The ending
Any ideas, why didn't Mick kill Paul and let him go?
shareTo send a message and make a fool out of him. So he lives the rest of his life knowing he "lost" against Mick.
You kill or you die. Or you die and you kill.
The Governor
MovieChat Forums > Wolf Creek 2 (2014) Discussion > The ending
The ending was very similar to that of Blood Lands (2014).
I presumed he was keeping his word to let him go
shareI took was at first a bit confused by the ending, but I think in the end he kinda liked him.
www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas
I chuckled at the part where Mick says something along the lines of "History, what a *beep* coincidence". The thing is, Paul's History major ended up saving his own life during Mick's questioning. I laughed as Mick chuckled as he told that to Paul!
"Those whom do not know their horror cinema are bound to be victims of horror in life" -AgentJ9
I thought that was a great ending, though I wondered why as well. Screen goes to black when he catches him right by the booby traps, and I assumed that was the end, ie. game over, Paul is dead or detained for a dragged out and horrible end.
But I think it has nothing to do with Mick staying true to his word. He is an animal, has no word, and proved it when he got annoyed with Paul giving all the right answers to Australia History questions, and sawed off his fingers anyway.
I believe it can be one of 2 things, or a *beep* up combination of both.
The more plausible reason is that it's in fact the cruelest thing Mick could do. After the extreme horror he's been through, Paul's survival is just that. He will never "live" again: he's damaged to the core. And as another poster commented, it's also a manifestation of Mick's pride: Paul is alive only because HE let him, ultimate power. And it's reminder that Mick is the winner and Paul, the loser.
The other reason I thought of, which I'm finding increasingly unlikely as I'm writing this now, is that Mick genuinely kind of liked Paul. He was one of his more entertaining chases, and he enjoyed their little drinking/singing/Quiz session.
I'd love to hear if there are other theories. Very good movie.
"Chinese girls do not come with green eyes"
Greg McLean has said the film deals with Australian culture - from the mistrust of authority (Mick’s encounter with the cops at the start) to the history of the nation. Perhaps Mick wants his place in Australian iconography and releases Paul to tell the tale of what he has experienced and witnessed, which would also be a warning to tourists to stay out of Oz.
It’s also possible that Mick wanted to prolong Paul’s suffering by leaving him permanently maimed and mentally scarred. He loves to rape and mutilate women for as long as possible, but has little use for males, so maybe he wanted to inflict a fate worse than death on Paul.
Or perhaps he wanted a fall guy for any investigations into the trail of death and destruction we see in the film, so he handed them Paul, hoping he would be the only suspect.
Finally, Mick’s words were to the effect of ‘people like me eat people like you and shit you out, I’m a winner and you’re a...’ the note reads ‘Loser’. So maybe Mick ‘shit him out’ on the street, a permanently maimed and traumatised quivering mess.
I do think there is an element that he was looking for a patsy to keep the authorities off his trail.
I wonder as well, maybe because Paul was entertaining enough with his knowledge of Aussie culture that Mick was in a 'good mood', as much as a psycho can be, and let him go because of that. I say that because in those scenes, and from the TV series, there are times where he like a hyperactive child when he gets going with stuff that amuses him, and he let Paul go as one more joke, funny to him but sick, perverse and cruel to the rest of us.