Shutter Island

Woah nelly. Watch out when you read this reveiw. Spoilers abound. This is one of the more fascinating films (Yeah, I'm saying now. Right off the bat. I'm going to snob out on you guys.) that I've seen in a long time. This may be one of Scorsese's best films to date. Everything about it was very, very interesting. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his best performances too. Which is saying a lot considering The Departed, Gangs of New York, Catch Me if You Can, Blood Diamond, The Aviator, and Titanic. And that's only like half of his resume. He's an impressive actor. One of my favorites. And this may be his best. Ever.

DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a US Marshall investigating the disappearance of a female patient at the mental hospital for the criminally insane on Shutter Island in Massachusetts. As the film progresses, the viewer gains an increasing insight into who Teddy Daniels really is. He says that the reason he wanted this assignment was a result of his wife's death in a fire in their apartment. He says that a man named Andrew Laeddis set the fire, and was now a patient on Shutter Island. He wanted to find Laeddis, and somehow gain closure in his wife's murder. But it becomes clear, relatively quickly, that his story is flawed, or at least in question. He begins having these bizarre dreams of his wife, and a little girl. He flashes back to his days as a soldier in World War II, where he was a part of a company that liberated the concentration camp at Dachau, where he sees the little girl as a dead body in the camp. The dream sequences are some of the best representations of dreams I've ever seen in cinema. Scorsese does a great job making them look like actual dreams. Everyone knows that dreams rarely make sense. You do things you wouldn't do normally. You say things that don't make sense. You react to things in irrational ways, even though they seem to make sense at the time. Scorsese is able to capture the lunacy of the average person's dream in viewing the dreams that DiCaprio has.

Mark Ruffalo plays Chuck Aule, DiCaprio's new partner, a recent transfer to Boston from the Marshall bureau in Seattle. This is absolutely Ruffalo's best performance, and comes at a time in his career when he seems to be shifting from the romantic comedy type role of 13 Going on 30 to a new type of role. That of the serious actor who takes small parts in artsy blockbusters like Where the Wild Things Are and large roles in independent feeling movies like The Brothers Bloom (Which was great by they way, I highly recommend it). I was on to Ruffalo though. At one point when he and DiCaprio were questioning other inmate/patients in the hospital about the disappearance of Rachel Solando, who was committed after drowning her 3 children and the dressing them up in her home and pretending that they weren't dead, one inmate asks Ruffalo to step away and get her a glass of water. After he leaves, she violently scribbles something down in DiCaprio's notebook. I immediately turned to my buddy and whispered in the theater, "He's Dr. Sheehan." Dr. Sheehan was Rachel Solando's primary psychiatrist while on the island. He had, reportedly, left the same morning they arrived for vacation, a claim DiCaprio never believes.

Sir Ben Kinglsey, famous for his portrayal of Gandhi in a film of the same name, is magnificent as the Dr. John Cawley, the chief psychiatrist on the island. The entire movie he is mysterious. Giving half answers to all of DiCaprio's questions and remaining detached from everything that's happening on the island. He is nearly emotionless the entire film, not an easy thing to do. It becomes very clear, very early, that Kingsley knows much more than he is letting on.

It was pretty easy to see in the trailers that DiCaprio is a patient on the island. I knew this, not form the film being spoiled for me, it just seemed pretty obvious from the trailers. What you don't know, however, is if he is actually crazy or not. You don't want him to be crazy. It's Leonardo DiHottie-o after all. And you don't think he is. You think he's being set up. You think that he's been asking to many questions on the mainland, and that he's asking way to many questions on Shutter Island. But in the final minutes of the film, we learn otherwise. He killed his wife, because his wife killed their three children. Rachel Solando is a figment of his imagination. And so is Teddy Daniels. DiCaprio's real name is Andrew Laeddis, the name of the man who he says killed his wife by burning their apartment. He's created defense mechanisms in order to distance himself from the reality of his own life. Everything we saw was a part of an experiment by Kingsley, the only person who thought DiCaprio was still able to be saved. Ruffalo is in fact Dr. Sheehan (Boom, roasted.) and was posing as his partner so he could keep an eye on him while he was having his way around the island "investigating". The role playing exercise was to be the last attempt to help DiCaprio before he was given up on and lobotomized as part of government experiments.

I didn't see that coming at all. I was really taken aback. But it finally all made sense. This film is an incredibly interesting look into the human mind. And we think we see DiCaprio come out of it. He wakes, finally, from another one of his hallucinatory dreams appearing to know exactly who he really is, and what has really happened in his life. He tells Kingsley and Ruffalo all about his true name and life story. This is a good thing. This means that he's cured. Then, as he's sitting on the steps of one of the buildings on the island, smoking a cigarette with Ruffalo, he wispers to him, "What's our next move Chuck? What are we going to do next?" Ruffalo nods sadly at Kingsley across the courtyard and a few orderlies begin to walk up to him. Then, DiCaprio says something really interesting to Ruffalo. He says something like, "Is it better to live as a bad man, or die as a good man?" He the gets up, joins the orderlies, and walks away. Presumably to be lobotomized, effectively ending his life. It's so fascinating. But I'm not sure what to make of that last bit. The movie ends immediately after the aforementioned scene, leaving the viewer to wonder about DiCaprio's fate, and the meaning of his last statement. Think as you will.

A Serious Man

This one was strange even by Coen brother standards. And you know, I didn't get it. Like at all. Which doesn't really happen to me often. I don't know. I watched it with a couple friends of mine, both just as "movie snobish" as I am, and none of us got it. and we're all pros at turning nothing, or next to nothing, into something. And we didn't get it.

Let's start with what I do know. Michael Stuhlbarg, who's resume includes a couple random TV episodes and a few movies I haven't heard of, is very good. Even though I'm not sure what he's good at. He plays a Jewish physics professor at some very small, almost community seeming, college. And I think he might be brilliant at it. But there's very little talk of that. He seems like a good guy I suppose. No terribly obvious flaws. But his life seems to be somehow spiraling out of control. His wife wants a divorce, and then wants to immediately marry a family friend, even though she insists that there has been no infidelity. And he believes her completely and steadfastly which I find strange. Then one of his students, unhappy with a failing grade, tries to bribe him. One of his next door neighbor's keeps mowing some of his grass, insisting that the property line is further towards Stuhlbarg's house than Stuhlbarg thinks it is. And his other next door neighbor, a cougar by all accounts, sunbathes naked in her back yard. His wife's "fiance", isn't that weird to say, then dies in a car accident and he's stuck paying for it. All the while, he keeps trying to see different rabbi's to get advice. A lot of other weird and incongruous happens too, but it would take several more paragraphs to aptly describe it all. It's just all really strange. I don't know. I don't like this feeling. I guess this is how regular people feel when the come out of "deep" movies.

I really think that everything has meaning. Especially Coen brothers movies. But I can't siphon meaning out of any of this. It all just seemed like it had meaning, I just couldn't glean what that meaning was. I can't even really come close. Some parts of me want to come to the conclusion that the movie is about meaninglessness. But I hate stuff like that. The point should never be that there is no point. That's just really stupid. That doesn't make a statement. That doesn't say anything. Except for saying that you're an ass for trying to say that everything is meaningless. I like the Coen brothers too much to think that they played that card. I mean I really like the Coen brothers. Burn After Reading, No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, all great stuff. I've never seen Fargo, but it comes highly recommended. By everyone. So I don't think they did that. The "Life is Meaningless" card is so 1960s, anarchy, apathy art. And that stuff is lame.

This movie's shot really, really well though. One of my friends, who's a photographer, remarked that every single frame of every single scene in this movie would be a great photograph. And he's really right. It's one of the prettiest Coen movies to date. They do a great job of framing closeup shots, and they're lighting is always great.

I think I liked this movie. I wanted to like it. I'm a sucker for Academy Award nominations and this one's up for Best Picture and Original Screenplay. And I don't really understand those nominations actually. The story is too ambiguous to be the Best Screenplay of the year and I don't think it stands a chance up against Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, and Avatar (which I really, really hope doesn't win), among others, for Best Picture. I think the Academy likes the Coen's just as much as I do and so they give them courtesy noms. Which I'm OK with I suppose. This movie really just baffled me. Every component, good and bad, just didn't add up to anything that I could figure out. I just didn't get it.

(Footnote: I'm going to do this one as I rewatch it. One thing we all picked up on right away has to do with the student who's unhappy with his grade. One of his complaints is that he understands the anecdotes, but that he doesn't understand the math involved with the physics. This is almost the same exchange that Stuhlbarg has with one of the rabbis later on in the movie. Stuhlbarg say's to his complaining student that it's the math that matters, and that the anecdote's are just that, stories, fables, they don't really matter. One of the rabbis gives a similar answer to Stuhlbarg's questions about why all of these things are happening to him, the rabbi starts telling this long story that ends up being completely meaningless. The rabbi says, "We all want answers, but Hashem (God) doesn't give us any." I think that's what this is. An answer free movie. I actually think that this movie is about nothing. The Coen's, already having won their Academy Awards, just turned in some nothing. I tried reading some other reviews online, something I don't normally do when writing my own, and they all came back one of two ways. In paraphrase: 1) The Coen brothers deliver their most personal, dark, and humorous film to date. A modern day Job. A masterpiece. 2) The Coen brothers made a beautiful, empty movie. Unfunny, and ultimately meaningless. I'm obviously in the latter category. In one of Stuhlbarg's bizarre dreams he's teaching his class about the Uncertainty Principle of physics and he exclaims, "We can't ever know anything!" And I guess with this movie, we never really will.)

The Mothman Prophecies

You know those movies that aren't any good, but you remember them anyways because the movie watching experience was good? Snakes on a Plane is one of those for me. So is Marley and Me. The next addition to that list, The Mothman Prophecies. This movie was so lame. A movie is almost surely off to a rocky start when these words flash across the screen: "Based on a true story." You can hear the death knell of ringing softly in the distance. What those words should actually say, more often than not, is this: "Loosely based on a frequently misreported and misinterpreted story." And I'm pretty sure that's what happened with this one. The movie is based off of a "nonfiction" book by John Keel. The screenplay, however, seem to have changed the main character's name to John Klein, portrayed in this movie by the ever jazzy Richard Gere. Listen, I'm by no means a Richard Gere hater. Chicago was good and Runaway Bride and Pretty Woman, no matter how weird and 90's, have their place. But he was just bad in this one. Not horrible, but not good. Laura Linney, who I really like, especially in The Truman Show and the HBO miniseries John Adams, was fine. Will Patton, Coach Yoast from Remember the Titans (who inexplicably doesn't have a picture up on IMDB) did the best job acting, I think. He plays this crazy guy who's been seeing things and starts hearing voices et cetera, et cetera. But he's pretty believable. Debra Messing's in this one too but only for like 12 minutes while she's alive and like 40 seconds after she's dead. I don't know what the most terrifying part of the movie, which supposedly was supposed to be scary in some kind of psychological way, was the 1 second jump scene when Richard Gere turns over in bed to find his dead wife laying next to him or the fact that the studio ponied up the money to pay "Grace" for under 13 minutes of work. Whatever.

The storyline was pretty ridiculous. In summary:

Successful investigative reporter's wife gets in a car crash, sees crazy stuff, then dies. Same reporter, two years later, finds himself in West Virgina in a town of people seeing the same crazy stuff. Successful investigative reporter investigates. He starts hearing voices. Cute cop lady thinks he's going crazy. He visits a paranormal author in Chicago who absolutely is crazy. A big bridge collapses and 36 people die. Successful investigative reporter thinks he could've stopped it.

That's it. There are no explanations, no conclusions, no closure. It's weird. It would be like if LOST started it's final season but didn't even start to answer the questions that a devoted follower has had for 5 seasons (oh wait, that's happening now!). I just don't get it. I guess they somehow wanted to be truthful to the book it was based off of, but I get the feeling that they fudged a lot of stuff, so why couldn't they have just fudged an appropriate ending? By the way, the previously mentioned bridge that collapses looks exactly like that Universal Studios ride "Earthquake" where they put you in this car and show you how they used to do disaster special effects back in the 80s and 90s. The ride is fun because your little car rocks and your dad might get a lap full of water from some sort of tidal wave. Not because it actually looks cool. That's kind of how this whole movie was actually. It was fun because jokes and not cinematic masterpiece ruled the room and because there was a chance someone who gets too scared at unscary movies might get a lap full of water of some kind. Not because it was actually a good movie. (And the sorry the movie poster is so creepy to look at.)

It Might Get Loud

I really like documentaries. I always have actually. And this one was very, very cool. And it's about something I really like, the guitar. I'm no virtuoso, I'm just a dabbler. But I really enjoy playing and this movie made me want to be a better musician. It highlights the playing styles of three really revolutionary guitarists. Jack White from The White Stripes and The Raconteurs, The Edge from U2, and Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin. Three guys who couldn't be more different. Jack White's style, I think, was summed up in one of his explanations about his playing. He was talking about the kind of guitars that he plays, plastic guitars and really old beat up guitars with bent necks that won't stay in tune. He says, "I like it to be a struggle." I think that's so cool. And you can really hear it in his sound too. Everything sounds like it's taking just a little bit more energy than usual. The Edge is the total opposite. He is a true student of music. The professor of music actually. A carefully calculated technician. His moment most indicative of his playing comes at the beginning of this movie when his guitar tech is talking about his whole big guitar system. It's this giant, super computer that he runs his guitar through and creates these incredibly complex sounds. Everything is very precise. Jimmy Page's sound is about innovation. He always wanted to do things that other people didn't do. Create styles and techniques that no one had ever heard. He's the classic old time innovator.

They're background stories also came across as diverse. White grew up in South Detroit in one of the only white family's in his neighborhood. He grew up surrounded by blues and later hip hop, the former of which is very clearly present in his music. Especially his Raconteur's stuff. He talks about how his mission with The White Stripes was to distract viewers and listeners from the fact that he was playing electric versions of what otherwise would be blues songs. I thought that was really interesting. How he felt like he had to create an aesthetic to mask his true mission. The Edge grew up in Ireland during the height of the turmoil between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. He wrote one of U2's most popular songs, "Sunday Bloody Sunday", out of his own feelings of that turmoil. Page grew up in England and made his start in music as a studio musician recording every different kind of music you can imagine. His desire to innovate with the guitar, he says, came out of his growing distaste for the bland studio work.

The film itself (yup, I'm saying it for this one) is really brilliantly done. It was directed by Davis Guggenheim, of An Inconvenient Truth fame. Guggenheim's directorial work is fantastic in this one. He blends the usage of archival footage from Page's and The Edge's early years with photographs from that time. As well as putting in old live music videos from bands who these three guitarists considered influential, both positively and negatively, in their own playing. But the really masterpiece can be seen in all of Jack White's portions. Every one that he's in, or that focuses on his story, comes off as an art piece. I'm not sure why. Maybe White's character made that easier. Or maybe that's the only way you can show White. It seems like everything Jack White does is some kind of weird, almost esoteric, art. He's the most fascinating musician of the bunch, for sure. At least for me. And maybe that's because I really like all of Jack White's music. Especially his Raconteurs stuff.

I'd recommend this film to anyone who's really into music. And it's accessible to a lot of different generations too, because the 4 decade scope of the artists. I think anyone can watch this film and be thoroughly interested and inspired by one of the stories. This is the best documentary I've seen since Confessions of a Superhero. Take a look at it. It's easy to find. I got it from a Red Box.

Bruno

Haha, alright. Relax. This movie is ridiculous. And it's not anywhere near as good as Borat. But whatever, it's funny. Like really funny. Word of advice to guys, don't watch this with girls. Don't watch it with moms. Watch it with guys. Even though that makes it so much gayer.

So many shenanigans in this movie. Ron Paul, the Swingers Party, the Gay Counselor, the Middle East (yes, you read that right, the Middle East), OJ, Paula Abdul, the Psychic. The list just goes and goes and goes. But the best gag, absolutely, is the Hunting group. Sacha Baron Cohen, revising is Da Ali G Show character Bruno, goes hunting with three good ole boys from Alabama. The hunting itself isn't very funny, but that night, while they're sitting around the campfire, Bruno is as Bruno does. He say's, "Look at the four of us; we are so like the Sex and the City girls!" To which, one good ole boy says, "I ain't any one of them. I'm Donny." Bruno replies, "That is such a Samantha thing to say!" Gosh, I couldn't keep it together. Then they just sit there, in silence, for like 2 minutes. Which for dead time in a movie, is a long, long time.

Another really good moment is the series of interviews with the parents of toddlers who they want to put into movies. He starts asking them the most ridiculous questions like, "Is your child OK with antiquated heavy machinery?" "Yes, absolutely." "Does your child like phosphorous?" "Yes, he loves it." "Does your child have to be in a car seat or can she just free-style it?" "Oh, car seat, free-style, whatever." "Could your baby lose 10 pounds in the next week?" "Sure, I'd do whatever I had to do if that was what the job required." "And if the baby couldn't lose the weight, would you be OK with liposuction?" "Yes, if that's what it took." It's absurd. This is the closest Bruno gets to one of those brilliant Borat moments. And it's what made Cohen's first movie such a success. He has the ability to find people who let themselves be totally honest, even if their honesty is atrocious. And in spite of the bizarre circumstances, it's really an interesting look into human nature. Don't get all crazy with me. Everything that is honest, no matter how ridiculous, tells us something about human nature. It really does. And Bruno is no exception.

The reason this movie wasn't nearly as good as Borat is because there were only a few of those really honest, unscripted moments. Too much time was dedicated to things that the scripted out. All of Bruno's interactions with Lutz, his assistant played by Gustaf Hammarsten, are way to planned out. There just isn't the spontaneity and improvisational nature that we saw in Borat. There will probably never be another movie like Borat. And Cohen tried, with this one. It just fell way short. Reminder, don't watch this with girls. That's all I'm saying.

Precious

Gosh. I don't think I'm going to be able to write very much about this one. I really think everyone should see this movie. Just once though. I'll never see it again. I don't really know if I could. Gabourey Sidibe, who plays the title character, is really something. Her IMDB profile lists this movie, two rumored upcoming roles, and 18 television interviews. She's been in literally nothing else. But she holds her own on screen. Mo'Nique, despite the critical acclaim, including a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nom, that she's already received for her portrayal of Precious's mother, really blew me out of the water. And I was expecting her to be good. She was better than good. She was perfect. In the most horrible way possible. Every shot of her filled up the screen with her cigarette smoke and her greasy skin and her hateful eyes and her loaded lips. This completely makes up for every mailed-in performance in every low-brow comedy she's been in. It might even make up for "Charm School." Almost. She deserves her Golden Globe. And she deserves to win an Oscar, which I really think she will win. Sidibe deserves an Oscar too. But she's up against the formidable Helen Mirren in a movie no one saw, the equally formidable Meryl Streep in a movie no one really liked, and probably fan-favorite Sandra Bullock in a movie everyone saw and everyone liked but won't turn up on anyones "Best Movies of _____" list. Ever. One of them is going to win. Sidibe is going to get snubbed.

Paula Patton, who I could've sworn was Alicia Keys, is great as Precious's teacher, Ms. Blu Rain. Lenny Kravitz, as a male nurse who helps deliver Precious's second baby by her father, is good but not particularly memorable. And Mariah Carey comes in and plays a small supporting part as a social worker in charge of Precious's welfare payments. Mariah Carey was only OK. She looks like hell, but maybe she's supposed to. She sounds like a chain smoker, but it adds to her authenticity. I don't know how I feel about her. Schmucks in my theater kept laughing every time she was on screen. I hate "that guy".

I don't want to talk too much about plot. It bother's me to type it. Really it does. It bothered me telling people about the movie. Just see it. You won't ever be in the mood to see it, so don't make that an excuse. Just rent it, watch it, return it, and talk about it if you can. Gosh.

The Hurt Locker

My first truly Oscar worthy movie. The Messenger is only up for two, but Woody has a chance to win. This was the best I've seen in 2010 I think. This movie is a nontraditional Wild West story. For sure. Jeremy Renner plays an adrenaline junkie bomb defuser. And I completely don't understand him. I don't know who he is. I don't know what he's about. The closest we get to understanding him comes near the end when Renner is sitting in a Humvee with one of his men, played by Anthony Mackie, the bad guy rapper from 8 Mile and Tupac from Notorious, and he asks him "Do you know why I am the way that I am?" to which Tupac responds "No. I don't." And that's it. That's all we get. Academy Award Nominee Kathryn Bigelow directs, brilliantly I might add, and guides the story along with poise and ease. This movie is up for everything come March 7th. Best Actor for Renner, Best Director for Bigelow, Best Picture Cinematography, Directing, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing (What's the difference?) Original Screenplay. That's really all the biggies, considering that there are no women in the film to speak of (except Kate from LOST who he turns out to be married to! It's all connected, I know it!) and therefore no female acting noms.

This movie was just really intense. And not really in a gory way. Even though it had some of that. It was just suspenseful from wire to wire. Renner was crazy the whole time. But not because he had a sense that he was somehow invincible. He seemed to have a real grasp on his own mortality. He knew that he could die every day that he went out. And he knew that death could come at any moment of that day. And his very real grasp on that was one of the things that made him so compelling. He kept, under his bed, a milk crate containing all of the defused detonators that came close to killing him. He kept them. Like, as some sort of macabre souvenirs or something. Tupac delivered a solid performance of his own. He was interesting too, in his own way. You thought you knew exactly who he was the whole movie. The pretty straightforward guy who just doesn't want to get killed. He's not to "by the book" but he clearly thinks that all of those rules are just the safest way to do things. Brian Geraghty plays an even further subordinate of Renner and Tupac's, the third guy of the bomb team. He's the most broken character in this movie. He thinks that he's to blame for the death of the soldier, seen only in the first seen and played by Guy Pearce from Memento, that Renner replaced on his and Tupac's team. And throughout the movie, we see him meeting with an Army shrink. He says that he wishes he had died instead, and that if he had only killed the insurgent who set off the bomb that killed Pearce then Pearce would still be alive. All of this was well written, well acted, whatever. It just wasn't that important.

What was important though I think, was the interaction between Renner and an Iraqi boy named Beckham. Beckham sold DVDs outside of the camp and Renner, for some reason, feels some sort of connection with him right off the bat. It's interesting. And I didn't really get it until Renner tells Tupac and Brian Geraghty about his infant son. Then it clicked, and I got it. He somehow and for some reason identifies Beckham with his son. I don't know why though.

This is the most Oscar worthy movie I've seen out of all of the ones up for nominations that I've seen so far. I've seen The Blind Side, Up, Inglourious Basterds, The Messenger, Sherlock Holmes, and Star Trek. Yeah, I know I'm missing some of the biggies, Avatar, Up in the Air, Invictus, Precious, A Serious Man. But this is still on the top of the list for me. See it. It's worth it.

The Messenger

Interesting, very interesting. I've definitely never seen a movie like this before. Ben Foster, the creepy guy from 3:10 to Yuma and Angel from X-Men, plays a war hero who spends the last 3 months of his commitment delivering the bad news that a soldier has died to their families. It's heart wrenching. This movie has some of the most honest portrayals of raw human emotion that I've ever seen in a movie. Steve Buscemi, one of the most underrated actors around, is fantastic in his small role as a grieving father who spits on Foster and calls him a coward upon hearing the news that his son is dead. Equally raw showings of disastrous grief come from a few people I didn't recognize with empty IMDB profiles. A mother and a pregnant girlfriend screaming in agony. A father comforting his daughter after hearing that her husband, whom he didn't know that she'd married, as she shrieks and sobs uncontrollably. It's really hard to watch. Woody Harrelson is very, very good. He plays Foster's recovering, or not so recovering alcoholic, senior officer on the delivery squad. He's this hardened Desert Storm vet who's dedication to procedure overruns Foster's unspoken desire to treat the NOK's (what Harrelson calls the next of kin) like they're humans. Harrelson's a tough actor to peg. The weird Tallahassee in Zombieland, a blind eye-transplant recipient in Seven Pounds, a hitman in No Country for Old Men, a weird cross dresser in Anger Management, a hook handed bowler in Kingpin, a baller in White Men Can't Jump. There are very few actors who's catalogs go from the outrageously absurd to the deathly serious so quickly. In this movie, his obvious depression causes him to manically cycle from on top of the world, to crying drunk on Foster's couch in his last scene in the movie.

But after all that great writing and acting theres some pretty unnecessary, forced romance between Foster and someone named Samantha Morton who's acting repertoire's most recognizable performance is as the voice of Ruby on the kids show Max & Ruby from back in 2002. It's pretty unnecessary to the crux of the story. Morton plays the wife of a soldier who Harrelson and Foster bring the news to. All of a sudden Foster's in love with her. It's weird. It comes out of no where and serves no real purpose. It's a pretty serious detractor, unfortunately. The movie ends as she and her son are packing up a UHaul to move to Louisiana and Foster comes over to help. They start walking into the house so Foster can "give her his address" (a new euphemism maybe?). I don't know. It was a pretty lame ending. I liked it though, overall. It's worth taking a look at. And it's up for a couple Oscars so for that reason alone it deserves at least some respect.