that just because he hates someone they die. It has to do with lack of feelings at the time IMO where the camera marks a person for death that he personally has no control of but the holder would happen to be the one who sees it. So like the guy at the Hotel, or the cop, he'd have no feelings one way or the other but they were marked by the camera and died. Same with those at the bus stop. One could say that this particular evil's hands are tied where it cannot first be released on the one loved in front of the lens, or if released earlier by another holder (when Simon took it in the breakfast scene), the one who takes the camera later who still loves the marked one (when Rich took it at the gas station), can't see the blur. I am happy that the writer removed doubt about that last scene with the mirror because even though I did think of the camera possibly being down by his side, I had to be sure it wasn't all in his head thereby creating more holes and bringing the film down a few notches. I'm also pleased he gave his take on the cop getting shot and how it was done too. Because believe it or not, some writers do try to mess with your mind even if they themselves can't make sense of an ending or a scene. 2001 Planet of the Apes is a fine example of this lol.
There is one thing IMO that would have been icing on the cake for me personally. The part where Simon is arguing with his buddy Rich just outside the gas station immediately after he believes she's in the washroom. Then as he's verbally laying into Simon, his back covers the washroom for just a bit. Then when it shows it again, I'd have loved to see that door opened just a bit meaning the killer slipped out. I actually thought this too when I went back to look but my hope was dashed when just a frame before Simon started to hit Rich with his camera, you can see the door still appeared closed. Now it's possible it could have been opened by just a crack, but I believe the writer would have mentioned this and it certainly should have been a bit clearer if this were to be the case. Other than that, this did pleasantly surprise me and well deserving of my time. (7.5/10) share
i don't know about the other responses here... my impression is that when he sees himself in the mirror there is no camera.
"there never was a camera"
(i know, he puts a camera down at the end but... i'm pretending it was a figment of his imagination whenever it's "remembered" to exist and these are memories)
he only imagined the camera as part of a deluded memory and the death of the clerk and cop weren't caused by him, the vision of the guy in the room was imagined as his psyche imagined a killer in a fun shirt and the cop's death never happened but he wanted it and imagined it through a different camera.
i can't understand the "that's weird" last line of the film unless he had to "think back" to the last time he saw her and that it was weird because there was no blur but that's inconsistent with everything else because in playback there is no blur but maybe the evil side of him wanted to kill her and was surprised that it hadn't seen a reason to?
i'm sorry but i really think this was a mess on purpose, maybe even a joke puzzle. it didn't try very hard with those awful ghost people and otherwise it was very, very cheap in delivery of anything. others have blasted the acting but i'm offended by cheap writing. i can only give them a tiny cookie for the stupid intro quote that describes a camera peeling away your soul or whatever and the blurry face bit but "grave encounters" came out the same year and they might have stolen the idea from that because they made a similarly cheap found footage film and modified faces but this is really cheap and disappointing. i don't see any real talent demonstrated here. decent camera though. you can rent a camera like this the same way you rent a car. next time make a real movie.
When we hear Simon say "that's weird" after filming Laura, it's on playback, not in real time. When he initially filmed her, her face was blurred in the viewfinder because she was about to die (presumably by suicide). Simon, on tape, says "that's weird" because he sees the blur. He would not see it later on playback because the paranormal effect, or whatever it is, is not visible on tape. It's only visible through the camera viewfinder. That part makes sense and fits the logic of the film.
However, I don't see how the idea that "there was no camera" works. Rich and Eva argue with Simon all the time about filming. Laura does so, too, as we see in the playback at the end. Were all the characters and event a hallucination? That would pretty much invalidate the film, since we have no context for the hallucination.
it took me a minute to get back to the mindset i had when posting that comment but i guess i was trying to suppose the possibility that they were playing it that way. it's not the most original twist but it could have worked here. i wouldn't have hated them for trying to pull it off that way. maybe i only gave them a chance to have tried to pull that sort of move BECAUSE i've seen it done before; a major plot "device" is found to be entirely in the mind of the protagonist and never existed. also, i know you argued the "playback" where he says "that's weird"; to someone who's seen movies that pull this sort of thing, that easily works as a "memory", not a real videotape playback, and he was confused upon "reviewing" it.
shareSorry for the long delay in response.
I do see what you're saying. It could have been an OK device - although, as you say, it's been used a lot - that we had an unreliable narrator who was crazy and imagined the whole thing. The problem I would have with that is, as I said previously, there's no context for it. There's no point where we're given a frame into which that plot would fit. The movie starts and stops with no reference point to anchor an "it's all in his head" twist. It would also require either that he was traveling by himself, which is difficult because there are scenes where others clearly see all three people, or that the trip itself never happened at all, which would really invalidate the entire story.