The end of the movie??
What was the thing with Adam2 getting "dragged" into the closet by someone/something? I cant figure out eve a half possible reason..
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Godsend (2004) Discussion > The end of the movie??
Maybe I am giving the movie makers too much credit here, but I think the
hand pulling Adam2 into the closet was a way to represent Adam2 not having
overcome his problems. He was still paranoid, the screetchy, muted sounds
that Adam2 heard were audio halucinations, etc. The ending pretty much meant
nothing was solved, nothing was fixed, you can move from one house to the next
all you want ... but the problem is in the person, not the surroundings.
This is who we are
-TSF
That made sense BUT when i saw Adam2 get dragged into the closet, i was only thinking one thing.. Something wrong with the house..
share[deleted]
Well, I thought it was the Doctor (Richard) hiding in the house and giving "Zachary" a verbal memory booster.
Remember, there were news clipping saying that the doctor had disappeared. He could very well have followed the Duncans so that he could still be close to his "son."
Hey. Sorry but this sorta caught my attention buddy. You should have put the quotes around "his" at the end of that sentance there, not "son," come on.
"Every living creature on earth dies alone."
~Donnie Darko
<sigh>
Like you should check your spelling?
Or put a comma after "Sorry" in the second sentence?
Or put a comma after "attention" in the same sentence.
Come on, Tspeedracr . . . we're here to discuss movies -- not to correct punctuation.
Sheesh!
And yes, it did take me 5 years to address this. <smile>
Hehe They could transition from a psychological thriller into a standard horror picture, eh? They can switch genres entirely since they couldn't think of how to resolve the plot. Hmmm, what can we do here? I know! Let's just make the house inhabited by some evil something-or-other that can grab the kid and pull him into the closet.
shareFlanders, that's as good an explanation as any. It was all in his mind, although the way it was shown made it look like it had actually happened since if it WAS all in his mind, he wouldn't have seen himself from the outside like that. Of course, that's how those kinds of things usually are represented in movies. The same thing with memories or dreams. Who remembers seeing themselves in a memory or a dream? It's from your POV, not from the outside. But that's probably a little trickier so writers and/or directors don't even bother with it.
shareThis movie was a complete waste of time and talent. De Niro's has been wasted a lot lately (except in Hide and seek which I liked in a popcorn-movie sort of way)and I had just gotten to appreciate Greg Kinnear for his work. This is one of the most drab, pointless and sluggish films I've had the misfortune to sit through. Not to mention clichéd. Haunted kids seem to be de rigeur nowadays and the idea is getting stale. Maybe it's not such a bad idea to remake Nippon-movies after all!
shareI'm with you guys. That ending was SO RETARDED. The movie really didn't resolve anything! By the way, how does a high school biology teacher and a photographer afford such a huge friggn house??
shareThis movie was pretty confusing... I was thinking the same thing at the end. I personally think it was one of the school kids still haunting him. So at the end, we were thinking that there's probably gonna be a sequal now.. oh btw, who is Roy and how did he drown in the river???
shareThe end of the movie was lame. It's basically saying that Zach is still inside him. It's not the house or anything, it's the same problem that he had through the whole movie.
shareI too found the whole ending rather silly myself...before he gets dragged in, the only suggestion that he was in some way cured was like two scenes before in the barn. That was pretty much the gist of the whole film, he kept goin from normal to strange to normal to strange...the ending was right back to strange...it's as if at a point the film the makers decided that it was time to finish the story and left him on the strange note.
shareThe movie should have been named Godawful...
Robert
New Orleans, LA, USA
The doc provided them with the house :-)
sharei thought the ending was the original kid didnt really die from the looks of the jacket that thing or person was wearing in the closet but my dumba** is probably wrong.
shareI just think the filmmakers wanted to further confuse us...if that was possible at this point.
shareThe ending was a fake ass wannabe Phantasm. All they needed was the Tall Man to appear saying "BOY!!!" and it would have been the exact same *beep*
sharethe ending was just sayin that Zachary wasn't finished with Adam yet at least thats wat i got out of it
*~*Love_is_suicide*~*
if you look at the arms, they look bloody/injured and Zach's jacket is seen. it was supposed to be symbolic of Zach having a "hold" (if you will) on Adam.
www.myspace.com/poetessbynight
I think the arms were getting sick of the sh*t acting and decided to drag the little bast@rd off the screen before he bored us to death.
shareHehe that's quite funny! But seriously, I think it was that he wasn't rid of Zach, and he was back to evil Adam at the very end. The ending bugged the hell out of me, in fact most of the film did!
How predictable was it that the Doctor was the father of Zach?!?! Why did he not seem bothered that Zach KILLED HIS WIFE?!?! And how the heck did Paul get back home so dam fast, with not a drop of blood visible (when we last saw him he was bleeding such a lot!)
I think it's a shame how this movie turned out - the idea of genetic manipulation and cloning is such an interesting concept and they just blew it! I think the plot would have been better if they went more with the idea of Adam remembering his death, rather than have him switching between evil Zach and little Adam.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Except the whole other appearing disappearing act thing little Adam does while standing in front the closet grabbed by the bloody female arm. Daddy comes into the room and clearly Adam is not in it, then when he opens the closet Adam is behind him.
So the "theory" is when Adam is having his Zachmoments in his mind, his body and soul "disappear" from the corporeal world, and into some ether dimension, although only SOME of the time.
So apparently the bloody Paul can also exhibit things like "blood disappearing".... (not that it makes any sense - these are the common errors in the filming that I think made people frustrated with the film )
For instance, Adam also has the mind psych episodes in front of his parents, and doesn't disappear and then reappear later at those moments. ( big inconsistency)
There's this other aspect too, when Adam is in his psycho trance, and he's actually Zach or Adam the first - who knows - walking down by the river behind that kid fishing before he pushes him in and drowns him - but the kid turns around as the twigs are crunching underfoot - and NOONE is there - the "etheral" Adam or Zach is "there" but invisible...
So there's this kind of goofy visible/invisible inconsistency...
Is it "psyhchic power" that can move things in the real world, is it " the change of the psychical structure" of atoms or matter due to the cloning , or a sort of ghost ectoplasm control -
It never really is clearto me,and I don't feel like watching it again, to sort it all out - just in case there is some consistency... ( maybe Adam goes invisible when he's in "Zach mind" mode ? or only when he's in his former Adam mind ? - then reappears at the spot he was at, at the time the last person saw him ? )
If there is a "rule to it" I'd sure like to know it, but I suspect it's just "sloppy".
I think the ending is another way of saying Zachary is back
share[deleted]