MovieChat Forums > Fear X (2003) Discussion > This film made perfect sense to me.

This film made perfect sense to me.

posted 17 years ago by mellowinman
23 replies | jump to latest

Harry Caine's wife was killed by a cop who didn't mean to kill her, and was sorry.

Harry Caine went to Montana to find the killer, and find out why he killed his wife.

The cop (James Remar's character,) couldn't tell him why, because he was involved with some very heavy dudes, and it just wasn't information he could share.

So he planned on taking Harry Caine out and killing him, but he didn't.

He felt the humanity of the man who lost his wife, and all he could say was "I'm sorry."

Harry sort of freaked out, and hallucenated that he was stabbed, and bleeding, and this was all symbolic of the level of pain he felt over the senseless death of his wife. He was never stabbed, and never bled, and then some cops told him he never killed James Remar's character, because he didn't.

There was one freakout; one section of highly symbolic images, and other than that, it was a very straightforward movie.

Now, I'm not saying any of what I just said is the literal truth of the film. I'm saying that's what I just saw right now when I watched it.

I liked the acting, and I liked the cinematography. I liked the pacing, and the soundtrack. It was a good film.

I don't give a *beep* about the "ending," or "not ending," or anything. I felt the loss that Harry felt in losing his pregnant wife, and I understood that Harry is not a murderer, but he felt a DESIRE to kill a person who took her from him.

What's the question?

There's no question.

Good film. Definitely better than that poker movie I diss so badly in probably my only review on this site, whatever it was called, and definitely better than the Spiderman movies, or anything with Pauly Shore.

It's called a BRAIN. ~USE IT!

[–] petestubbs 17 years ago

I agree with you that this movie was quite straight forward.

Harry's wife really was killed accidentally by a cop that was on a mission to kill a corrupt police office. Clearly there is a organized group of cops that make it their mission to get rid of corruption in the police force.

Peter (the cop that killed his wife) is exteremly guilt ridden. He cannot even feel good about the award he recieved. He is paranoid that Harry will come find him and his family to seek revenge. When he finds out Harry is looking for his wife, he clearly breaks down cause strain on his relationship with his wife. He is a good man that made a mistake and feels really guilty about it.

I agree that Peter rented the house across the street for surveillance to ensure Henry did not find out the truth. Harry's vision of his wife going toward that house led him to investigate it.

At the end, Peter and Harry really did meet in the hotel (no reason to think otherwise). Peter went there to see what Harry knows and kill him if he knows too much. After the conversation they have in the room, Peter has decided he has to kill Harry.

Before they get in the elevator, Peter does stab Harry, but his guilt gets the better of him and he cannot finish killing him. Harry goes back up in the elevator and his rage explodes (thus the red flashes) and he kills Peter.

Harry wakes up in the hospital (because of the stab wound). The cops cover up his crime so that their mission to eliminate corrupt cops is not discovered. The man that you cannot see talking to the cops in the hospital is probably the judge from earlier in the movie. They realize that Harry is innocent. Even though he committed a murder, it was their own fault for killing his wife. When the cop tells him to forget the past and move on, he finally can grieve for his wife because he knows what happened and why she was killed (thus his crying fit).

At the end of the movie, we see that Harry is released and the cops let him go free. This is a "real" ending. I don't know why people are confused about this. I don't really see any "hidden" meanings to the film.

[–] mellowinman 17 years ago

I don't have a problem with any of that. In retrospect, your explanation is better than mine. That's probably about right.

It's called a BRAIN. ~USE IT!

[–] rivetbadtz 17 years ago

Just saw it again for the third time.

I think at the end of the film, the cops cover up the passion killing by Harry against Peter.

"Nothing to see here!"

Harry is baffled, but they convince him he didnt do anything.

Meanwhile, the death of peter ties up the loose ends that connect the cop cabal to the series of mall shootings.

My only question is why would Peter go to the trouble of renting out on a corporate account the house across the street to surveil Harry?

And did Harry begin work as security at the mall to catch the guy, or was he already working there?

[–] dpav3003 16 years ago

"My only question is why would Peter go to the trouble of renting out on a corporate account the house across the street to surveil Harry?"

That occurs to me too. It doesn't sound plausible. I guess it was a mechanism to put harry on to the killers trail.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

A little late, but Peter didn't rent out the house, the corrupt cop killer organization or whatever you call it must have had a dummy corporation set up, they rented the house for Peter.
OK, next, Peter wasn't looking at Harry, he was simply staying there while he did his cop killing stuff. It was just a coincidence.

[–] sthnglrl 17 years ago

"This is a "real" ending. I don't know why people are confused
about this. I don't really see any "hidden" meanings to the film."

To petestubbs

The part most people scratch their heads over is the David Lynch-esk "red" inserts and the drop-off of Harry to his vehicle in the abandoned plains. These make no sense and are oddly placed. Color ordinarily used to taunt (can be: red = anger, blue = moody, green = calm), this was not used well in this film.

I mean really, WHY put that nearly five minutes of a red Floyd electric show on the screen and not give the audience an understanding as to why... or why so friggin long? And the red, shiny floor - off the elevator - into a black hole of a hallway to nowhere? lol

Your explanations are clear-cut in your writing here though - you pretty much hit everything that I saw while watching this movie. But if anything could have been immproved upon, it would definitely be to SHOW MORE OF THIS STORYLINE... instead of what the Director claimed himself, that he intentionally left out the logical. So why? ???????

[–] petestubbs 17 years ago

Good point sthnglrl. By leaving out the important part of the story in place of the red flashes, the Director confused more people. I think the intention was to show how unstable Harry was while he was going through this ordeal. Notice how the red flashes throughout the movie always begin when the camera is focused on or near Harry's head. He is unstable and his "rage" is trying to escape.

The movie was unnecessarily slow and plodding. It seemed like the Director was trying to stretch the material and make it more interesting than the core story really was.

[–] sthnglrl 17 years ago

Completely agree with you Pete. Thanks for that about the "red flashes" and you're right, it did provide the visual for understanding his instability and his anger; guess the Director gave some good CGI.. LOL.

And I reviewed "that" part again (red) and you're right again! It does appear the camera is ON Harry and near his head. What a trip.

It was a stretch and exactly, not as interesting a story - certainly not deep enough to show... deep.

[–] little_joost 17 years ago

petestubbs, u nailed it!

[–] dpav3003 16 years ago

"Before they get in the elevator, Peter does stab Harry, but his guilt gets the better of him and he cannot finish killing him. Harry goes back up in the elevator and his rage explodes (thus the red flashes) and he kills Peter."

I think they tell him in the hospital that there was no evidence of a crime at the hotel so he must have never been stabbed - tough to cover that one up. He must have started to hallucinate before that. But when exactly?

I thought that maybe there was more going on with the drama between Peter and his wife. Maybe she just thought he was having an affair or bad work stress.

[–] dpav3003 16 years ago

Also, as if anyone is ever going to read this, what was with all insinuations by the cops when they are questioning Harry. What did they suspect?

[–] cities 16 years ago

I felt that the cops insinuations was that Harry killed one of they're fellow police officers, and that they had to except that they had to let him go, (idk but the one officer clearly looked very angry.) I also thought harry was shot not stabbed, wasnt there a gun shot durning that scene.

[–] brucedgo 16 years ago

I also thought harry was shot not stabbed, wasnt there a gun shot durning that scene.

There was definitely a gun shot. Is there some reason people are saying he was stabbed? Did I miss something?

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are"
-- Repo Man

[–] guyheath 16 years ago

I'm glad you didn't put anything like, "Harry was the Cop" or the white guy was this side of his personality and the black guy was that side to his personality! Because, the film comes across just has you have summarized.

[–] brucedgo 16 years ago

Harry sort of freaked out, and hallucenated that he was stabbed, and bleeding, and this was all symbolic of the level of pain he felt over the senseless death of his wife. He was never stabbed, and never bled, and then some cops told him he never killed James Remar's character, because he didn't.

Up to this point, your explanation totally agrees with what I saw, or at least think I saw. (except for being stabbed. He was ostensibly shot).

But you say this was symbolic? I don't see that. Up to that point, the whole movie was pretty straightforward, and I might add, riveting. I was loving it. But from the "red" special effects onward, I didn't know what they were trying to say.

I read a post which leads me to believe that perhaps he wanted to kill the guy and then either did or thought he did (I have no way of knowing which). As great as the movie was up to then, I was greatly disappointed after that. I kind of wish I had never seen the rest of it, so that I could just go on thinking it was a great film.

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are"
-- Repo Man

[–] oldmotem 16 years ago

I just re-saw this film. There was no stab. Many people seem to have seen a stabbing. In the version I saw, he was shot by James Remar's character (great actor as is Turturro), the gun being clearly shown for a while. And the shot could be heard as well.

But, with so many people seeing a stabbing, I guess that shows how good a movie it was because the director seems to have people seeing different things!
I doubt there were two different versions of that scene.

Good film, not great. Slow and deliberate. Interesting fanciful scenes. I just wish I had a clue as to how Harry killed Peter. Guess you're all correct in that he actually didn't. The cops just wanted to escort Harry out of town as quickly as possible after his recovery. Which probably is where Part Deux will begin. With Harry wanting to make sure....etc. :^)

Good opening scene (closed-in snow) and closing scene (open fields). Nice.

[–] jorgddh 16 years ago

Boy I was wondering what was all the thing about "stabbing". I heard a shot too.

I think Refn could have had the ending open to viewers. One could think Turturro didn't or did kill Remar. I think he killed him, because:

- The character repeats sometimes the line "I'm not a killer". This is like a mantra which is tested till the end for some reason. Turturro crying at the end could be interpreted as pure despair because he will never know why his wife was murdered, or just because he remembered killing Remar.

- The conspirancy theme is present at the end in the hospital: we see the cop talking to someone we don't see. Who is this? It could be Remar, who is alive, and is letting Tuturro go because of guilt? Or Remar is dead, and the mysterious person is one of his bosses who wants to clean it all up?

Anyway, I think the movie works with both interpretations. "Bronson" will be awesome.

[–] polysicsarebest 12 years ago

Yeah, this is a great film, deeply engrossing and made perfect sense. Most viewers are apparently not very smart, or just didn't know what they were getting into with this film.

The blood scene was amazing. 10/10 movie.

-
Shuji Terayama forever.

[–] ThreeSadTigers 12 years ago

I took it to be a metaphor for the way people watch films. Harry studies the tapes and images and invents his own story, connecting the dots and the characters to different events, the way an audience might when watching a movie. Because he's delusional, he connects it in a way that doesn't really fit the reality. His interpretation of the images is coloured by his own personal perspective (his subjective thoughts and feelings) again, much like an audience when watching a film.

My own take on the film is that Harry's wife is killed in a random attack. The police have a suspect but haven't been able to prosecute. Because the police are antagonistic towards Harry, he starts to see the police as the villains behind his wife's death. Because he's delusional, he becomes obsessed with the house across the street. Here he finds the photograph that leads him back to Montana, which corresponds to a memory he has from when his wife was still alive. This leads him to the detective and his own wife and son.

My sense is that Harry's wife had an affair with the detective while he was living across the street, possibly there for work related reasons. This is why the detective is so freaked out by the revelation that Harry is looking for him, and why he is so apologetic to his own wife.

I think everything that happens in the hotel is part of Harry's delusion. The detective never comes to meet him. Harry simply snaps and imagines a plausible revenge scenario, complete with intricate conspiracy (which again corresponds to something the detectives said earlier in the film when discussing Harry's wife). The bafflement of the police at the end is genuine. Harry realises that what happened can't be rationalised, like in a movie. For the first time he's faced with the reality as what it is.

[–] G-Hova_Meteor 12 years ago

I have become somewhat obsessed with Refn's films as of late and having just watched FEAR X for the first time today I really wanted to know how others interpreted the film. I just wanted to say thanks. I wish I could reply and say thanks to ALL THE USERS who were involved in this message board. It's all to often that the boards are overpopulated with the vast majority of psuedo-intellectual hate-mongering "AMERICAN MOVIE-GOERS" who don't actually have anything productive to say. So once again thanks, thanks for posting a real thought.

I have to go...I have some videotapes to return.

[–] costelloband 11 years ago

It's all to often that the boards are overpopulated with the vast majority of psuedo-intellectual hate-mongering "AMERICAN MOVIE-GOERS"

Care to elaborate on this statement? I don't really see what nationality has to do with anything. There are mindless blowhards from every country on earth. Yes, America included. I have read just as much vitriolic garbage on these boards from Europeans as I have from Americans.

BTW, great flick. The director certainly left room to interpret the final act in more than one way. The beauty of it was that I found either direction to be equally compelling.

[–] WarpedRecord 11 years ago

That was my interpretation of the film as well, and I think the cast handled it quite well – especially John Turturro, who is always excellent. This is more a mood piece than a conventional thriller or mystery, and it builds that tension well. 7/10 stars from me.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

Ya, but he wasn't stabbed, he was shot, you could clearly hear the gunshot, and Peter had the gun in his hand as pushed Harry into the elevator he raised it at Harry but doesn't
fire again. You clearly see Harry checking his back for an exit wound.
Why you think it wasn't real is strange, since he was clearly in the HOSPITAL laying on his side. Do you think they admit someone for no reason??