Um... What?
I was waiting for the big reveal or plot twist and now I'm stumped.
Help?
What do you mean? It was pretty obvious what the plot twist was.
share
MovieChat Forums > Mercy (2016) Discussion > Um... What?
Spoilers Obviously-
This is my guess because I think that the presentation was a little muddled, but....
Church members take the mother and then, in the last shot of the film, kill the remaining brother so that the organization receives the complete inheritance.
I probably should watch it again, but it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can't
Church members take the mother and then, in the last shot of the film, kill the remaining brother so that the organization receives the complete inheritance.
No...watch the last 10 minutes of the movie. They gave her the CURE. The church didn't care about the money. They were saving her life. The family wanted her to die for the money.
We all enjoy the maddness 'cuz we know we're gonna fade awayshare
Spoilers
The family did not want to let her get the meds because it was a cure for her illness, not an end to her life. They were hoping she would die, so they could get the inheritance. Even the brother we thought was "nice," and his girlfriend let us know at the very end that he wanted the money and wouldn't give it up. The church people wanted to help her get better, because they actually cared about her. Not the money. When she gets the meds, she recovers very fast, and they take her with them. Before leaving she gives her son a reproachful look, because she knew he also didn't care for her. The doctor kills the last son so they don't have any witnesses of the killings. In a nutshell, her family sucks.
Thanks for the explanation. I was really confused at the end of the movie especially when the doctor is last seen crying when the mother recovers. So even the nice son wanted her to die. Wow...
To do is to be - Socrates
To be is to do - Descartes
Do be do be - Sinatra
Uh, yeah, the "church" really cared. How many people died just so they could get one really old member back after 30+ years? The "church" in this movie was clearly depicted as an extremely zealous and delusional cult - which immediately negated any benevolence intended by the film-makers.
And if you recall Brad Sr. - her first husband was part of this cult and was abusive and was the one from whom she inherited the money over which the characters are squabbling. The televangelical style video from 1982 that the one brother watches shows her to have nosebleeds and bruises from him. She even states in the video as a sales pitch for the cult that they are lawyers, doctors, and school teachers that band together in overwrought culty ways to protect their own kind. Yeah, apparently even long after members have escaped the mental and physical grip of abusers in and associated with the organization. There is a clear-cut reason that she fled this "church" and that husband: the cult absolutely did not protect her back then from him, or they would have expelled him and she would have remained in their creepy fold. But wait, she didn't divorce him because how did she inherit his money? So she stayed with him but also left the church? Or she left him and the church and still inherited his riches? Or did the church do away with him and let her go after she got a big fat check? This loose-end is kinda important. Nevertheless, this cult was all talk about protecting and maintaining the flock until a Netflix movie had to be made.
Moreover, she clearly married the same caliber dirtbag the second time around - because he sure wasn't depicted as a supportive and caring prize himself. So where was the cult to protect here from the second husband? I mean, why else would they keep tabs on her new situation since leaving them because they certainly couldn't do anything about her old situation. Super-caring bunch of creepy stalkers. Until now. When she might be dying and the creepy cult knows exactly of what. But her own doctors don't? I mean someone prescribed all that expensive home-care medical equipment and diagnosed her. But they are not going to report the family to the authorities when they refuse viable medical treatments for an invalid with a sizeable fortune? Okay. Well, good thing she belonged to a wacky religious sect three decades ago. Here they come to save the day.
And because of the movie's "twist", the title - which was prominently burned into the lawn as a threat/message - becomes meaningless and makes ZERO sense. Were the masked do-gooder Samaritans offering the other characters mercy? And from what, accidentally being killed by their zany trespassing hijinx?! They weren't exactly the menacing bogeymen the movie wanted us to believe before it nuked the fridge. I don't know, maybe Mercy was the mother's hippie Manson family name or something.
I hate movies that try to surprise us and just expose themselves as ridiculous with their failed, pretentious and specious attempts at being clever.
Let's see who takes the bait.
"Approved for experimental use under the Medically Ethical Recovery Care (Mercy) Act for seriously ill patients" is written on the sheet for the medicine
shareYou're hell-bent on hating this movie just because, it seems.
Nowhere is stated at any point that the first husband was a church member, at all. If anything, the videotape talk makes it look like he's someone they're not close to and have no sympathy for.
The second husband acts as a complete *beep* as far as WE can see now that her wife is out cold the entire time, but we don't know how he treated her before that. Scumbags are really good at showing different faces in different situations, way better than normal folks as they're more adept at lying.
We see no evidence at all of marital violence, either.
Also, as someone mentions, the cure was experimental. We have no reasons to believe that the doctors who treat her don't know about the cure or haven't advised the family to try it. But if you don't want to -or you're impeded and your family, speaking for you as per the Law, doesn't want to- try that cure, you won't get it. Simple as that.
You're taking narrative ellipsis and using it to fabricate reasons to hate this movie. It's fine if you don't like it, different tastes/to each its own and all, but speaking as a professional of a different narrative media I think that each work of fiction should stand on its own real merits or fall by its own faults, not be pushed or beat to the ground by the capricious swifts of mood of people too enamored of their own bias to even consider objectivity as little more than an odd entry in the thesaurus.