MovieChat Forums > It's a Disaster (2013) Discussion > Writer chose the dumbest ending possible

Writer chose the dumbest ending possible

posted 10 years ago by bl-telfair
32 replies | jump to latest

I see the consensus is that the ending was great. I don't see it. It wasn't smart or thoughtfully planned out. It was just a cliche. Leave the audience in the dark and let them make up their own minds. There is nothing smart or clever about that. But that's fine. It was really the only option. The movie was so far out there (in a good way) that having some sort of normalcy restored by a last minute rescue or something along those lines would have been out of place. Therefore, you know it is going to have to end with a huge question mark. The writer didn't have much to work with in terms of an ending, but he ended it in the dumbest fashion I can think of.

Let's throw a curveball and have Glen turn out to be a nutcase. That'll be clever because all of Tracy's boyfriends turn out to be crazy. We'll have him mix up some rat poison and then somehow convince all the people who aren't insane to go Jonestown with him. Awful.

How about skipping the whole part about Glen turning out to be crazy and just end the movie with the friends finally seated at the table talking and eating..finally having brunch. Pan out, movie over, ending left up to the audience.

[–] Hurry_up_N_buy 10 years ago

I didn't see the ending as cliche, annoyingly ambiguous, smart, or an attempt at being clever.
I saw it as hilarious.

"People hate what's popular and people jump on bandwagons. The rest of us are in the middle."

[–] superfreak30328 9 years ago

Totally agree

[–] vmars080 9 years ago

I didn't see the ending as cliche, annoyingly ambiguous, smart, or an attempt at being clever.
I saw it as hilarious.

This is what I have missed about this site, people actually talking about a film or TV show, thank you!! I don't think I thought "Hilarious" but I did, or probably just now think that was the way to end the movie, we don't know if they drank the wine and we're pretty sure that was a big ol' end of the world or possibly just a large area in and around where they live. Not end of the world, which we got to learn when that call came in - which i did think was funny. :0)

[–] saluk64007 10 years ago

It had to build to a crescendo and then leave you hanging, so that the audience is psychologically unfulfilled.

[–] goodnightmoon 10 years ago

^This. Brilliant.

[–] virginhoe 10 years ago

agreed! the movie ended with a cliffhanger, which was disappointing. i feel like the movie ended very abruptly

[–] flippp 10 years ago

The ending just didn't work. This movie takes place in a fictional world that has nothing to do with reality. All the characters would be considered insane in real life, and yet the filmmaker is trying make a religious character "the crazy one" because of his beliefs, when everything in this fictional world is completely crazy and unrealistic. It's a preachy, heavy-handed ending by an obviously bigoted filmmaker with an anti-religious agenda.

[–] lujlp 10 years ago

Yeah sure, he was nuts. But he wa also the most rational becuase of it

[–] flippp 10 years ago

Yeah sure, he was nuts. But he wa also the most rational becuase of it

True, but the writer/director makes his agenda obvious. Even without knowing anything about him, I can tell he's one of those Ayn-Randian atheists, and he trying to shove his beliefs down our throats.

[–] lowellstone 9 years ago

If I had had to listen to him any longer, I would have reached for the rat poison myself.

[–] ScootFla 10 years ago

#1. The movie does have a lot to do with real life. The Golden Gate Bridge is mentioned as well as Manila in the Philippines.

#2. How would the characters be insane in real life? The world is a dysfunctional place and this movie is full of dysfunctional characters. How more real can you get?

#3. Someone who is critical of The Old Testament is NOT a bigot. That person is enlightened and actually believes the goodness of humanity. The Old Testament preaches the worst things about humanity. If you read all the anger, hatred, and bigotry that is within The Old Testament, you'd understand.

#4. You don't think the religious character was the "crazy one" in the group? What's more insane to you? Someone who cheats on their spouse or someone who decides to poison himself and 7 other people? Death is a finality and in my view, much more final than dealing with a cheating loved one.

#5. The filmmaker didn't have an anti-religious agenda. If anything, it was an agenda against so-called "Christians" who follow The Old Testament rather than the New Testament. Since the Old Testament takes place before the days of Christ, the Old Testament shouldn't even exist for them. Not all religions are bad, but people who call themselves Christians and yet ignore the teachings of Christ should not be revered.

[–] flippp 10 years ago

Wait a minute. People who follow the Old Testament but not the New Testament don't call themselves Christians. They call themselves Jews. Maybe the filmmaker just really hates Jews.

[–] nihilistic_tyranny 9 years ago

Are we all just going to ignore the fact that almost everything David Cross talks about at the end of the movie came from the New Testament? Busted.

But seriously, I don't think the director/writer had an anti-Christian agenda, and I don't think David Cross's character was supposed to be crazy because he was a Christian. He was supposed to be crazy because he was about to poison 7 people.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!

[–] vmars080 9 years ago

He was supposed to be crazy because he was about to poison 7 people.

Yes! I very much agree. He lost his shiz big time.

This was a slice-of-life - albiet in a crazy time, obvs, movie - so we saw normal humans and some who were a bit cray cray behaving as they would if they thought they were hours or days from death. And it had funny moments and I'm so glad I came to imdb, I feel way better about the time i spent watching it since there is actually discussion here. And no talking about "Who did every single cast member LOOK EXACTLY LIKE?!?!?!??!?!"

cuz man, I hate that.

[–] vmars080 9 years ago

Whoa, I would not even be here talking about the film if that was some anti-Christian garbage. I don't see that you in any way proved your very.... perhaps you took it too personally, maybe? I did not see what you saw at all and I'm a Religion Major who lives in Oklahoma City & has had a personal relationship with Jesus for real for 40 years. Those were just different ways that people would/might respond to that situation.

That is just one facet, but for some reason, you seem to think that the whole film hangs on that one (of MANY) facet. Sorry you missed the rest!

It's a preachy, heavy-handed ending by an obviously bigoted filmmaker with an anti-religious agenda.

I absolutely disagree and encourage you to perhaps not look for Christian Haters under every rock. It will make your life... well, creepy. And sad. What were you expecting the film to be like when you chose to watch it?

[–] AgentBlue 10 years ago

For some reason I liked the ending it seemed fitting.

Lose the Game!!!!!!!

[–] PedroMGA 10 years ago

same here. perfect ending for this movie =)

[–] bing-57 10 years ago

> We'll have him mix up some rat poison and then somehow convince all the people who aren't insane to go Jonestown with him. Awful.

Actually, he didn't really talk everyone into it, they pretty much talked themselves into it. No one was convinced by the rapture story.

The one girl describe all the effects of the nerve gas and that was enough to convince everyone to take the easy way out rather than suffer (although, the couple that died on their doorstep didn't seem to suffer from all those effects. They just dropped dead. So, maybe they all should have tried to hang on.).

> just end the movie with the friends finally seated at the table talking and eating..finally having brunch. Pan out, movie over, ending left up to the audience.

That would be more cliche than the ending they picked. That cliche was born 2000 years ago when Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] mrrbiu-93-689322 10 years ago

The ending was absolutely hilarious. I was actually sad when the credits rolled, because it was over. Glenn's leading the throng to a more acceptable demise--and their individual reactions--couldn't have been funnier. I also liked the ambiguity. Who knows what they ultimately chose. But this was the only way this film could end. We don't want to watch them go through a lingering death scene. A last minute savior would have been stupid. And "It's all a dream" would have been even dumber. I loved this movie and its ending!

[–] checkerouterofthings 10 years ago

"But this was the only way this film could end."

Yeah pretty much the best ending possible given it has the highest comedy factor. And being a comedy the ambiguous ending has no down side, as it doesn't matter whether or not they go through with it. The point is to make the viewer laugh, not tell some important story where it actually matters what happens in the end.

[–] seahawk3133 10 years ago

At first I didn't like the ending (maybe because I wanted it to continue), but after thinking about it - I appreciate the ending

I took the ending as - these 4 couples have proven throughout the movie that none of them really knew what they wanted or where they were going. Even at the point where they all agreed to die together - none of them were willing to go through with it.

It felt like it was a commentary that our lives may seem straightforward but no one is really sure in the end

[–] BornIntoThis 10 years ago

It was a perfect ending for a really good flick. They're a bunch of glorious flakes.

[–] adamdriscoll 10 years ago

I get what people are saying, but the ending was foreshadowed by the first scene where he turns off the car right as the song is reaching it's best/epic/concluding part - as soon as I saw that I knew to expect a similar ending.