Magnificent, interesting movie. But the ending? [SPOILER]

SPOILERS, OK?

Two things.

So, the arc of entire film has the conceit that he didn't get away and is being interrogated by the Russians. At the very end of the interview, they even allude to the fact that he (somehow) contributed to his first son's death. (You're led to assume that it's the car chase that leads to this fatality.)

But, at the end of the film, then we find out: No, he's in the USA and his interviewers, though Russian, are not his captors. It's never made clear exactly who they are and why they are interviewing him. Also, the American soldier salutes him, so he was apparently escorting these Russians around. (Why?)

As for his being responsible for his son's death, the Russians just meant the mere happenstance of his being in the US, some freak accident, took him out(?)

Yet then, as the movie ends, his SECOND son, on the way to the first anniversary of the first son's death, ALSO dies? Why did they do this to this perfectly nice film? Go and try to throw some super-bizarro ending at it?

I thought it was a greatly realized film, until the very end. The initial conceit that he did not escape was done rather well. But the ending? Well, perhaps they cut some scenes that would've had it make more sense (how _did_ the first son die?)

That being said, it's still better than most American films would be on the same subject. For example, Argo. All the false drama inserted by Affleck in Argo. But perhaps thats just me.


EDIT:

So, according to the wiki page on Kuklinski, the movie is trying to depict the fact thak Kuklinksi's 2 sons actually did die in the US, within a year of one another, in seemingly freak accidents (albeit not the one shown in the film).

In real life, one died in a boating accident, another by an unmarked truck hit-and-run. Involvement of the KGB, one way or the other, was never ruled out. If the movie was trying to communicate that level of intrigue, I completely missed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kukli%C5%84ski

The problem here is: here, truth was stranger than fiction. When I first saw the film, I didn't know his sons died, so I assumed the scene was added to, in some way, enhance the film's ending. However, this is a situation where they should've left this part out-- even though it has the benefit of being true. (Well, the two sons' dying is true; one son dying on the highway on the way to the first son's death's anniversary with the wreath in the backseat was certainly not. And it was the manufactured quality of this tableau that did not ring true, for me.)

I think a much better ending would've been for him to just simply walk out of the interview, show an intense closeup, then show him walking alone down the street, with some Washington, DC landmark in view. The epilogue reads that Brzezinski considered him the "first Polish officer of NATO" but that he was despised in his own country until recently. Then, mention that his two sons died, within a year of each other, under deeply mysterious circumstances. That is an epilogue that would kick you in the pants: he survived life in, and escape from, the Iron Curtain, but nevertheless suffered a fate akin to Greek tragedy after settling in the US. (I couldn't read the actual Polish epilogue and don't know if it approached this.)