MovieChat Forums > Knight and Day (2010) Discussion > So what's the deal with the ending?

So what's the deal with the ending?

posted 14 years ago by SBL84
13 replies | jump to latest

They take care of Fitzgerald, and Roy, Simon, and June get out of their crazy situation.... But then Roy is in the hospital, and the director says he'll be taken to a "safe and secure" place, which is supposed to make the viewer think back to what Roy told June about the 'real' meanings of those words.

Then June comes in and drugs Roy, and sneaks him out of the building and heads to South America like they talked about earlier. And Roy's parents get tickets to the same location like all of the other random free things and luck that they have been mysteriously getting over the years.

Now, if we're supposed to believe that the director was one of the bad guys, and she was planning on killing Roy... then what about Simon? She said he was happy in his new lab, but if she's really one of the bad guys, wouldn't Simon be dead? Or wouldn't he be dead as soon as he makes a more stable version of the battery, not knowing that the people he's working for are the bad guys? June and Roy are happy in their new life together while Simon develops a better battery and gets killed, the bad guys win, and Roy's actions in the whole movie are all for nothing. If they are the bad guys, why didn't they just kill June/Roy?

Or did June have to sneak him out because they really were the good guys, but didn't plan on letting him leave, since he's their best agent? Then there's his parents. If they really wanted Roy back, they would just have to sit on his parents' house and then they'd know about the tickets and where Roy is. Could Roy really make all of that stuff happen (lottery wins, Publisher's Clearing House, etc.) or did he get the government to do all of it as a way of appeasing one of their best agents? Either way, the government would likely know who his parents are and would easily be able to track them. So if they really wanted Roy back, they could easily find him.

Was the director actually behind the "sneaking out" with June so the two of them could disappear, so Roy would think that the government is trying to kill him, and the two of them are on the run so he'll stay out of the country? So she made a point to use his "buzz words" that make him think they're going to kill him, when they're really sponsoring his retirement because of what he did to protect Simon and the technology as well as weeding out the corrupt agents like Fitzgerald?

I just don't get what that ending was supposed to be.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SBL84 14 years ago

There's not really much of a risk, though. If he wants out, he's not going to just walk around major cities shouting national secrets. He's going to head down to South America to live on a beach with June and live a relaxing, no-threat-to-the-government life. So if that's what they were worried about, then they're just stupid. This guy risked his life for the past week or so trying to weed out corrupt agents and save the life of a guy that could build world-changing technology. I'm pretty sure he's dedicated to his job, the agency, and the country. He's not suddenly going to start revealing government secrets to the world for the heck of it.

He has no identity? The government can GIVE him an identity, and let him leave on his own without having June sneak in and take him. They can give him a whole new past with all sorts of legal documentation to prove it. If they were just going to do that, then why couldn't they let June stay with him? Were they just going to keep him in a room without contact from the outside world for the rest of his life so he couldn't spill any secrets?

If that's what's really supposed to have happened, then any of the 3 of my situations make a lot more sense, and the ending should have been clarified to fit one of those 3 situations. Either show that they're the bad guys and June is saving him, or show that they're the good guys but they don't want him to leave, or show they're the good guys but the director helps set up the "kidnapping" from the hospital as a reward for his service. Because the way it ended was just really unclear, and even your explanation has a lot of holes and improbabilities.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alaasmi-s 14 years ago

Maybe they wanted to leave things open for a sequel after all it's Hollywood

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mamanoooooooo 14 years ago

***************SPOILERS**********************

Im watching it again just to see if I missed some clues esp. with the Director because that's the only way this would have worked. She has to be in on the escape

I really don't understand why they want to kill him? Didn't he help them solve the case and Fitz was the bad guy.

I don't understand how June managed to sneak him out-if they were going to kill him surely his room would have been guarded, and for that sake why didn't they kill June if they were going to do the same to him?

And yes what about Simon?

They took his phone away so they know where his parents live so they will also know where they are going on their "vacation"

I want so much to like this movie-love the soundtrack! And I thought they both looked great!-I thought they looked like what normal mid thirties to late forties look like-minus massive plastic surgery anyway I digress...

The ending really is full of holes...

[–] hka-3 12 years ago

I don't understand how June managed to sneak him out-if they were going to kill him surely his room would have been guarded, and for that sake why didn't they kill June if they were going to do the same to him?

Things like that were highly amusing to me, because lack of plausibility was the intent (like with the guy who was stabbed in the heart area, yet was still energetic as ever ). Throughout the film they were getting out of situations they shouldn't have been able to and much of the time we don't even see how they get out of it. The film is a satire of serious action films.

As for "safe and secure," considering how many times various people said those words, it was meant to have a certain amount of ambiguity attached to it.

Mele Kalikimaka

[–] quatrixj 14 years ago

"But then Roy is in the hospital, and the director says he'll be taken to a 'safe and secure' place, which is supposed to make the viewer think back to what Roy told June about the 'real' meanings of those words."

Uh, no, not at all. She only said "secure location" anyway.

[–] jgallagher33 14 years ago

A scientist smart enough to create the Zephyr in extremely valuable, and this kid was naive enough to never know exactly who he was working for so why kill him?

A government assassin as skilled as Roy who has already "gone rogue" once and can pose a threat to the black ops run by the CIA (or whatever gov't agency they were), well...he's got to go. Those guys are expendable. Even dummy Cameron Diaz figured that out so she sprung him

[–] invertedme 14 years ago

My interpretation was that Miller would never be allowed to leave. He was "owned" by the government and June kidnapped him from the hospital in order to free him from that. "Simple" as that.

It's possible the director was behind it or allowed it to happen, we don't know. It would fit with what she said, that he was only an asset as long as he was focused... meaning since he isn't focused, he is no longer an asset, he's free and has earned it. She says that he will be taken to a secure place for his safety, making us think about her use of those words and what Miller told June earlier in the movie (Miller, however, uses those words when talking about Simon). She may have been telling the truth, but at the same time, not. It's possible that she was referring to the fact that June was going to take him to South America and off the grid... a secure place for his safety...

Either way, that part of the ending is intentionally ambiguous just like a lot of the other details of the movie.

I think that it is meant to be a happy ending where we don't know the ending.

[–] CoraJack 13 years ago

I agree that the ending was "simple" too. The director lady was not a "bad guy" and she even let him know when he was being moved so he would have a chance to get out. She may have even let June know so she could get him out.

So she drugs him and gets him out of the hospital and they go to South America like they talked about before.

They live happily ever after and his parents will be arriving soon to see their "dead" son and everyone lives happily ever after.

The End.

Excellent film.

[–] JonahVarque 13 years ago

The screenwriter presents a 600 page script to the producers. They glance at the first few pages, like it, tear off the final 200 pages and instruct the screenwriter "wrap it up some way, about here."

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

[–] richopp 13 years ago

I did not puzzle over the ending at all. The Director was going to get rid of Roy because he made her look bad, and you can't move up if you make that kind of error in that job. SO, she was going to remove Roy from the scene for a while. Whether or not he would be allowed to return or would be liquidated would be decided later, in my opinion. For now, he was going to be held someplace where no one would find him, especially June.

They both understand this, although June's motive was more love than intrigue, I believe, so she just did what her heart told her to do and sprung him so that they could be together. The Cape Horn part was clearly announced earlier in the film, so that was fair. The tickets to his parents, I believe, illustrate that he is going to come clean with them, so he will no longer be valuable to the CIA as an operative. At that point, he can do something else for them or find another job. I really did not give it that much thought as it was a fun film, very entertaining, and it gets better each time I see it on TV.

I just saw the new MI film; this one is much, much more entertaining than that one, in my opinion. Keep watching K&D and I believe it will grow on you. Now, if you are a purist, you pretty much hate all films since they are fantasy, so I get that. You should probably stick to Dostoyevsky novels. THEY are weighty and serious, as opposed to films, which are usually supposed to be light entertainment.