MovieChat Forums > Prisoners (2013) Discussion > Is it just me, or should the ending have...

Is it just me, or should the ending have been very different?

posted 4 years ago by MikeHunt12345 (932)
16 replies | jump to latest

Most people seem to dislike the ending because it's ambiguous, which I don't understand. It's clear Keller will be saved. I dislike the ending for completely different reasons.

Maybe I'm the problem. This movie was one of the most dark, suspenseful and intense movies I've ever seen. I was desperate to watch a movie like that, I hadn't watched a movie like that for a very long time. So maybe the problem is just that it wasn't the type of ending I was expecting and hoping for. However, I feel like maybe a movie like this should have a very different type of ending.

Other than Keller possibly going to jail, it was a very happy ending. I feel like a movie like this should've had a dark and shocking ending. I'm not a writer, so I can't figure out exactly what should've happened, but I don't think the girls should've survived.

Also, I feel like maybe it should've had a huge and shocking plot twist. Holly being the kidnapper was unexpected, but it wasn't a huge and shocking plot twist. For example, maybe Nancy should've been the kidnapper.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 3 years ago

The plot twist was good. The ending could have been darker, but American movie audiences like a happy ending, especially when kids are kidnapped. The father got what he deserved, to an extent.

[–] Dainty (1960) 3 years ago

How? He did mistakes, but he was in dire straits and sorted to taking action fast. I would have agreed with you the first tim eI saw this, but I watched it a second time tonight and I felt more for the father. Not that Alex deserved it.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Torturing somebody who can barely string a sentence together, regardless of how desperate you are to find your kids, is pretty evil

[–] Dainty (1960) 3 years ago

Holly and her man was evil. Hugh Jackman was desperate.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Desperate men are capable of committing acts of evil. I'm not saying he, as a whole, was an evil person, but his actions were evil

He kidnapped and tortured a mentally-challenged, traumatized person. I'm not saying he didn't have an understandable motive for his actions, but after he learned the truth I think that, if he were a truly good man, then he would have acknowledged that dying buried alive would be proper retribution for his actions

[–] Dainty (1960) 3 years ago

He didnt know that Alex was mostly mute.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Because he just assumed his guilt from the get go and brutalized him from the start without bothering to take any time to treat him like a human

Even if Alex had been guilty, that was a shitty approach to get the truth out of him. Like I said, if he were a truly good man then after learning that he had been totally wrong, and reflected and on the horrors that he had committed, then I think he should have accepted his fate

[–] SisterSuzy101 (361) 3 years ago

I'd like to point out that Keller DID IN FACT have reasons to believe Alex was directly involved. He did not simply "assume" nor did he take action on no evidence. I'll present:

1). Keller knew that Alex' RV was in the neighbourhood.

2). Keller knew that Alex attempted to evade capture from Police - innocent people don't run.

3). Keller knew that DESPITE the claim that Alex was mentally handicapped, he still had driver's licence - heavily implying that his mental deficiency was a façade.

4). Keller heard Alex say to him directly, "They didn't cry until I left them."

5). Keller saw Alex strangle an animal - signs of a potential psychopath (I must say, the stunt he pulled there with the dog is quite telling and unlike anything Keller did to him, wasn't motivated by any practical purpose. There was clearly a dark, creepy dimension to this man-child).

6). Keller heard Alex sing the EXACT SAME SONG the two girls sang before they disappeared.

In the abduction of two children, this is pretty irrefutable 'evidence'. Obviously, we as an audience find out the scenario is much more complex, but based on this information, we cannot say Keller was reacting purely on a whim.

[–] nufsaid16 (685) a year ago

But that still didn't justify him damn near beating Alex half to death. What he did was a good example of what happens when someone turns vigilante and takes their actions too damn far. All Keller had to do was tell the police what Alex said, and get them to question him, as opposed to him taking the law into his own hands---he could have killed Alex, then where would that have gotten him? Nowhere, of course. Keller deserved what happened to him in the end, because he really crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed to begin with. Him looking for his daughter and her friend didn't justify his actions either. He just came off as a mean, crazy bastard who'd lost his damn mind.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (361) a year ago

All Keller had to do was tell the police what Alex said, and get them to question him, as opposed to him taking the law into his own hands

Um... excuse me?? Keller DID do that. And what did it accomplish!? NOTHING!!!! That's why he took the matter into his own hands.

But that still didn't justify him damn near beating Alex half to death.

Him looking for his daughter and her friend didn't justify his actions either. He just came off as a mean, crazy bastard who'd lost his damn mind.

You state that as if it's somehow fact. It's your opinion.

You're probably the type of person that would prefer to see a guilty terrorist have the right to remain silent rather than give up details of a plot that could kill hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, right? Your logic suggests such.
Like it or not, torture IS justified when lives are at stake and engaging in such an act has a chance of saving them. Keller knew this and as a survivalist, he did what he needed to do. Perhaps he'd be better off using more efficient means such as nail pulling or electrocution (like in Taken (2009)), but still...

Interestingly enough, Keller's actions are what started a chain of events that led to the ultimate resolution, that would arguably have never occurred otherwise.
Think about it: Keller kidnaps Alex, Mrs. Jones grows lonely and lets Anna and Joy out of the pit - in turn giving Joy the chance to escape.
Furthermore, Keller kidnapping Alex is the reason Loki went over to Mrs. Jones’ at the time that he did - when Anna was about to be lethally injected and he being able to save her.
Plus, everything that followed resulted in Alex being identified as Barry and reunited with his family.

Keller deserved what happened to him in the end, because he really crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed to begin with.

Again, that's your opinion. But hey, try saying that after your child or someone you love/care about is taken, with all signs pointing towards one suspect as the culprit and legal authorities not taking your claims seriously.

[–] DodoPatak (122) 2 years ago

Well, the guy was a hunter, therefore I don't think he had any empathy in him.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (361) 2 years ago

Would you let your empathy for the guy who kidnapped your daughter get in the way of you saving her?

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 3 years ago

If you want an unhappy thriller similar to this I would suggest Snowtown Murders

[–] TerraFirma69 (2244) 3 years ago

That one is based on a true story, so a bad ending was always on the cards.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Call for Mike Hunt. Call for Mike Hunt. Has anyone seen Mike Hunt? BTW, I loved the ending!

😎

[–] csweetleaf2 (3674) 2 years ago

I also felt we should've gotten to see a resolution for Alex as well.