What the hell was that about? Being stabbed in the neck by his daughter was such a twist, incredible ending... and then it turns into the Hollywood B.S. that she didnt really do it and it was all just a dream. Talk about chickening out.
shareThere wouldn't be a second and third movie if he had died. :)
shareI agree, the dream shouldve been real. That was great. Sequel would still be intact. Daughter just picks up where he left off hehe.
shareIf they made Mr. Brooks 2 without Costner, it would suck.
shareYeah Costner would definetly have to be in the sequel if they have one. I thought the ending was awesome, I was freaking out the whole time thinking his daughter actually killed him. I'm happy it was a dream though because I liked Costner and didn't want him dead. But it was a sick ending . . and I thought the song Vicious Traditions by The Veils was a perfect song to conclude it.
shareI think the title of this thread should have been an unspoiler-ish statement with a spoiler tag. It's a good thing I saw the movie.
shareI don't understand, does the ending say, "it was ALL a dream", or was it was just a dream about he dies, meaning - he's still the murderer and that's makes the end a big nothing.
Which of the two?
"Now I order the two of you to make OUT in order to make UP!!! []" - AG from Alias MB
I personally think the ending meant that his daughter killing him was just a dream, not the WHOLE thing (him being the killer). I thought it was a good ending to keep the option open for a sequel which I hope they decide to do.
shareBut, again, that makes the ending to a big nothing, i mean, so what now? It has no point.
Also, does it still mean his daughter killed those people in the college?
"Now I order the two of you to make OUT in order to make UP!!! []" - AG from Alias MB
I think it does mean that his daughter did kill the person at her school. What I got from it was that it was just a dream about his daughter killing him. I didn't think the ending was a big nothing . . but thats just me, I can see where your coming from. I think you can interpret the movie a ton of ways but to me though it seems pretty clear that it was just a dream about the daughter. I do feel though that it definitely needs to be continued because I think it did leave almost a cliffhanger because you don't know whats going to happen with him or the daughter. But don't a lot of movies end like that? With a lot more questions? All I can say still is that I hope for a sequel!
shareMy take on the ending was that it was a happy one for Mr Brooks. His 2 big problems are solved, at least temporarily.
1. His daughter was the killer, but he committed a copycat murder to take the suspicion off of her. It worked.
2. Mr. Smith will be implicated as the Thumbprint Killer, and is dead, so Mr Brooks can now quit killing and try to lead a normal life like he kept saying to Marshall.
I don't think a sequel was in the plans of the writer/s.
Maybe he was scared from his daughter because he also killed his father (something saved for the sequel)? He did say that he admired Demi moore because she didn't stay in the family business and found something she liked doing, maybe he was forced into taking over the family business and thats why he found his own thing (Killing)
shareThey totally flubbed the ending up by making that scissor attack a dream! The movie seemed to be foreshadowing his daughter killing him on a couple of occasions... Like when he goes into his office and the daughter talks about getting into the family business "in case something ever happened to him." Marshall even voices that concern when they are talking about how she "has the same sickness,", but Earl says that he "doesn't think she would go that far." This seems to be a clear case of some exec finding the ending too harsh and possibly detrimental to the idea of a sequal. The "all just a dream" ending feels added, and it totally killed the chill that was running through my body as I was coming to grips with what had happened!
shareIt would have been disappointing for me for two reasons:
1. Mr. Brooks died after all those situations he mastered
2. His daughter would have been REALLY stupid this time
Mr. Brooks doesn't even fear death, but now he does - from now on he is afraid of his own daughter. Far more chilling really, he fears that his daughter, unlike him, can't even love her own family (even though she clearly does). And he fears that his daughter *beep* up and ends on death row.
to me only the daughter kiling him was a dream. everything else happened.
shareit sets up more of his fear for his daughter that will probably be the main point of the sequel if they make one
sharewell at the end he is screaming his daughters name and his wife is in bed next to him so I believe that he is in fact a murderer and the only dream he had was about his daughter killing him.
shareI think it implies it was ALL a dream. Throughout the movie he is strangely in control of everything...HIS DREAM.
It sucked me in and I was hoping for MORE!
[deleted]
If the dream ending was the real ending, Jane could have said that she had been, and still is being molested by her father.
That was what I was thinking when they showed Jane stabbing her father and was disappointed when it turned out to be a dream. I wanted to see the development of her alibi, and if Detective Atwood got the case.
The filmmakers could have made a prequel with Costner in it, and a sequel with Jane and Atwood.
;}~ = - Deo Gratias!!!
&
B-Rad Gluckman: Don't be hatin'
.
Ever heard of a prequel?
--push pause!
[deleted]
oleg -- who said there was going to be a second and third to this movie?
If there is something out there that Im not aware of, please advise , Id like to see it.
So glad too it was a dream. I'm not sure why they felt it necessary to fake us out like that. I was all ready for the Lecteresque walk into the sunset when he dropped the phone. All the same- at least it was a dream.
shareI'm glad it was a dream. As soon as it happened, I was thinking:
damn man, I really liked this movie but this ridiculous ending ruins it all!
You see, the only real reason Jane would kill Earl would be to inherit the box business. She can't do that covered in blood and doing that murder so messily.
I think it would have been better if Jane kill him and then Marshall somehow transfered into her
sharejane wouldn't just kill him for the box company. if she has the killing addiction she does it just for the thrill. Considering that she isn't as good as Mr. Brooks at killing (she was gonna get caught), i dont think its unreasonable for her to kill him.
at one point (i believe in Brook's studio) William Hurt and Brook's mention the possibility of Jane killing him, and the idea is thrown out. What was the reason they (Costner & Hurt) briefly gave for the possibility of her paternal murder?
[deleted]
I don't agree that the ending was "this is just a dream". It was obvious the daughter wouldn't kill the father like that, she would be too silly, _THAT_ would be a bad ending. The idea is for us to feel how Mr. Brooks feels cornered by his daughter. Either he has to kill her, or let her kill him, or they get together on their little secret bussiness -- not selling boxes, I mean ;)
shareJane may be new to the business (of killing) but she's SMART and wouldnt do it as shown in the DREAM! How do we know that? Well a). she goes to Stanford and very few dummies get into Stanford. b). She did NOT leave any viable evidence when she killed the student. Yes the hatchet was left behind, but the reason the cops came to interview her was because she KNEW the student. It was stated that no clear, incriminating evidence was found at the scene...
shareHello 5 years ago
a) she dropped out of Stanford
b) if there was no evidence, why did Mr Brooks say the cops would be back within a week with a case against her?
I dunno...just my observations.
Hello 2 years ago! :D
They would put it together because someone will have seen them together, they'd put it together that the victim is the father of her unborn child and could test that via DNA and then they know that at least she lied. They'd eventually find something.
PS: But I mostly wanted to say that I fully agree with paulotex that it would be a *beep* ending if his daughter had killed him that way.
It was a cool ending, but for her to carry on in his footsteps, the scene was completely wrong. Wouldn't matter what story she made up she'd be convicted and jailed in the blink of an eye.
The death of one is a tragedy
The death of millions is just a statistic
The point of the dream is to show what a nightmare it is to live with a daughter who you know is a killer and gets the same sense of satisfaction that you get. That's it, and it left me with a truly uncomfortable feeling.
shareI completely agree. I was all pumped up when she stabbed him. I thought it was the perfect twist. Then i sank in my chair as he awoke from his dream.
---We May Be Through With The Past, But The Past Isn't Through Us---
Yeah, I was pretty shocked when she stabbed him. I think it means that he's scared he made the wrong decision...which could lead to a sequel still. If Costner was in the second movie, and his daughter started killing people like he did and yadda yadda yadda.
Donnie: Oh, please, tell me Elizabeth, how exactly does one suck a fu*k?share
I agree that the use of the dream sequence is to show you what's sort of what, at least subconsciously going on in his head.
He thinking about whether or he made the right choice in covering for jane. Whether she loves him. Whether she'd kill him-because he really is questioning whether she loves him. Remember he went against what was his rational choice (letting her get caught and sent to jail) because he loves her.
Check it:
http://www.youtube.com/user/cheekybabe666