Hello, can anybody help ! I saw the film yesterday but the dvd failed after about 80 minutes...what happens after the second try of a handout is starting (attal is in his "softer" prison) ?
thanks for all
He dies. And the next 40 minutes you see the credits in slow motion.
shareThis film has just now come to the Bay Area. It seems unlikely it will appear in The Movie Spoiler, so can anyone who doesn't want to go for an easy gag, spoil the ending for me? I definitely want to see it, and I definitely want to know how it ends, first. I don't have many bad habits, but that's one of them.
share[deleted]
He promised.
The final scene, he gets the code to collect the money and wait for instructions on deliver. He had written the kidnappers 3 "IOUs" (not dissimilar to the ones he wrote for gambling debts), and if he failed to deliver, they'd kill an innocent on the street and pin the IOU to the body, giving him three tries and them 150.000.000€ potentially.
The irony that everyone seems to has missed is he now has to weigh the value of human life. The press would destroy him for failing to pay, but what does he care? No job, no family, no life, just his money. Quite the catch 22.
Chops - Wow. Does this sort of thing hit you hard?
I see a Brat SOB mysoginist speaking here. Am I right?
Well, I think your scumbag hero here got what he deserved. They should have done the same thing to Bernie Maddox, and a few others...
There is no ending. I know it's supposedly left to one's imagination, but, when I pay my price of admission or rental, I want a complete film not four-fifths of one passing itself off as a thought exercise.
Imagine the outrage if you'd watched "The Usual Suspects" and they had left out that final transformation of "the devil" before our eyes. There is no genius in shortchanging the audience and calling it artistic. Loose threads are, simply put, a sign of poor workmanship.
Aside from his dog, there was not a single decent character with whom I could sympathize.
To those who feel there was no ending to this movie, I appreciate your opinion, but the "ending" of Rapt offers so much more than other "endless" movies, such as "No Country for Old Men" or "A Serious Man".
(I know both of these are Coen films, but they're probably the most popular contemporary examples. And this isn't to say that I don't like the Coens -- I love all their movies.)
With these and other "endless" movies, it's usually said that it's "up to our imagination to figure out what happens next." True, the same thing can be said about Rapt. However, for movies like NCfOM or ASM, we can decide what happens next, but then it's soon followed up with "So what?"
The difference with Rapt is now the main character, Stanislas, has so much power in his ultimate decision. It's now no longer "So what?" What weighs in the balance includes the value of human life, his own family, and his own interests. None of these are to be taken lightly.
It's this feeling of power that far outweighs an additional 15 minute scene of Stanislas playing out his decision.
Besides, who's to say that you'll like his decision? I'd rather have the ambiguous (but powerful) ending than the ending that may split audiences with different morals and ethics (though I think most viewers don't want Stanislas to pay up and let his family and others suffer).
The other point I wanted to make was that although most of this movie was about the kidnapping, the most interesting part was after his release. One could even say this movie wasn't about the kidnapping at all.
[deleted]
I agree with both sides here. The ending is a bit abrupt but not necessarily out of the order. I think the last scene only emphasizes the potential real challenges Stan will face now being a free man.
Will he be able to pay up his ransom and how will he do it? Again through gambling or will he take more drastic measures as in selling all his assets or will he discover a more human part within him and try to reconnect/fight for his family while trying to achieve the impossible (paying the 50M) through more conventional means? Or will he go as far as waiting for innocent people to be killed instead of him?
I agree that rushing in a last scene for this movie would have potentially killed it. The open ending entices people to think of the many different options this man still may have.
I think though that this movie also depicts a realistic world full of sharks, on professional and private levels. None really "moved mountains" to collect the 50M to pay for his life. If it wasn't for the huge patience of the kidnappers, he might have just been killed after the 2nd payment attempt.
As for characters, I think I enjoyed the southern french kidnapper the most. He seemed to be the only one (apart from Stan's dog) to connect in some way with the hostage.
All in all, it was a thought provocative movie. I liked it.
though I think most viewers don't want Stanislas to pay up and let his family and others suffer
The gang who kidnapped him were a very professional bunch. Not the type of people who would carry out their threat to kill innocent people if he did not pay his IOU's. This is my take anyway. They did not come across as psychopathic killers, more like ruthless businessmen. I think at the end he was left alone, isolated from his family and no job, however I don't see a further threat to him from the kidnappers.
share
<To those who feel there was no ending to this movie, I appreciate your opinion, but the "ending" of Rapt offers so much more than other "endless" movies, such as "No Country for Old Men" or "A Serious Man".>
I'm with you about the ending for "No Country for Old Men".
As for "A Serious Man", I have to disagree. The ending is quite clear, but not shown: his son(s) will die, and he has cancer.
BTW, I think "A Serious Man" is the most underrated masterpiece of the 21st century.
<snip for brevity>
You must not be very experienced in watching French movies. They seem to believe that a movie is just a slice out of the continuum of time and has neither a beginning or and end; just like life. There's always a "next scene." I admit it's a bit hard to get used to, but it is more powerful to let your mind and the subsequent discussion with others play it out.
shareyeah, i love the bit at the end where it turns out the kidnapper was his brother, i just didn't see that coming.
share[deleted]
Me too! I just caught it on BBC iplayer not expecting much, but wow - this was a quality thriller, not some cliched crap.
I actually sympathised with the wife and daughters, nothing in what they said to Stan seemed unreasonable after what he put them through. It's wasn't lost on me the suffering he went through, but after that he remained stubborn and self righteous when perhaps he could have made some apology?
As one poster mentioned above the Second kidnapper with silver moustache was quite interesting, all the more because he remains anonymous.
Because life's too shor
What!!! Nobody in his life is loving? They love him. He's a married/father workaholic with a megabuck gambling addiction and can't keep his pants zipped up around other women. Seems to me they love him much more than he deserves. Sure, his mom's a bit of a cold fish, but she lets him know in her own way that she loves him and supports him. He's a self-centered narcissist!
I don't wish for him to get the bullet, not at all. But, I must admit, I assumed this horrible situation which he found himself in would be somewhat cathartic; maybe he would come to his senses regarding the value of family, a rich life, a career in which he was a leading character. There were times when I felt his humanity; I really thought I saw shame and regret in his eyes when his captor listed his sins. But, no! He came back totally sans humility, bashing his family for being hurt by his infidelity, his co-workers for feeling betrayed by his poor behavior which absolutely reflected on them and their business - furthermore he demanded they all get behind him and support his desire to get back in the saddle right that minute as if nothing had happened. AND this is the kicker *HE KNEW THAT HE WAS UNDER THE GUN TO COME UP WITH A LOT OF MONEY OR THREE PEOPLE WOULD DIE* and he didn't even seem awfully concerned.
In my opinion, as he lights that cigar and sits in that chair, the full implication of what is going to happen to those around him has just taken a glancing blow off the back of his ego and he could care less.
Just sayin'...
We who hear not the music, think the dancer mad...
Hi Carol C....
Just watched the movie on TV - great to see the same guy again who did Anthony Zimmer in 2005, another great thriller.
Anyway, I've read through the posts here and everybody here seems to have missed the elephant in the room: who kidnapped the turkey?
The movie ends with Stan sitting down, legs crossed, quite relaxed while he obviously thinks as he sucks on a cigar. Que faire? as the French would say and shrug.
Does that attitude conjure up a man agitated, worried, concerned etc by the need to make a decision about somebody's life? Soon... So, what's the alternative?
Consider: Stan is so deep in debt at the end of the movie, we learn, he hasn't got much left in ready cash. All that he really has is his major stake in the company group. After putting up a vigorous verbal battle - for a whole two minutes! - with his one-time buddy, he caves in, gives up.
Excuse me - this from a pathological womanizer, liar, gambler (for years, losing millions) and overgrown kid who has everything to lose?
Not on your life. This, IMHO, was a sting set up by Stan with the help of one other person who hired the less-than-professional kidnappers to do the job to make it all look good. That other person paid them (with money provided by Stan, probably). Stan didn't need to know who they are. And, they would think they're doing a real job anyway, while Stan played his part and they played theirs. Who was the other person? That's up for grabs.
(Remember the copper saying - to the guy with the crushed nose - that they don't use jerks to pick up 30 millions euros? And recall that the jerk was horrified to see his buddy killed so easily and quickly. Would a real crim react that way?)
Sure, there is a lot of theorizing here, but it makes sense for Stan to force a situation whereby he could make a dirty deal to sell his shares without losing much because of his debts - and legally get rid of his wife in the process. That is, set up a self-kidnapping that's bound to fail, thereby setting up a deal to walk away with all the money from his group shares.
And, when you think about it, half a finger is a small price to pay for 30 to 50 million euros.
And Calypso? Well, the so-called kidnappers said it was the signal to start paying up. Really? That's what viewers are lead to believe. But it could mean something else to Stan, could it not, from his accomplice? Maybe the bimbo from the apartment?
Millions of euros can get you a long way with a new ID, new life, new wife in another country, no? As the lawyer, Walser, says as he walks out the door: you're now rich, man - enjoy your wealth. But Walser also says: See you soon...
I've seen an awful lot of movies and a lot of awful movies...
i generally dont like open ended ones like this. but it was very good, though i wish it had been conclusive.
one thing everyone is missing, it seems, is that he CANT pay the ransom. he doesn't have enough money!
...they don't tell us the shares price, but when he sells 25,000 shares in the settlement at the end, even at $100 per share that only nets him 25,000,000
and that's before taxes, which are GINORMOUS (depardeau moved to russia to avoid these, remember?)
but let's think bigger: even at $500 per share, he would only net 125M (again, before taxes)
so you see, he CAN'T pay them the $150Mil they asked for. so the calypso note is meaningless, because he can't pay them even if he wants to. so following that, the question is will they really start killing people on the street and pinning notes.
so maybe when he is in that chair with a cigar, he is just pondering all this; the fact that he is powerless
on a side note, i agree with the other posters that he doesn't seem apologetic at all.
-----
I mean, we're in a public place & I don't want you to lose your sh!t.
Lose my sh!t?
The ending is extremely open-ended. I personally would have appreciated a little more closure than this after a 2 hours+ film.
We don't know who most of the kidnappers are. The thread of the captured train crook is simply never followed up. Stan is forced out of his chairmanship and forced to sell his shares. His wife has divorced him, so presumably he is going to lose a lot of money there. And then he appears to be contacted again by the kidnappers and we don't know what he plans to do about it.
Presumably his dog has stuck by him.🐭
Me too. I prefer non open ended films.
Somehow this one struck a chord with me. I really dig this film and find it very thought provoking to watch him in that chair smoking a cigar.
What do you think he was thinking?
"As the day hits the night we will sit by candlelight, we will laugh we will sing..."
I don't mind films with an open ending and I did find this interesting, though arguably somewhat long with periods where the pacing dropped away. I just thought it was a little strange that for many of the technical aspects of the kidnapping, history was followed quite closely and yet ultimately in the film, we aren't dealt much of a closing hand.
Some of the posters above as you can see are convinced Stan set it up himself. I wasn't. In the film the kidnappers claim they want the money inside 2 days after he is released. Then that appears forgotten about and it seems like they don't contact him until months afterwards.
I reckon he's thinking about his next move. Does he contact the police or not, considering he feels he's been jerked around by them in the past? Is he really going to be targeted again, or is it wishful thinking on their parts?🐭
those are interesting theories you present
it has been a while for me so my memory is a bit vague, but i recall getting the impression he was planning an escape. as in perhaps he has enough left from the sale of stock to buy a fake identity and go to a small foreign country under an assumed name for the rest of his life, renting an apartment living off his modest nest egg he salvaged from the fiasco resulting in stock sale.
as for the two days time frame, i wondered that too. why they waited so long.
yes there are some rough edges with this plot, and the structure was kinda cloudy. i still enjoyed it though. :)
nice chatting with you!
"As the day hits the night we will sit by candlelight, we will laugh we will sing..."
... i recall getting the impression he was planning an escape.Yes, that would also be a distinct possibility, as he definitely has the resources and has clarified his domestic situation.
yes there are some rough edges with this plot, and the structure was kinda cloudy. i still enjoyed it though. :)I felt much the same way. I really feel tighter editing would have improved the storyline.
my former movie friend has her a55 on her shoulders ...LOL! I'm sure she'll see the light and want to get back chatting again. Funny about that. My wife sometimes makes the same claims about me. She couldn't possibly be right ... could she?🐭 share