The end of the movie

No Spoilers here.. copout by director.. with dismal word-of-mouth consequences.. fear = no courage = copout

The flipside, the characters do have courage, but they are fiction, the director, actors, writers are real, reality wins, the characters died, ceased or never lived (limbo)...

They died, the smugglers were just checking at the end, but the smuggler boat comes in after and this time with a cleaner..

How to come to the conclusion: Smilin' Jack gives them a first aid kit, but does not give them his flare gun, or any other survival gear other than his jacket (had no fear of cold, calm weather; so why fear losing the flair gun); presume the smugglers wanted them alive.. And Jumpin' Joe did say he did not believe Smilin' Jack about the radio..

This is why I believe Sayles (director) did not deliver what was in the script.. may be unscripted ending by writer also..

Actually, could care less, but for the director to abandon them; fine. I will only watch it once...

I've never been a big fan of Springsteen, but that haunting song he was singing as the closing credits began to roll after what I thought was the perfect ending had me still in my seat 5 minutes after the film was over.

The pessimistic side of me wanted to believe that Jack's intention was to bring the thugs with him and sell the three out. However, there are several compeling elements that make me rethink this.

1. The story of the diary. Surely that diary wasn't placed there just for entertainment purposes. There were too many mirrored emotions between the three castaways and those three lonely souls narrated within its pages. I think the story was there to give a chilling example of the lonliness and isolation of the Alaskan wilderness, but I also think that their fate will mirror the storyline as well. Not exactly...as I don't see Donna offing herself, but the idea is there that they will leave transformed. That the experience has rung them out both physically and emotionally.

2. Though Jack may participate in illegal trade, I can't see him killing the mother and child. His words to Joe about understanding the death of a brother, while not smacking of forgiveness, makes me feel like he wouldn't have too high a respect for the thugs that hired him. Maybe if Joe was the only one to die, then I can see Jack turning a blind eye, but to kill innocents as well just doesn't fit his personality. As for the radio being busted, I don't think it was true either, but he may have been trying to protect them by keeping their location and condition secret...or he may have been punishing Joe with the uncertainty of their fates.

This is what I think about the open ending: it is left open for individual determimation of what happens. Basically, the ending reveals what kind of person you are. Are you realistic, optimistic, or pessimistic?

Joe is the representation of being realistic. He weighs pros and cons and prepares for either outcome. Basically, he has doubts about Jack helping them because of his brother, but he still waits for the plane.

Donna is the representation of being optimistic. No matter what the situation, she forces herself to look on the bright side. Despite the bad blood between Joe and Jack, she cannot accept the fact that Jack could very well betray them. Also, she's somewhat justified because Jack would probably feel obligated not to bring back the drug dealers because the daughter is young and fragile and it would be heartless, especially to let her be killed.

Noelle is the representation of being pessimistic. She sees the dark side of every situation and does not recognize the positive. Her knowledge of the bad blood between Joe and Jack outweighs any good in Jack's character. Even if Jack seemed fairly trustworthy, Noelle knows that no matter what the situation, everything will turn out bad.

So, the final question of the ending is, what do you think will happen based upon what kind of person are you? Are you realistic, optimistic, or pessimistic? I'm realistic. To me, every situation has pros and cons and I would prepare for either outcome.

[deleted]

Upfront, I will say that I am a big fan of John Sayles work.

Overall I thought this was a good movie. The characters were complex and well developed. Great performances by all.

Now, my issue isn't necessarily with the film ending in "limbo". I certainly agree with other posters that the crux of the story is the characters and how they grow, not the rescue sub plot. But this is where I have a problem. The stranded/rescued sub plot was probably not the best way to go in the first place. There are certainly limitless other plot devices that could be used to bring about the necessary character growth and development (without alienating half of your audience).

It seems like he wrote himself into a corner since. By his own admission he didn't originally intend for he movie to end this way. So the ambiguous ending was really born out of convenience rather than being a well thought out artistic choice.

But hey, that's just my opinion. It doesn't lower my opinion of him as an auteur by one iota. I'll watch anything he writes.

Limbo is an incredible piece of cinema. The ending just evoked crazy emotion from me as well as the credit song. Engagingly poetic...

My Top Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/zM_VnsTTkAw/?publish=save

This is a pretty dead thread, but I use these boards for metadata about films, so want to add this. Of course ant thread titled 'end of the movie' will be spoiler filled.

I think what is happening here is exactly what Sayles wants, for us to review the antecedents, and try to anticipate the end of that scene. So much in the film is about pessimism and optimism, do we pretend, do we face facts? How 'fate' can crush us so we can sink into fear and expectation of the worst. But too how we can rise above.

When I do this review, it seems clear that it would not be the murderers, and I actually think that is Sayles' intention. He wants us to discover for ourselves that our fears are usually unfounded, that we cripple ourselves thinking the worst. While He has painted Jack as a player, every scene shows him being humane, and I suspect Kristofferson was cast for is likability. He says you gotta 'trust me on this', but if he could not be trusted, why would he be honest with Joe about why he's there? Donna says 'humor me' about her perception that he is not a killer, and that's exactly the space where Sayles wants us, trying the understand the balance between Donna's Pollyanna and Joe's Eyore. Just imagine their futures after their rescue, this awful thing will have completely redeemed all three. I honestly think he wants us to land on the side of hope.