So he dropped the kid off in the desert. Was he marooning him out in the middle of nowhere to die a slow death, as revenge? Did he drop him off near the border so that he could sneak into the US and start a new life?
Vague possible endings like that, with totally opposite meanings, are frustrating. Is it just me or is that not super ambiguous storytelling...?
He dropped him off with indifference. From the beginning he was doing everything he could to win the kid over and get himself home. We see this with clarity in the closing shot, him eating breakfast served by his very much alive wife.
Note: you should throw a spoiler alert in your post title.
The impostor's back where he belongs. Let's forget him.share
titling & speaking about the final scene is a spoiler alert , no need more.
Pay more attention. That was his wife which he said was dead, twice. So he was well versed enough at lying to trick the kid. He owed the kid for keeping him alive, treating him decently (under the circumstances), and most importantly, saving his life. But the kid was a target and a liability, plus he had already returned the favor for saving his life, so the debt was paid and he could go home like he wanted. He dropped him off safely so that no one else would see them together, from there on its not his problem.
"This is What You Want... This is What You Get"
Wasn't that scene at the kitchen about the last interaction he had with his wife, the day she died? He told the boy his wife died from a stroke at the store, when she went back to bring the beer she had forgotten. I think it's a flashback to show how detached they were at the time. Something he might feel remorseful about.
shareNope, no flashback. It's as lone-foxx stated, he got the partially healed wound underneath his eye.
shareit's so obvious that he was lying. Remember in the car when he was still taped? After he told the kid that his wife died out of stroke, the boy also asked him do you have sons, and he said no, because they couldn't. while in the end, we can hear the conversation about dropping off and picking up their boy. so.....
shareExcept at the end during the credits rolling.. he asks his wife to go get beer? Maybe she did die after all?
"I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
No. I think it was just to highlight he weaves truth with lies when talking about his wife to the kid.
shareLooked to me like he dropped him off somewhere safe-ish, because the alternative was to either arrest him or take him back to the Mexican town where no doubt he'd be iced by the gang he'd worked for.
And I disagree re. the 'wife' explanation - that woman was Greta from the gun show, not his wife. Another clue is that her surname in the credits isn't Harris.
His wife was NOT Greta, not even similar... (Missing credits here on IMDB, but the wife was played by Nailea Norvind.)
Also, they talked about dropping a son off to school, again a contrast with that moment when Arni asked if Harris had sons.
In the credits, Harris' wife is credited. And while they are kinda similar, they are not the same person if you look close enough. And there is the eye injury he sustained in Mexico.
So yeah, he lied to the boy.
He did not drop the boy off near the border so that the boy could sneak in the US and start a new life.
He really dropped the boy off in the middle of nowhere, in harsh desert. The boy has no food or water. He has no compass. He’s nowhere near civilization. It looks like they were off road too. The camera shows Roth drive for a while to get to that spot, so the viewer should assume it’s very isolated.
Roth’s facial expression suggested indifference and scorn, not sympathy. The revelation that his wife is alive and he has children signifies that Roth is a liar; that the whole episode with the boy was just a ploy that he played to get out alive.
All of the above means he 100% left that boy out there to die.
Ok but if he was so bent on getting out alive why didn't he let the border guard take the kid?
share