MovieChat Forums > Kill or Be Killed (2016) Discussion > The end? (SPOILERS)

The end? (SPOILERS)

posted 8 years ago by Stovepipe99
11 replies | jump to latest

Yeah, I know that this is lazy, but I'm not in the mood to go scrolling through the movie again.

I watched about half of this movie, fell asleep, and finished it the next day.

But I think that I must have missed a critical detail.

Who were the boys who were killing the outlaws? Was it the sons of the couple from the very beginning (where the guy drugs them and is going to murder them)? We see one of the boys in the cellar or something, right? I know that he pulls out the picture at the end of the man with the two boys--how did that picture come into play?

I guess I'm partly confused because I thought I remembered the main character saying something about twins earlier in the movie.

I must have missed more than I thought as I was getting sleepy. The movie was barely passable, but I have no desire to revisit it. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

[–] alumni72 8 years ago

To be honest, I stayed wide awake for the entire movie and I can't explain the ending either. (And I must have missed the comment about twins, too.)

This is an absolute guess - so if I'm right or even close, that doesn't make me smart; and if I'm wrong then somebody smarter can PLEASE explain it!!

The guy in the beginning (Boarders welcome) who killed the man with the overhead gun, and then threw his wife into the cellar with the one son (that we could see) was apparently either drugging or poisoning the soup; I'm assuming the drug/poison he was using came from the coral snake we kept seeing - and so was the poison the kid at the end had been stamping onto his victims with that greenish-yellow circular mark. Although if that's indicative of snake venom, wouldn't anybody who had ANY experience living out of doors, like an outlaw, sheriff, etc recognize it as such? And that still doesn't explain the grisly way they tended to die, or get mutilated - a railroad spike, drained of blood, throat slit and tongue pulled through the cut (that one was look-away nasty).
And how did he manage to follow them without a horse, especially at the end when he clearly had to have been bouncing back and forth between Pearl and Claude in order to be able to dump both of them in the well?
And why was he hounding this gang in particular? Revenge for killing his father, who kept him locked in the cellar? Not a really convincing motivation.

The movie raised a lot of questions and didn't manage to answer any of them.

[–] slapseventeen 8 years ago

My take is that the killer(s) were definitely the TWIN sons of the Rudy character, who robbed/killed the boarder in his home early in the movie. His wife says to him "what about your sons?" We see one of the twins at the bottom of the cellar, so the second one had to have let him out after the gang left their house. And the picture from the ending shows two boys in it with Rudy, and we see the second (dead) twin draped over the horse at the very end too. That's how they were able to get both Claude and Pearl in the well was because they split up? That's how I interpreted it anyway. As for the poison, it looks like the kids were injecting them with some sort of snake venom or whatever their dad was using in the soup. I noticed the twin that Claude kills is holding the same animal skin bag that Rudy (his dad) had in the earlier scene. So that's my guess. Then, after they were put asleep or dead or whatever by the poison, they went in to "cut" them up. I have no idea what their motivation was either. It wasn't clear. I think what they were going for was that there was NO motivation - the twins were just ultimate evil (I mean look at who brought them up!). Otherwise why didn't the last twin standing take the money at the end? Wasn't motivated by that apparently.

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

Okay--thanks so much you guys!

The father was so horrible that it didn't really make sense to me that the sons would go out of their way to avenge his death (especially after the father killed the mother!).

The way that the lighting was done at the end and the dreams that the main character kept having made me wonder if he was supposed to be haunted by like ghosts of someone he'd killed in the past.

[–] slapseventeen 8 years ago

I actually watched it a second time and noticed a lot of things I missed. Here's a theory: Claude mentions to Pearl that he has a twin brother, and that his mom ran them off at a young age. Rudy's wife, who gets thrown in the cellar, is referred to as "divorced" by Rudy before he kills her. Rudy's wife was wearing a key around her neck in that scene. Claude later mentions something about a jewelry box that his mom has the key to. Could it be that Rudy's wife is Claude's mother? And that he's actually the half brother of the evil killer twins?? Just a thought!

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

Claude mentions to Pearl that he has a twin brother

See, I was pretty sure I remembered Claude mentioning that he was a twin!

So I sort of had this idea that maybe Claude was being haunted by the spirit of his dead brother (the man with glowing eyes in the dream), and that somehow the younger versions of himself and his brother had manifested themselves as twins.

Going off of what you discovered (and bless you for watching it again--I would not be so inclined), it's definitely true that twins run in families. I could see how the movie would show it to be ironic that basically the only time the outlaws weren't being jerks/murderers, it actually ends up with them being hunted and killed. And then it's extra ironic if Claude unknowingly avenged his mother's death (by killing the abusive husband), only to fall victim to his half-brothers' revenge.

It wasn't that the movie didn't have any good ideas--but I feel like it executed many of them pretty poorly.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slapseventeen 8 years ago

You know, honestly, I didn't care much for it on first watch. But I was intrigued enough to try it again, and I enjoyed it twice as much the second time. It grew on me, and I've enjoyed dissecting all the layers. I really like your idea about the ghostly twins -- far out! Either way, the irony here is pretty cool. I like how mother nature ultimately trumps all evil at the end, no matter how great.

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

Well, my issues with the movie would probably not be resolved on a rewatch.

To begin with, I didn't find the main characters particularly interesting. I didn't mind that they were anit-heroes, but they weren't very well developed. They were all like the idea of a character, and many of them kind of stereotypical: the "juju" obsessed superstitious black man; the sassy prostitute; the guy who quotes scripture but also rapes/kills young girls (how ironic!).

The movie gave a lot of time to flashbacks of the town where they killed the men, and also to the bounty hunters hunting them. But the scene where they are confronted by the bounty hunters was pretty anti-climactic.

I didn't think that the actors had particularly great chemistry with each other--it was more like they were playing their own parts and not "existing" in the same space. I feel like the one exception to this was when the one guy was shot and leaning on the tree while Claude was taking care of him. They had decent chemistry, but everyone else was just kind of off in their own little worlds.

Claude is haunted by these dreams, and yet we never find out any reasoning behind them. There's the mystery of who is killing them off, and yet they never realize that maybe only having one person (or nobody!) keeping watch is a bad idea.

I wish that the movie had picked one idea--outlaws being hunted by mysterious evil; outlaws trying to reclaim previously stolen loot; outlaws being led by a man who is slowly losing it due to nightmares. For a while I thought that Claude was killing his companions in his sleep.

[–] slapseventeen 8 years ago

All valid points, to be sure. The main two lead actors were the best in the film, agreed. It certainly had an uneven tone, and left several loose ends. Like you said, the dreams Claude has are never explained. The only thing I could come up with is that he has these nightmares when the twin(s) are very close to him while he's sleeping - but I know that's a stretch. Either way, I found the movie to have a certain charm, and it was a fun watch overall for me, especially the second time.

[–] Stovepipe99 8 years ago

The only thing I could come up with is that he has these nightmares when the twin(s) are very close to him while he's sleeping - but I know that's a stretch.

See--that's kind of interesting. But I feel like the movie could have had even just one moment (such as when he first sees the one twin if he then had a flash and saw his "evil" self) to show that reasoning.

I know what you mean about the charm of the movie, but I felt like it got weaker as it went along. The murders were gory, I'll grant them that, but when you don't really care about characters it has a lot less impact.

I appreciate the challenges of making a movie on a tight budget--but I think that a lot of what I didn't like ties pretty directly in to the writing and the lack of character development.

I think that it's also unfortunate that I watched this movie seeing it classified as a horror film. I mean, I get why it might be called that--and I know that the filmmakers don't necessarily have a say in how their movie is marketed/presented. But to me there were few genuinely scary parts and gruesome deaths aren't enough for me to think of something as being horror. I was also kind of put off by the random scene of the woman being attacked (and her top pulled off, naturally) out in the middle of nowhere. It felt like the movie was mostly counting on cheap shocks/stimulation for effect.

When it comes down to it, the twin angle is the most interesting part of the movie--and it's saved for literally the last five minutes.

I'd have liked it more if they'd gone a little more bonkers with it--like if Claude had seen one of the twins. You mention the possibility of them being related--well what if the resemblance to Claude's younger self convinced him that it was the ghost of his dead brother or something? I just wanted a little more oomph.

[–] slapseventeen 8 years ago

Yes, it certainly could've gone deeper with some of these ideas. I didn't see it as a horror movie at all, really. I'd just call it a dark Western. Edgy Western. Something like that. It had horror "elements" I suppose, but that's not what defines it in my mind. I got curious earlier and listened to an interview with the filmmakers. They mentioned that the DVD had 17 minutes of extra scenes and a commentary. So I couldn't help myself but to snag a used one for 6 bucks. If it sheds any further light I'll be sure to post!