Where the Crawdads Sing ^ Kya didn’t kill Chase Andrews – Here’s Why

Let’s go straight to the point. The ending of Where the Crawdads Sing is very straightforward, isn’t it? After years of hiding the truth about the murder of Chase Andrews, Kya finally dies peacefully on her boat, in the middle of the North Carolina marsh and her husband and real and true love – Tate Walker – finds a secret book, where the only piece of evidence of the murder has been hidden: the shell necklace Chase was wearing the same day he was killed.

But maybe that’s not the case. Have you ever thought that Tate’s face when he finds the necklace is not a «OMG, my wife is a killer» face, but maybe a «Geez, all this time my wife was keeping the evidence against me» face? Well if you don’t follow me until this point, let me explain a little.

But first things first. In the novel, in the book, Kya does kill Chase Andrews and when Tate finds the necklace, he also finds a lengthy poem where she beautifully describes every single detail of the murder. But in the movie is not the same.

In the movie, when Old Tate finds the necklace, we do not see any poem or description of the murder itself, and what we actually see is like a short dissertation about morality. Of course, Kya participated in Chase’s murder, but she didn’t committed. Or at least, she didn’t do it only by herself.

Let’s move back in time. The night Tate finds Kya scared outside her house, after Chase tried to rape her, Kya remarks she do not want to live in fear, like her mother. We are compelled to believe that Tate just stop the conversation there and left. But, the rest of this conversation is the key for everything.

Kya knows the «good» people of Barkley Cove and she knows if anything might happen to Chase, she will be the perfect suspect. So the plan she makes up with Tate is quite simple. While Tate murders Chase, she will act like she was guilty, just to reveal later she had a very sound alibi: being outside the town with no possibility of a quick return to find Chase and kill him.

The big question is if Tate was actually on board with this plan at first. After all, if for some reason Kya was found guilty, she would end up in jail. So, this is where the shell necklace comes to place. Tate agreed with the plan because he already owned Kya, and he wanted her back, but in the remote case she was found guilty, the only thing Tate needed to do was to reveal the necklace he took from Chase the night he killed him, in the fire tower, and this way Kya would not go to jail.

After Kya was found Not Guilty for the murder of Chase Andrews, Tate returned the necklace to Kya and she promised to get rid of it. Now, the surprise on Old Tate’s at the end of the movie was that Kya actually did not get rid of the necklace, but she chose to hide it in that secret book with some words about morality.

Kya actually got rid of her predator, but she did not do it alone, and this way she made sure Tate would not just leave her once again, like he once did.

If you ask me why the movie just hinted this explanation, I would say that Delia Owens – author of the novel – insisted so much to respect the ending of the story, that it was contractually impossible to show on screen somebody else besides Kya actually killing Chase. But, fun fact, we do not see Kya killing Chase on screen either. What we see in the movie is Tom Milton building a very strong case, and he makes abundantly clear it was impossible for Kya to kill a man, and cover her prints in just one hour.

Do you agree with theory? Comments below!

I Came By ^ Ending Explained

What would you do if the most important people in your life, your mom, your best friend, your son, one day just simply disappear? What would you do? Would you let the authorities handle it? Or would you go by yourself after all the clues until you find the truth?

British-Iranian director Babak Anvari uses these questions and all their possible answers to shape his Netflix thriller I Came By. So, if in the midst of the kidnappings, the USB flash drives, the raids, and the messages of racism and discrimination you have been left with doubts or questions about this film, don’t worry. Now, and without further ado, we begin the Analysis and Explanation of this movie, I Came By.

1 ^Who is the murderer in I Came By?

If there is something that the film makes clear, it is who the murderer is. The murderer is nothing more and nothing less than the former British Judge Sir Hector Blake (Hugh Bonneville), who is known as Saint Hector, for being a champion of minority causes, such as immigrants, the LGTBI population, women , Muslims and even people with disabilities.

The point is that Sir Hector Blake has a dark secret – in the basement of his residence on Pitt Street, he keeps a prisoner in subhuman conditions. Now, two questions arise. Why does a man of the stature of Sir Hector Blake keep a prisoner in his house? And better yet, who is Sir Hector Blake’s prisoner?

2 ^ Why did Sir Hector Blake keep a prisoner in his house?

As Blake told Omid (Yazdan Qafouri), the ex-Judge harbors uncontrollable bitterness and resentment against Ravi. But who is Ravi? Ravi was his father’s Indo-Parsee lover. If we are to believe the Judge, who in view of the circumstances we can say was quite trustworthy, Blake’s father accepted Ravi into his home, initially to help the young man have a livelihood, and also to help in the domestic chores.

The thing is that over time, Blake’s father, the same one we see in the gigantic painting in the living room, began a romantic-sexual relationship with the young man, and not only that, he decided to make it visible to his wife and son, to the point that Ravi was sleeping in the same bed with him, while his wife was exiled to another bedroom. Of course, Blake didn’t go public with the matter, as he had a reputation to uphold, but he did force his family to accept the fact, and from what we know, Blake Sr. was quite violent, so we can assume coercion as well. included physical violence.

Unable to bear the humiliation that her husband was a closeted gay, living in concubinage with another man, inside her own house, and in front of her own son, Blake’s mother cut her wrists, and Hector himself witnessed the event. It is this rage that drives him to use his house to hold hostages.

3 ^ The prisoner Hector Blake keeps in his basement is Ravi?

No, the prisoner Sir Hector Blake keeps in his cellar is not Ravi. First of all, Ravi, if he were still alive, should be about the same age as Blake and the prisoner he’s keeping there is much younger, and likewise, Blake wouldn’t be hunting down other guys to put in his basement like he told Omid.

The question that now arises is, did Sir Hector Blake murder Ravi? Here the answer is probably yes. Ravi had to outlive Blake Senior, and it is highly unlikely that Blake Sr. legally left anything to his Parsi lover. So once Blake Sr. died, it would not be illogical to think that Hector kidnapped Ravi and made him his first prisoner, keeping him in his basement in subhuman conditions. And the photos Toby found in Blake’s basement prove it. Now, in these conditions Ravi could not have survived long and since Hector continued to feel this monstrous resentment, he decided to hunt down young men with the same profile as Ravi: immigrants that no one would miss, like Omid.

And since these subjects, due to starvation, the terrible sanitary conditions and confinement do not last long, every so often they have to go out and look for replacements.

4 ^ How did Toby and Jay end up in all of this?

Toby (George MacKay, 1917) and Jay (Parcelle Ascott) had been raised practically like brothers by Liz (Kelly Macdonald). Jay had been kicked out of his house, and Toby as his friend offered him his house. Jay and Toby decided to create the movement I Came By with which they marked rich, influential people, who had a discourse of social justice, and in favor of the marginalized, but who in reality lived as powerful tycoons whom they he cared little or nothing about the people in his speeches.

And that’s where former Crown Judge Sir Hector Blake comes in. At the beginning of the film, Toby and Jay recognize that the man is a hypocrite, who despite his speeches, actually lives as the best of the British nobility, in Pitt Street. Pitt Street is a street in the exclusive section of Kensington, halfway between Holland Park and Kensington Palace. Jay, who worked in network installations, identified Blake and passed the modem number to Toby in order to break into the house together, but Jay backed down when he learned that his girlfriend Naz was pregnant.

Toby raided the house, and found the prisoner in the basement.

5 ^ Did Blake kill Toby and Liz? How many people did he kill?

Since the beginning of the film, Sir Hector Blake murders a total of 3 people, although the murders always occur off camera.

Toby Nealey: He was killed after anonymously reporting to the police that Blake had a prisoner in his basement. When after the investigation, the policemen did not search thoroughly, and left the house, Toby decided to enter on his own and rescue the prisoner. Everything was going well until Blake appeared at the house, and when Toby was ready to attack him, he slipped on the prisoner’s urine and Blake reduced him to later kill him, cut him up, cremate him and put his ashes in the toilet.

Omid: Omid was to be the replacement for the prisoner Blake was keeping in his basement. He had the profile: an immigrant, with legal problems, with no one in the country who cared about him. The plan was simple, Blake was going to alter Omid’s drink to drug him, subdue him and put him in his house. However, Omid managed to escape, with the help of Liz – who was following the judge. Why did Omid fall back into Sir Blake’s hands? Omid believed that what Blake wanted was just sex, so when the judge appeared again, after the incident, and told him that he could help him with his asylum application, he assumed that the worst that could happen was that he ended up sleeping with him. He didn’t expect that he was going to kill him.

Liz Nealey : Looking for her son, Liz entered the judge’s house, using the key hidden outside her house, and was found there by the ex-Judge, and after cremating Omid, he murdered her.

6 ^ Why did Jay decide to finally face Sir Hector Blake?

Jay’s great dilemma was to protect his family, his girlfriend Naz and their son, or to do the right thing, to honor the memory, first of Toby and then of Liz. But then he realized that by trying to hide from his past self, he was destroying his life and his family. Naz knew something was bothering him and it bothered her that Jay didn’t tell her, and she wasn’t about to start a family with him after that. Partly because of that, and partly because Naz could be in danger near such a subject, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

Finally, after subduing Blake and tying him up, and paying tribute to his friend and his mother with I Came By graffiti , he released the prisoner and called the police. Finally, he had done the right thing and now he could live his way, free from past guilt.

7 ^ Did Jay save Toby and Liz?

No, Toby and Liz were murdered by Sir Hector Blake, what Jay managed to do was connect the evidence of their murders to the former Judge and make him pay for all his crimes.

8 ^ What is the message of the film?

The message of the film is clear: no matter how well you hide what you do, or how good is the mask you wear, there will always, always be someone who will find out your secrets one way or another, and you will be forced to confront them. Hector Blake and Jay had to deal with this in different ways, Blake having his perfect life consumed by his murders, and Jay having to sacrifice his physical integrity to do the right thing after the death of his friend and the woman he was like. his mother.

I would also say that it is a warning to all those who believe in those personalities – politicians?- who claim to fight for the rights of other people. As is clear in this movie, most of them are just fake people who want to take advantage of people’s anger to achieve their own goals.

And finally a message to families: Liz confronted her son about the money his father left her and because she thought she had a better idea of ​​how to live his life. In the end, when Toby disappeared, all of that was left behind. Perhaps the message for Liz and for all parents is that there comes a point where you can advise your children, but in the end they must make their own mistakes and go their own way. Not giving them that freedom could ultimately lead to a far worse fate than their parents might foresee.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

Red Dot | Netflix Movie Explained

Directed by Alain Darborg, and starring Nana Blondell and Anastasios Soulis, Punto Rojo is a very good sample of what Scandinavian cinema can bring to the Big Screen, when there is a nice budget behind it. After all, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland are global powers in producing crime and suspense literature, from which we have seen a glimpse with Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy and his iconic characters Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist. .

Now, if in the midst of all the murders, suspicions, and northern lights, you are still wondering what is going on at the end of this film, do not worry. It is time for Red Dot: Explained.

1 | Why is this movie called Red Dot?

It is a nice reference to a specific scene of the movie, where the main characters are terrified to see someone is pointing them with a red dot sight, in the spot where they were camping to see the northern lights.

2 | Where and when do the events of Red Dot take place?

Chronologically, the film begins with David Daftander (Soulis) graduating as a Civil Engineer, the same day he proposed to Nadja (Blondell) and they plan to move to Stockholm .

A year and a half later, marital problems between David and Nadja forced them to go on an excursion to Björndalen, (Bear Valley). Taking into account that the northern lights could be seen on that site, we can narrow down the search to two Swedish provinces: Norrbotten and Lappland. Taking into account that there are no masks, or biosecurity protocols, we could well place Nadja and David’s excursion in 2019, and David’s graduation in 2017.

3 | What happened the day David proposed to Nadja?

After that weird marriage proposal in the toilette, David was driving his car, but suddenly Nadja was trying to take his pants off. David, obviously excited, tried to help her, but he took his eyes off the road and ended up running over Olof, Tomas and Mona’s son.

4 | Why didn’t David and Nadja help the boy and run away?

Although Nadja tried to convince David to stop and call the police for help, David was convinced that it would ruin the life that was just beginning with his graduation as a Civil Engineer, and convinced her that he would turn himself in later.

And finally he was putting it off, until finally marriage, work and life, ended up convincing him that it was useless to waste his life. The funny thing is that neither Nadja nor David seemed to be moved, or worried, much less felt guilty, because once the accident happened, they dedicated themselves to following their lives as if it had never happened.

5 | Who killed Boris, David and Nadja’s dog?

Although the racist brothers, Jarmo and Rolle, were the main suspects, since they had a confrontation with David and Nadja for hitting the truck, and then in retaliation, having scratched their vehicle with racist nicknames, the truth is that those who assassinated Boris were Tomas, Mona and their pal Einar.

6 | What was Tomas’s plan?

The plan was basically to make Nadja and David pay for the death of Olof. He moved near them, became their friend, and then when the occasion was opportune, he set them up, sending them to Björndalen, where the idea they had was to kill them. .

Of course, Tomas was very sure that he did not want to kill them quickly, they wanted to make them suffer.

7 | What went wrong with Tomas’s plan?

Tomas thought it would be easy to locate Nadja and David because they did not know the area, however they were able to escape and hide thanks to the snowstorm that covered the area. The fact that the racist brothers were in the area didn’t help either, because Nadja and David kept hiding from them, thinking they were responsible. They even killed Rolle, and burned Jarmo.

8 | What does the end of Punto Rojo mean?

In the end, Nadja and David get trapped in Einar’s house, and Tomas eventually plans for David to wound Nadja in the belly. However Einar could not bear the sadism of Tomas and stopped him. Jarmo ended up complicating the matter even more. In the end Jarmo and Einar died in that house.

Nadja and David managed to escape, but David was in such bad shape that he gave Nadja the option to flee. David was willing to die at the hands of Tomas, but Nadja returned carrying Rolle’s gun. What she was not expecting was that Mona, Tomas’s wife, was also around with a gun, so he ended up with a shot to the head.

In the end, with Nadja’s corpse next to David, Tomas saw that it was no longer necessary to murder David. At that point he had already lost everything.

9 | What is the message of the movie?

We must take responsibility for our actions. There is a temptation to believe that we can get away with what we do, but just as David ended up paying handsomely for the damage he did, by trying to escape responsibility, the same can happen to us.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

The Little Things | Movie Explained

Directed by John Lee Hancock ( The Blind Side ) and starring three Top A-List actors (Denzel Washington, Rami Malek and Jared Leto), The Little Things is an interesting twist on the crime scene suspense genre, dubbed by some as neo-noir, genre highlighted by the prolific David Fincher and his classics Seven and Zodiac .

Now, if this so-called twist, the serial killers, the accidental murders, the obsessions and traps, you are still wondering what is going on at the end of this film, do not worry. It is time for The Little Things: Explained.

1 | Joe Deacon is the killer?

Let’s get straight to the point. One of the big surprises of this film is the moment in which it is revealed that of the three young women murdered under the bridge, only two were there when the police arrived. The third, who was not next to the other two, called Mary Roberts (Anna McKitrick) was accidentally killed by Deacon, when in the middle of the search of the crime scene, the girl appeared between the bushes and the detective, thinking that it was the killer behind him, shot her on the chest.

Then, in a flashback scene we see that Sal (Chris Rizoli) and coroner Flo Dunigan (Michael Hyatt) covered up for Deacon, who in a process of anxiety generated by his obsession, ended up losing his marriage to Marsha, and suffering a heart attack, before moving on to Kern County, working as a Sheriff.

2 | Where and when do the events of The Little Things take place?

One of the curiosities that first comes to mind in the film is that there are no cell phones, the forensic technique is very lousy, and the computers still work on MS-DOS. Obviously, this film is located before the popularization of Windows, so together with other clues, such as the dates in the newspapers, we can place the movie in 1990.

And considering that the murder of the three girls that obsesses Deacon occurred 5 years earlier, this would occur in 1985.

Now, the killings occur in the Los Angeles area, and what they call «The North,» in which they include Kern County, where Deacon was exiled, is not as far north as you – someone who is not an American living in California – might think. Actually, Kern County is a not that far from Los Angeles, about 180 kilometers (111 miles) away, which can be covered in less than two hours on the I-5.

3 | Did Albert Sparma actually kill the prostitutes and then the girls, including Rhonda Rathbun?

Although the film is generally ambiguous in this regard, the circumstantial evidence collected by Deacon indicates that it was indeed Sparma.

The evidence, the high mileage, the newspaper clippings, the Busch beer, the fast food, the way Tina recognized him, the AAA repair service job and most of all, the erection Sparma had when he saw the photographs of the murdered girls, made Deacon conclude that Sparma was indeed the murderer.

4 | Is there a possibility that Sparma wasn’t the killer?

It could be concluded that indeed, there is no overwhelmingly solid evidence that he is the murderer, but using the laws of probability, it is simply impossible that Sparma was not involved in the murders.

The other kind of crazy option, would be for Sparma to be so obsessed with murder that he knew all those details, and tried to emulate them. The location of the girl on the highway was not leaked to the press, but Sparma had a radio with the police frequencies. Tina partially identified him, but could have been suggested by seeing him handcuffed.

Now, if perhaps individually the evidence is not conclusive, the sum of them, including the fingerprints, the dental marks and the psychological profile that the FBI later took, which partially coincided with Sparma, indicate that in fact, he was the murderer. Two are coincidence, but ten?

5 | Why did Sparma take Baxter to the desert?

If there is any additional proof that Sparma is the murderer, it is the moment when he manipulates Baxter into the desert. Sparma waits for Deacon to get out of the car, to approach Baxter. Sparma knows that Deacon is sure and plenty convinced that he is the murderer, so much Deacon would not hesitate to murder him if he was in Baxter’s shoes.

However, Baxter is not so sure and Sparma knows it. Sparma thinks he can have fun with Baxter by making him believe that he is going to reveal the place where the dead girl is, but making him fail time after time, until he is convinced that he was not the real killer. That’s his game, make Baxter hesitate, to have doubts.

Yet further proof that Sparma is the murderer is that he cannot help but relish the idea that he can murder Baxter’s wife and two daughters. At that moment, when he enjoyed the idea, and that the detective consequently beat him with the shovel, killing him, he – Sparma- showed himself as he is. Or as he was.

6 | What does the end of The Little Things mean? What happens to the red barrette?

In the end Deacon, in an act of reparation for those who ever helped him, decides to completely cover up Baxter, burying Sparma’s corpse and emptying his apartment. Deacon wants Baxter to enjoy his family, his wife and two daughters, and not throw his life away the way he did.

So he sends her that final message where he says «We are not angels», along with a red barrette.

Seeing the evidence and the message, Baxter can start his life anew thinking that he did indeed take the life of a murderer, and not an innocent man. However, in the last shots we see that Deacon actually bought the barrette, he didn’t find it in Sparma’s things.

The point is, Deacon wasn’t going to let Baxter destroy his life, and he was willing to do anything to get it, even lie to him.

7 | Is there a chance that Stan Peters was the real killer?

The point with the doubt about Stan Peters is that he, in effect, committed suicide after being confronted by the police about the dead girls and especially Mary Roberts, to whose name he reacted strangely. But we know that Mary Roberts was accidentally killed by Deacon, not Peters.

Stan Peters does not convey the security that the driver who followed Tina had, and the reason for his suicide would simply he was not ready to go to jail, taking into account the proclivity of the police to tag him as guilty. The reaction to Mary Roberts was perhaps because at some point he met her, followed her and possibly even tried to touch her, and if the police found this they would not hesitate for a second to send him to the dungeon.

8 | What is the message of the movie?

The twist of this film is that more than a quest to find a murderer, it is a character study, on how obsession can destroy someone’s life, and how by learning from the mistakes of others, we can move on, despite our faults

And perhaps even more so, how difficult it is to define someone’s innocence and guilt in absolute terms. Deacon took the life of Mary Roberts, but saved Baxter, and his wife and two daughters as well. There was no solid evidence that Sparma was the killer, but his fondness for female pain revealed him to Baxter.

It’s the little things, rescuing a friend from disaster, or demonstrating your sadistic nature in a few words, that ultimately reveal who the hero is, who the villain is, and who, ultimately, are the ones who deserve redemption.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

Velvet Buzzsaw ^ Ending Explained

What the hell did I just watch? The previous question could well summarize the result of any viewer after watching the 113 minutes of Velvet Buzzsaw , film starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo and Toni Collete, under the exclusive distribution of Netflix.

Beyond its technical aspects, the film poses a real challenge for all everyone who takes the risk of seeing it. After all, Velvet Buzzsaw’s plot flows perfectly, but allows the viewer to fill the gaps of the how and why.

Do you wanna know what you really watched on Velvet Buzzsaw? No more preambles. Let’s analyze what Velvet Buzzsaw is about.

1 ^ Does Velvet Buzzsaw have a post-credits scene?

Keep reading…