The ending of the movie is "open to interpretation"

>the ending of the movie is "open to interpretation"

this is solid bait

>the plot is the main aspect of the movie

So is Leonardo DiCaprio in the real world or in a dream at the end of Inception?

Did his Totem wobble? Was his Totem touched by someone else?

These are the questions people will be debating for generations.

It is irrelevant, you don't need to undertand that very thing to like the movie

Does it make a difference if he's real or not?

>Opening scene is three guys stabbing an unknown man to death in the trunk of their car
>"As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster"

Endings are for plebs

Honestly, that's probably the gayest, laziest way to end a movie.
What's wrong? Couldn't think of an ending?

those thick brows god damn

Kys you reddit piece of shit

>don't agree with someone
>call him "reddit"

People who like the movie are redditors in the first place.

hello, reddit

This

Fuck Pi and The Thing

You mean life of Pi? How did it had an open ending?

No just Pi

LIQUEFY

>end of the movie
>Well, that's how I died. Yep, I wasn't perfect. But at least now I have a LITTLE peace and quiet

name the movie

The one where the guy dies and finally has a little peace and quiet.

open endings always lead to debate. if the movie is decent, then having an open ending will garner more press and discussion, brings more life to the movie. if it sucks then no one cares either way. it's why open endings exist.

>no anvils
Still, image is a solid 8/10, would meme again

I don't mind movie endings that are open to interpretation but what does piss me off is when people think that "open to interpretation" means "Anything". It's one thing to base your thoughts of what isn't shown on the evidence provided in the film itself but I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people who blatantly ignore plot points, characters, settings etc and then fall back on the "Well, it's just my interpretation!" to justify their unfounded projections.

Case in point; I once talked to a guy who insisted that the ending of No Country for Old Men was about the director's view of the Iraq war.

>movie begins with the final scene

"open to interpretation" has been used lazily in the last 30 years.
It can still be well done (The Lobster) but it's been overdone by mediocre hacks.

>movies ends with a "not all stories have happy endings" quote

Open endings are cancer. They're just used as a mechanism for forced drama or to justify unfinished plotlines or earlier plotholes. They're nothing more than a crutch used out of lazyness or 2deep4u reddit directors

life of pi and the lunchbox are two movies that did that well

`Donny darko

>Case in point; I once talked to a guy who insisted that the ending of No Country for Old Men was about the director's view of the Iraq war.

I can vaguely see it, but no really.

Only slightly related, but to me the worst are people that will ignore all flaws of writing, acting, and filmmaking because the movie vaguely touches on a theme they like or has one small positive attribute. Basically Armond White and vulgar auteurists

Inarritu is the most hackish of them. The "did he jump" ending of Birdman has NOTHING to do with the story, the whole point is made when he's in the hospital bed and not dead. The Revenant tries for the same thing with the "woe is me im dead inside" look to the audience, because no silly revenge movie can be just that. We need to spend 2.5 hours watching a man suffer and try to kill someone and then be reminded of the moral weight of it after the rousing 20 minute fight scene.

They're both lazy, unnecessary scenes added on to have people talking as they leave the theater and think they saw something profound.