How did it end?

I too feel the ending was somewhat abrupt, too ok-let's-go-home-and-sort-it-all-out-The-End. I think you're kept guessing about Johnny's character throughout but never really find out either way.

I can clearly picture your Hitchcockian ending - ah yes, cliffs again! - but if it had been that way, wouldn't you have felt cheated because it was all just a bit too predictable?


With teeth like that I could have devoured all of Paris. And most of Europe.

[deleted]

He was supposed to kill her. Specifically, the milk IS poisoned, she writes a letter to her mother saying that she has been killed by her husband but let it happen because she didn't want to live without him. He mails the letter and can't escape.

The movie ends with a contrived happy ending to please the studio execs and Cary Grant's image.

There were 2 other possible endings that I know of.

The ending of the book has Johnnie being guilty of everything he is suspected of (and much more - like Lina's father's death). However, throughout the book, Lina was covering up for him with her mother/child psychology idea of "if I make it okay this time, he won't do it again." Johnnie kills her (I think with poisoned milk - I forget) and she does leave a letter behind... it is a suicide note. Lina knew he was going to kill her, but covered up for him as she had been doing all along. Because of the Hayes Code, a murderer could not escape unpunished, so I don't think that was ever considered for the film.

Hitchcock's planned ending was to have Johnnie kill Lina and smugly mail her letter, not knowing that the letter was about her suspicions that he was trying to kill her. Personally, I wish these scenes had been shot, so that they could have been re-edited into the film in DVD releases and give us a much more satisfactory ending!

As the ending stands, it is kind of like having a balloon blown up with the suspense of waiting for it to burst, only to have the blower let it go and the air fizzle out. It also leaves a lot of loose ends... like most of his behavior during the film and what really happened to Beaky.

You can also see the ending as still being open. Nothing about the conclusion is really resolved. His driving too fast and making the sudden swing left then right(why?) and is he trying to push her or help her. The drink is not touched is it poisoned? Beaky says he can make a story for anything earlier on. Here he knows she knows something(enough to suspect him of murder) so he comes clean on everything with a simple(keep it simple) story of where he was, the insurance, etc. Covering all his bases and giving enough viability to someone who can't help but believe him as she can't deny him just like Isabel. It is out of his character to come clean and do his time. It is within character to come clean and regain her confidence and go back for a little drinky poo and aggghhh! insurance and clean debt and free to continue in the lifestyle he has become accustomed to.

Just finished watching this for the first time. While the ending was abrupt, I found it purposefully ambiguous. My opinion is Hitch fooled everyone at the studio - and even much of the audience, apparently.

I think he pulled a double-switch, and here's why: Lina changes her mind about Johnnie on the side of the road and they get back into the car; he is still telling her 'No, I won't stay with you.' They start driving and we're led to believe they're continuing on to her mother's house. But wait... the car swings nearer the cliff... are they going over? No! They're turning around, and the happy resolution music swells - he must have changed his mind - they're staying together! That's the 'happy ending' the studio wanted: Johnnie's not guilty and the marriage survives. It was all just a bad dream... and I think this is where most people stop paying attention.

But wait again... the camera cuts in closer as they drive away from us... we can't see their faces... Johnnie raises his left arm, slowly wraps it around Lina's shoulders... just like a spider! He's IS completely guilty, but such a slippery liar that he got Lina to apologize to him and stay trapped in his web! Even though the music remains 'happy', this one subtle gesture changes the ENTIRE ending tone.

IMO, Hitch got what he wanted: the killer gets away, and the studio was none the wiser. And even if the audience misses it, you're still left with a creepy, ambiguous ending... which is nearly as good.

There is no idea so grand that you cannot find a fool who supports it. - Niven

Ok, the ending is not ambiguous at all, Cary Grant is the murderer for the following reasons:

He is seen "checking" the door at the beginning of the final scene.
He takes a "shortcut" that swings along the cliff while going over 60 MPH.
He can be seen shoving Lena towards the door, not pulling her back in.
Also notice grants demenor when he admits that he was going to kill himself with the glass of milk - hardly a convincing portrayal of a man that was going to kill himself.

These reasons coupled with the knowledge that hitch wanted to have cary grant mail a letter that imcriminated himself, convinces me that Cary grant is indeed a murderer.

Thants great that old Hitch gave hollywood what they wanted, but left the ending up to interpretation. He really snuck that by in this film. Hitch's original ending would have been better, but the ending that was used, was in my opinion, almost as good. This is one of hitchcocks underrated films. See it if you haven't yet

I just watched it and I have never felt more frustrated. Here was the possibility of making an immensely powerful film which was watered down due to studio pressure. I couldn't believe my eyes when the film ended the way it did. Grant should have been shown to be guilty of whatever his wife suspected him of. According to me the wife should have been murdered and Grant should have gotten away with it. Now that... would be memorable.