MovieChat Forums > The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1990) Discussion > Poorly done ending?

Poorly done ending?

posted 10 years ago by Jimothy3
7 replies | jump to latest

From the moment the wife has her conversation with the cook to the very final scene, I had a few problems with it.

Firstly, the idea that the wife wants the man that she loves to be cooked to spite her horrible husband is all rather daft and over the top. I know it's a dark and twisted version of reality anyway, and that might be seen to be keeping in nature with it, but the characters still emote and act as they would in reality so I don't believe having loved this character she'd disrespect his deceased body by having it cooked and eaten, all for the sake of briefly tormenting her husband.

Of course it only really works on the motive of making him eat his words having said that he'd eat Michael after killing him. I can't believe those words would have resonated with her so much during the situation she was in, to the point she later thinks it's a great idea to have him cooked.

The way she was pleading with the cook to cook him in such a serious tone, directly following the scene in which she said she loved Michael while lying next to him, it came over as laughable to me. While on that subject, she had a load of money in her bag that she was offering Richard to do the job for her, yet before this she apparently offers him sex to persuade him and says words to the effect of 'I don't know what else I can do to convince you', even though she had this bag full of money which I assumed she had taken with her for that very reason. Whether that's some kind of deliberate dark humour, or inconsistency in the script, it's quite a poorly written/handled scene.

As for the final scene where Michael is served to the husband, it might have been a fittingly twisted and satisfying idea to end it on under a more believable context (as mentioned above), but still during this I found myself asking questions about the behaviour of the characters. For instance, Albert being oblivious to a body-shaped meal being served up to him. I'd have thought asking why a body-shaped meal has been put in front of him may have crossed his mind?

He's also shot after eating just a tiny bit. That seems like an awful waste of time and effort to cook Michael and arrange the special party, and makes me question why the wife wanted it done even more. Doesn't he try and pull the gun on himself by the way? Why not pull it out on those around him and avoid having to do the thing you're being forced to do?

Speaking of those around him, I liked how they were all ok with Michael being cooked and watching Albert eat him in front of them. Makes them look almost as sick as he was.

I enjoyed the film mostly, I just thought the ending wasn't as good as it could have been for the reasons (somewhat nit picking I know) above.

[–] A.P. 10 years ago

If I recall, Albert raises the gun to shoot them before it's taken away.

I think the reasons why he doesn't ask questions is that he is not very smart and, up until the moment when they remove the sheet, thought it was a special meal served for him. He probably didn't want to spoil the surprise by asking questions.

It did bother me, however, that Georgina didn't force him to eat more. One bite was less than he deserved. I suppose if it went on for too long, it would be a bit much.

[–] Lethal_007 9 years ago

I'm with you there. That scene was surreal, but I really wished Georgie would force Albert to eat his d!ck, as she suggested... It would have been even more bizarre, but also righteous in a way. Just eating that bit of belly or whatever was not enough, but then again, it served the films purpose, as in addition to the visual gruesomeness of that very scene, psychologically, it caused an even bigger impact on Albert and the spectators as well.

[after killing an Irish] Burn him, see if his ashes turn green - Bill the Butcher

[–] jollyolly 9 years ago

For me, I don't mind the darkness of the staff being there and having him eat the body.
A bit Tales from the Crypt, but poetically fitting, considering the way Albert wanted
Michael's death to be an obvious revenge killing.

I agree that it seems like wasted time and effort though. How I pictured it would be, Albert would come in for his special meal. He'd be seated the same. The meal would arrive not looking like a body, though the proceedings could be the same. He would see something in front of him and wolf it down in his usual uncouth manner before being informed the food was actually Michael's dead body. I also figured they would just poison the body, so that after he realizes it then he would start dying, and not being able to do anything about it.

Granted, this is a full on Tales from the Crypt ending, but it would seem more justified to me.

[–] A.P. 9 years ago

Sounds very Titus Andronicus, which this movie borrowed from, it seems.

[–] plumlogan 9 years ago

Was going to mention Titus as well

[–] chrichrichri (184) 6 years ago

the conversation with the cook before the final scene - for me the best of the entire movie

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

The ending was the weakest part of the movie. The movie had it WTF moments throughout, so maybe that is why the ending seemed to fall flat. I honestly don't have any suggestions on how to make the ending better though.