MovieChat Forums > Salinui chueok (2003) Discussion > What Do You Think The Ending Means when ...

What Do You Think The Ending Means when He's talking To The Girl?


I'm no really sure, can someone give their interpretation

reply

Two things

1.The killer always return to the scene.So he was there before the cop.

2.It doesnt matter anymore who's the killer.Thats why the girl didnt remenber his face. "He was quiet ordinary". The meaning of 'We are all the same', like at the beginning when the two cops where discussing if they could recognise who was the murderer and whos the brother of the woman.

The ending was like asking the audience, WHY do they do this? Whats the point? We are all the same.

reply

It could mean a couple of things.

It could show that all those years later, he is still just one step behind the killer.

It could mean that someone else involved with the case has become so wrapped up in it to the extent that a decade and a half later they also return to the scene of the crime. Hardly that profound!

It could be making the obvious point that sometimes the worst serial killers just look ordinary

In my opinion, the ending was the worst part of this movie. They should have left it out entirely.

reply

Generally, when a person is driven to commit multiple murders like in this movie, the only reason he quits is that he is caught or something happens to him that makes it impossible for him to continue.

And to the peron who stated that the ending was the worst part of the film and shouldn't have been included, you couldn't be more wrong!

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it!

reply

Generally, when a person is driven to commit multiple murders like in this movie, the only reason he quits is that he is caught or something happens to him that makes it impossible for him to continue.

Yup. So if the real killer stopped in 1991, he was probably killed, or imprisoned for some other crime, or was incapacitated in some way.

reply

The filmmakers have managed to create the same sense of confusion, frustration and anger that those involved in the real investigation must have felt and an ending like this keeps the audience guessing and discussing theories. It is left open just like the real case.

When Doo-man looks into the camera with his shaman eyes, he is looking out at the audience. He is looking at all of the "ordinary" people out there in the movie theaters. The killer is out there and he may be sitting beside you. The fourth wall comes crashing down and the investigation is handed over from the movie to real life.

reply

SPOILERS!
Well, is normal read replies talking about the importance of the story over the murderer. But it's so obvious... so obvious that is absolutely unnecesary tell who is the killer in the end of the movie. Look the clues. When the song started in the police office, who is the only one that is not there?, In the interview room with the suspect, who is the only one that goes crazy when the song starts?, After the expulsion of "that officer" from the interrogation room, did you note how "he" looses control in the bar? and when the protagonist looks the wound, of that "police", in the leg, it shows that it is all shaved! But is more, the retarded kid always tells how he saw the murder and always when the bad cop (Roe-ha Kim) was near to him the kid looses control. And is more and more...

reply

Except Roe-ha Kim leg has already been amputated before the final murder.

reply

My interpretation is that when he asks the girl what did the man look like, and the girl simply tells him he looked normal, that is in fact the answer. It could have been anyone.

reply

You're all thinking the girl talked to the killer...maybe it was the other detective coming back to the scene? or the other detective was the killer..?

reply

I really like the idea that he was using his special detective eyes to look at the murderer who was actually watching the film, that gave me goosebumps when I read it. I also enjoy the theory that he realized the killer was too ordinary to identify. But I always thought a big part of it was that he came to the realization that their country's poor budget and lack of technology was not the biggest issue and their torturing of the suspects and their poor police work could've been the very reason why the murderer got away with it. maybe they're the killers in their own way.

reply

I think the little girl is symbolic to all the woman that the killer murders and the youth of a undeveloped country that later becomes financially and technologically stable but by then its too late. When she empathized that the killer looked "Ordinary" I dont think a little girl would know or care about the characteristics of a handsome looking man. So when she said ordinary, she is meaning the killer can be anyone. I think it was a beautifully crafted ending to one of my favorite films. The idea that the killer is still lurking makes the film 100x better.

reply

I agree with the above comment. Somehow the movie is better because it is left unresolved. It keeps the viewers constantly thinking and trying to unravel clues that they might have missed previously. This film had me constantly on edge because one minute I was like the detective, assured in my belief that this or that man was the murderer, only to be disappointed over and over. I think that this frustrating feeling is exactly what the producer intended to do when making this movie. He wanted to show how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusions and to not look beneath the surface because it is much easier and less difficult. We all want to prove ourselves and take pride in what we do, but what happens when somebody will always be better and one step ahead of you? I think that is how the detectives felt. They didn't like to be proven wrong.

The scene where Detective Seo was listening to the radio and smoking a cigarette seemed pretty poignant, and again when he hid behind the bushes. I guess that scene tried to show that there are always two different sides to people. What is strange though is that, up until the end, I did think that Park was the murderer because there were a few hints throughout. For instance, his delicate hands and the assumption at the beginning that the rapist could be innocent looking.

However, at the end, the murderer was not caught and the DNA did not match Park's. But somehow I knew that would happen; of course it couldn't be solved that easily. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to solve a murder and even then sometimes it can still remain a mystery. The end also confused me because, firstly, who knows who the little girl could have been describing. Everyone has a different interpretation of ordinary. Secondly, I did feel like the detectives looked at all suspects, ordinary or not. To me, the ending should have been not so much of a "I didn't accomplish anything and he's still out there" but instead a more positive "I'm willing to try as long as it takes" sort of attitude.

You know, I guess to me, it's kind of a 'so what if he was ordinary?' because that doesn't mean anything to me. I just found this realization kind of irrelevant to the whole dynamic. Personally, I wish there was more of a hint as to what the killer's motives were and maybe some background into his everyday life, even if he was ordinary. Maybe it should have shown him going to work and all of that. And then maybe checking in the newspaper to see who was framed next for his crimes. The movie was overall very good and powerful but, I feel, lacking in a few elements. I would have liked to know what the symbolism is behind the way that he murders his victims and the objects that he left behind. Overall, I absolutely loved this movie as it is, but feel empty as I'm left with more questions than answers.

reply

The ending has no symbolism

The ending just ends with him realizing how flawed his detective work was. He is shocked, dissapointed and horrified b/c the guy who he was trying to catch was just an ordinary man.

And then he looks into the camera. Pretty much the directors way of saying i know you are out there watching this movie. Very chilling ending since the serial killer is still a mystery

reply

I thought it was his partner, but that could be easy to identify by showing her the picture of him.
If it was the killer... then why would he do that after so many years... A murderer always returns to the scene of the crime? What kind of archaic thinking is that?

Just like in the Zodiac the viewer is given so many details about the murders, only to stymie him in the end, cleverly orchestrated decoys or just traces of a mind gone free from rational? Who can tell...

reply

The point from a story related what happened to the Detective and his
friend who lost his foot the conflict between the fact and the unknown.

We Front of A new Korean tragedy as it was for Dostoevsky or
Shakespeare

The thing that made me like a broken watch the scene when a Detective
was looking for First sacrifice i think he was ask himself was it there
? was every thing happened really ? A film was about Faith and Doubt ..
About what we see around us every day

Ahmad zakaria mantawy

reply

I took a more positive message from it (although I like all the other theories posted in this thread...) I saw it as the detective having a newly found determination to start the pursuit again as the killer is still out there. He'd clearly left the police, had an unfulfilling sales job and surly teenage children. He returned to the scene and the little girl made the hint that the killer is still out there.

The detective stares out into the screen as the frustration of the failed investigation hits him. I like to think he's going to re-open the case... but that's just my optimism. It's more likely that he'll never find out and the trail is dead... justice is not served.

"What are you, some kind of doomsday machine, boy?"

reply