I liked the ending of The Rules of Attraction and my wife hated it.
“I started driving faster as I left the college behind. I didn’t know where I was going. Someplace unoccupied I hoped. At first I thought there were things about her that I would never forget, but in the end, all I could think about was…”
credits start
Harrison Ford didn’t think so.
Reminds me of the clip they play at the beginning of I’m Not The One by New Found Glory:
“The wild pulse beat of their young blood beats out a reckless rhythm. Every girl wants her guy, and every guy is looking for…” [song begins].
1.) Where did he say this? Cite?
2.) If he thought he made it clear, he’s fooling himself or he’s lying. It most certainly IS ambiguous.
The Director’s cut (1992) and The Final Cut (2007) both contain
the unicorn dream scene.
I actually believe the brilliance of the ambiguity of the ending is much deeper than most of the discussion goes, the entire film is written and filmed in such a way to make it ambiguous whether or not he’s in a dream and the brilliance is that the top is a red herring.
Consider the purpose of the totems, they’re there as a method of identifying how you’re in a dream by virtue of specific knowledge only the dreamer has. This works with the 3 other totems we see in the film in a logical sense (eg, only arthur knows how the die is loaded) so that if someone else is dreaming and places the item there, they wouldn’t get it correct. So the whole point is that the knowledge of what makes it special has to be a secret. The top works the opposite of that, that another dreamer would expect it to stop spinning like a normal top, and the only way it would keep spinning is if they’re primed to do so and they do it intentionally, and he makes no effort to keep it a secret. Also, interestingly, he specifically identifies it as Mol’s totem. There is, in fact, the theory that his actual totem is his wedding ring, as he is wearing it in the “reality” scenes but not in the “dream” scenes.
There’s plenty of other techniques employed in the film subtlely that are there to provide ambiguity. For instance, there’s the chase scene through what is very akin to one of the dream labyrinths, with people coming out all over the place. There’s the somewhat unsettling cuts from scene to scene. And, perhaps most interestingly of all, in the end where the camera focuses in on the top, we’re so distracted wondering what the outcome is going to be, that almost everyone, certainly me at least, miss the end of the conversation with his kids that contains the more interesting ambiguity… they were building a house on a cliff, referencing where Saito was or Cobb and Mol were, in limbo.
Sure, the moral is unambiguous, that Cobb doesn’t really care if he’s dreaming or not, he’s happy with where he is. But he’s just done exactly what Mol did, he chose to forget.
So, yeah, as much credit as it gets for being a brilliantly ambiguous ending, I think it’s even moreso than most people realize.
That’s interesting. Has it been discussed elsewhere? You are correct, though. Putting aside the fact that it wasn’t his totem (let’s assume it was) then what purpose did it serve? If he was in someone else’s dream, it wouldn’t keep spinning forever, it would spin and topple like every other top does (that’s how a dreamer would envision a top: acting as normal).
The Outlaw Josey Wales had a sequel???
The French horror movie Martyrs has a pretty ambiguous ending, I think.
I don’t think the ending is that ambiguous and don’t think he’s wounded so badly it might be mortal.
Shane on the other hand(at least the movie not the book) is a better example of that where its not clear if Shane is dying or not(I think he did but Sam Jackson disagrees).
Yeah, well, you can be a replicant and not know it. 
Exactly. 
The Blade Runner I saw left it ambiguous. There may be other versions which give a clear answer.
From a quick search, the screenwriter and the actor do not consider the character a replicant, but the director does. There are hints in the film for both sides. Thus, ambiguous.
Ridley Scott has said that Deckard is a replicant. The Director’s Cut and The Final Cut contain the scene which confirms this. Blade Runner is based on the Phillip K. Dick book but there are differences. In Scott’s movie Deckard is a replicant.
I didn’t mention the book at all. The screenwriter for the movie didn’t think he was a replicant.
But that doesn’t really matter. The movie I saw left it ambiguous. It speaks for itself. Other versions apparently don’t, and they also speak for themselves.
Eh, I don’t believe it.
I won’t comment on the other movies, but I don’t think the ending to The Wrestler was ambiguous.
I thought it was clear he was committing suicide.
I thought Three Days of the Condor has a wonderfully ambiguous ending.
You’re probably going to hate hearing this, but the 2011 prequel unintentionally clears up at least some of the ambiguity.
The prequel makes it explicitly clear the Things can’t wear earrings and Childs(the David Keith character) wears an earring
Granted I try and pretend it doesn’t exist.
None of the films give “a clear” answer, it’s always ambiguous. As the Director came up with newer edits, each made it more likely. The “unicorn” scene, altho probative, is hardly rock solid.
Of course- maybe everyone is a replicant. :eek:
That’s how I saw it as well.
I will add to the list:
The Grey
If you wait until after the credits there is a very brief scene (a few seconds) showing Neeson’s character resting his head on an apparently defeated alpha wolf, but it still remains ambiguous as to whether Neeson ultimately escapes the woods or even survives that fight.