We hear his infamous dixie whistling tune just as the couple turn their lights out,did he somehow survive the gunshot and kill them eventually?
shareI am curious as well what the whistling was, no way Samuel survived though. The police would have taken him away to prison if he did or the morgue.
shareDid seem like whistling but it drowned into the ending credits music. So may be nothing was intended.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Maybe the husband was picking up the evil spirit from Samuel after he learned his wife wanted him dead for the insurance money, although there was no proof of the murder plot.
shareMaybe the husband was picking up the evil spirit from Samuel after he learned his wife wanted him dead for the insurance money, although there was no proof of the murder plot.
But can John really hold that against her? I mean wasn't he having an affair too?
shareThis whole movie was carried on the implication that something deeper was going on and then it turned out nothing deeper was really going on. I wouldn't read anything into any of it. The ending was just the standard thriller ending--it appears the hero has overcome the villain, but wait... The screenwriter just tagged on a lazy ambiguous ending so that the audience would speculate on a payoff that isn't really there. I hate this movie.
"Don't unform, you're a great mob. We'll think up something else to get upset about." Moe Sizlack
I thought it was trying to imply the husband had some part to play in some of the murders
share[deleted]
Duh....Sam and Luke were the same person !
Sam's character was just an invention of "Luke's" mind.
It's very obvious.
None of the events in the movie made sense. Because we were seeing what was going on in Luke's mind.... he made things up and twisted the facts, probably because he went crazy, probably because he killed his family.
You can see the whole scenery from the start is like a dream, it doesn't seem real.
It's obvious that you didn't watch the whole movie. They were not the same person.
I Love Movies
[deleted]
Maybe the ending is implying that although the Samuel L Jackson character is dead, the shadow of him and what he did, and especially what he uncovered and made them face up to about each other and their relationship, hangs over them still.
shareThat's what I took the final whistling to mean, too. The title of the film is "Meeting Evil", and Jackson's character was constantly trying to change Wilson's character, to "make a man out of him" (which really just means to turn him evil). Evil has a contagious effect, and I assume that Jackson finally succeeded, and the whistling at the end is Wilson whistling.
shareMaybe the ending is implying that although the Samuel L Jackson character is dead, the shadow of him and what he did, and especially what he uncovered and made them face up to about each other and their relationship, hangs over them still.
There is a TON of foreshadowing at the very end of this movie to give great meaning to how it may continue.
1. Wife tries to knife John in the face, John never actively tried to kill his wife.
2. The end screen laying in bed, she looks horrified that her secret to kill him is now known to him, and he just looked wiser and tired, maybe the evil has set in.
3. SHE asked "Are we going to be okay now John" - to of which he gave absolutely NO response.
4. She reached her hand over to touch his, and again NO response back to touch her hand.
5. He shot her and evil glance at he end while she again looks horrified.
6. He didn't wish to send her away with the police, because he figured he'd take care of the situation now.
7. And finally, the whistling gave me the distinct impression that he would eventually watch his back well, and take her out, permanently.
- Just adding my .02 :)
Agree with you.
The Feltons have met evil, and in the process had uncovered much unpleasantness
about themselves, although they succeeded in escaping its maelstrom in the end
to get a second chance.
The whistling from the dark is a reminder for them to stay vigilant within themselves.
I view this movie as a timeless moral parable.
There is a very good 1970 novel about a corrupter-predator moving through the Wall Street
jungle by Brian Garfield ("Hopscotch"), the title is "The Villiers Touch".
The ending is ambiguous like in "Meeting Evil".
I wonder why it has never been adapted to the screen.
The story is much better than the Michael Douglas' 1987"Wall Street".