SUBSCRIBE and help us get to 10,000! Twitter: twitter.com/jburnsreviews Instagram: instagram.com/burnsreviews Letterboxd: www.letterboxd.com/burnsreviews Patreon: patreon.com/burns_reviews #Resurrection #Resurrection2022 #ResurrectionMovie
My take is that David is real. He finally finds Maggie again and is able to pick up where he left off controlling her; taking it even further this time to the point where she is even losing control of her own mind. But Davids narcissistic arrogance becomes the tool for his own demise when, in an act of poetic justice, 😊 Maggie kills David in order to retrieve her baby, because David has convinced her that her baby lives inside him. YES! He thought she would be under his control forever because she needed to be near her baby. But nope. Thats what happens when you drive a woman out of her mind.
Two things stuck with me in the movie: I don’t think David was really there. I think the notion of the girl finding one of his teeth in her wallet was just as ridiculous as him tracking down Margaret. That’s a narrative Margaret tells herself to avoid the reality of losing another child. The other thing that stood out to me was that Margaret was becoming David. The constant demands for Abbie to check in, be safe, not go out. It bad the same effect on Abbie in that it drove her to want to run away from her and never look back. My interpretation was that in one of her delusions, Margaret killed a man to “save Ben” while in reality, she probably just slasher open a man’s innards. Her anxious breaths at the end was her realization that her delusion was not real and soon she’d be waking up to the reality that Abbie’s gone, just like Ben.
The things that make me think he’s really there are 1) the tooth. 2) the fact that he snatches her gun away. And 3) the call at her office that a man is there to see her. Not definitive, for sure. But enough to make me think that maybe he was really there. In the end, it seems his manipulation backfires, he pushes her too far, and she has a complete breakdown, imagining a happy ending. That final look is her realizing that she’s actually lost both her children and that this reunion is all in her mind (and she may even be laying in a pool of blood, dying from her wounds). I think you’re spot on with regards to her relationship with her daughter, who just turned 18 during the events of the movie (same age Margaret was when she met homeboy). She’s super overprotective of her, and her intern for that matter. Man, so much to discuss in this flick.
Your #3 is something i noticed in the movie. It was NOT david. They show that the man who called and showed up was the BOYFRIEND. Because of that single instance, i immediately realized that david did not exist during the movie.
I think It's too simplistic to see the movie as a crazy episode that never happened. If you lean towards any direction (either it being real or not) this probably says more about the viewer than about the movie. The movie is largely about the effects of gaslight and how it messes up someone's sense of reality. The whole purpose of the ending is to convey how it feels to be uncertain about what is real or not and have the audience experience (and live with) that uncertainty. So the purpose of the movie is that you won't leave with a formed opinion. If you leave the movie thinking it's a maniac episode then the only "point" here would be "crazy woman does crazy things because she has a crazy past". I feel the movie is striving for more than that.
yes like how both the women she opened up to told her that she was making it up, I feel like a lot of people saying David never existed are just the same, dismissing what happened
If this is about gas lighting, then what demonic ritual took place for dude to eat the baby then be 'carrying' it? jk, maybe So he kept fucking with her right up until she stabby stabbed him.... then she hallucinated pulling out a baby and so on from going mad?
I don’t know, I think it’s unnecessary to criticise people who have a different take on the movie than yourself. It’s good to be confident in your opinion but assuming that you understand what many others have failed to grasp? Small things like the fact that she was lactating when she looked in the mirror imply that she may have been pregnant the whole time by her coworker. The fact that she was not in jail in the end. The fact that she changed her name and went from the UK to the USA, so how did David find her? Remember him being shocked that she had changed her last name? You don’t have Social Security numbers in the UK you have national insurance numbers. seriously, how? Maybe there isn’t a straightforward answer as to whether it is real or not?
I don’t think David was real. I also think she was pregnant the whole time. The main reason? David didn’t know that she had changed her name until he showed up in her office. So then, how did he find her in the first place? He met her in Canada, he took her back to England. And 22 years ago she ran away to the USA and now she is in New York City with a completely different name. in the USA you have Social Security numbers, in the UK you have a national insurance number. You don’t use the other one in the opposite country. He would not have known her Social Security number. Also, she went to the police but failed to tell them that someone she had fled in a different country 22 years ago who she believed killed the child was stalking her. Now why would she not bring that up? I suspect she had become pregnant by her married coworker and the pregnancy triggered memories from the horrible event that happened to her 22 years before. Both the memory of her dead child and the idea of having a baby was “resurrected“ in her. I think she had experienced a serious psychotic episode, she had a Caesarean section and, I am assuming, she is now with her baby in a secure psychiatric unit. I’m sure her horrible bratty daughter is not visiting her there. I hope she can maintain the illusion for as long as possible.
There are lots of ways of finding missing people. I live in Miami, where sexual slavery is a major problem. And I know two private detectives who specialize in finding the sex slaves, who actually have no identify in America. But I do agree the fact that he was surprised that she had a different last name was obnoxiously strange. It would have been much easier to have some ex-cop simply look up people who changed their names...I think cost to do something like that is $500 at most. As far as reporting a crime of a known child's murderer, that is a big no-no! She is an accomplice to murder and severe child physical abuse. And this is why her guilt is driving her insane, sort of like in The Tell-Taie Hart. This is the reason I'm not very impressed with this film, it has two different tales. The main plot is extremely obvious, where the story line of David not existing was told rather poorly (possibly do to a shoe string budget). It's rather clear that he exists which sort of sucks be cause it would have been an amazing film otherwise.
I love the movie and was expecting some explanation in it, but it really works anyway, because the main "character " is trauma. The mother repeated a little bit what she went through with her daughter, not out of perversion or sadistic reasons, but fear. The daughter was turning 18, the same age she got stuck into a extreme abusive relationship, utterly alone, cause her parents didn't gave her the security she needed in such young age. At the same time, 18 is when we are walking into the world and society and making plans for our own life, so I think the mother couldn't handle this extreme moment of their lives. I don't know if David is real or not, but it is absolutely incredible how trauma and domination is portrait in this movie. I think David invented that the baby was living inside him just to control her with her guilty. The movie makes it's interesting to think about motherhood and the man with the baby inside his belly, I think maybe it's a way to say to her that she doesn't have "power, or control about anything without him, because she carry the baby, but I think later David lies telling that he is carrying the baby. I think that in the end she was alone i ln the room and I think that she was pregnant of the coworker, but she was not sleeping, not eating right, so she was so unhealthy that probably affect the belly growing and a healthy baby. So I think that she was hurting herself thinking it was David and she did a c section on her and died later. But I don't know. I do.know that it's a excelent movie about trauma!
Yeah it’s definitely a messed up movie. I haven’t revisited it though. I remember her doing a good 7 minute monologue and like Rebecca hall, but over time it hasn’t aged well in my head.
she is actually in psychiatric hospital after commiting murder. and She is seeing her children finally fear free in Happy place ie her mind. almost every scene in Dark tone in this move only the last scene is crispy white kinda reminds me of hospitals. and also the ending shot, from brigthness it becomes dark again.
Hi, I truly appreciate your review & view on what was Real vs. not in the movie. However I believe David was really there & tragically fully Manipulated Maggie again to believe that poor Dead baby Ben was actually still in his stomach, in David's Sick attempt to get her to stay With him again in order to be with baby Ben. In Emma of Spooky Astronaut's review of Resurrection, you'll see that's how I think she took the movie too, cus David's type of sick, manipulative Abuse does happen , so the movie likely is trying to show how David tragically was able to fully Manipulate Maggie into believing her poor baby Ben, who David Did Murder & may've really sickly eaten 22 years prior, was still alive in his stomach, which clearly is impossible! So I believe David was really there being his twisted self Manipulating her again to walk to work barefoot, etc, so came to his hotel room, but it backfired on him as I think she did Kill David, & her total Break from reality began Then, as she Imagined she found baby Ben in his stomach, but really did Not, & left there w/David's intestines allover, but No baby; so That's what I think she realized at the very End, that she was Alone in her apt without Abby or baby Ben.
Firstly, thank you for being respectful with your comment. I can't begin to tell you how many people aren't in the comments section when they have a differing opinion. Secondly, I'm right there with you.. Despite my diagnosis of events made in this video, i've still viewed multiple times and with different points of view. I think your pov holds a lot of water, potentially more than mine the more I think about it. Honestly, the fun with this movie is not being 100% sure where reality ends and delusion begins and that's the point, but i like your version better. Fits better in my head canon. Thanks for watching :)
also since he's that twisted he could have snuck into the apartment to put the tooth or somehow met up with the daughter because when he leaves the diner he says "we don't want anymore accidents" so somehow he was behind her daughter getting drunk/getting hurt on the bike
➡️ STH ADDITIONAL HERE - Margaret as a teen was depicted as a kid who could draw patterns for hours thus it’s a hint about her MENTAL issues, probably OCD with (apparently) additional problems as they appear in groups. David was aware of her problems and mental vulnerabilities so he used them against her what also shows his narcissistic and sadistic personality.
From my understanding, while trauma creates a lot of psychological problems, in no case does it turn you into a schizophrenic with extended and elaborate paranoid delusions and hallucinations. A profound and sustained break with reality like that is due to neurobiological reasons, not unresolved trauma necessarily. But it's also clear that David isn't there, so what I think the film is suggesting is that not only is David not there, but he was never there. It's more likely that he never existed at all. When her co-worker reacts that way to her story of trauma, it's because it's absurd. Really think about the story she tells. It has the quality of a psychotic break, not a thing that actually happened to her or anyone else. If David really did exist at some point, we no reason to think that his treatment of her turned her into a paranoid schizophrenic, even if the treatment she describes is accurate. The only thing that makes sense is that she was always a schizophrenic or schizo affective, and she may or may not have experienced trauma, but even if she did, we can reasonably speculate that whatever it was, it didn't resemble the story she told. It's just how she remembers it because she's delusional. Her story may be how she's remembering a previous psychotic break that she recovered from, but we also have to consider the possibility that this is the first psychotic break she's ever had and that this imagined history is part of that delusion. The guilt she feels about Ben, who like David may never have existed at all, could be due to anything. She may have had a child previously and killed him after having a psychotic break and in her mind, invented David to blame for it rather than confront what she had done, for instance. Or maybe she just miscarried, had an abortion, and so on. We could imagine countless other scenarios which would be as plausible.
I loved this film, and I'm so happy to have found your channel. I especially agree with you that David might not have been real in the current events shown in the movie. What he did to her in the past made the poor murdered lookalike real in her head. That disconnect between the man who said, "You introduced yourself," to the point where he smiled with a tooth clearly missing, was that made it for me. Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice. It's scary what the mind can do to you because of the past. She was okay at the start of the film, and then everything just escalated beyond no return. Whether real or not, I found Tim Roth's performance proper chilling. Rebecca Hall's too. Thank you for this. I'll be watching more of your reviews.
I really thought at the end we would see the daughter looking at an empty blanket or something, and the daughter was just playing along with the mom because she knows she's crazy... But, based on the final few seconds, I just think that she realized there is no baby, and her daughter is gone...
@@BurnsReviews Its hard to say, they really left it up to interpretation to the point i dont think there is a real answer. The oven baby doesnt line up with the story she tells though.
I thought the same thing because in the monologue she says something along the lines of "I did something terrible" she doesn't say "something terrible happened" why would she say that she did something?
@@AnaParadisi In the end of the speech her intern says "I don't understand" and she specifies exactly what she meant when she said "I did something bad". She explains: "I let him poison my brain with lies, I let him kill my child and then I ran". First of all she never reported what happened to the police, she just left and ran away from the situation. Thats clearly something bad that she did. She just let the lunatic who killed her son get off the hook. Then she obviously also blames herself for not protecting the baby. She feels like the baby is dead because she let herself be manipulated by David and allowed the abuse to happen. Obviously is not her fault but it's common for people in abusive relationships to blame themselves for the abuse. Finally there is a part of her that still feels the baby was indeed in David's belly and she feels like she abandoned him. At a point of the speech she says she that she did her best to keep doing the kindnesses until they got harder and she just ran away. Although she knows the baby is not in his belly she somehow feels he is. This creates a conflicting feeling in her.
Love this analysis. One of my favorite films of the year and it’s because you could really go with ANY takes you made. Not for everyone sure, but I like a movie that makes me wanna check out other people’s takes immediately after it ends.
I believe that David wasn't real and the 'man' in the office was meant to throw us off. Notice that Peter, who claims to love Margaret, never asked her about the 'man' who visited her at the office. It may have been work-related and they then cut to the scene of her speaking with David in her office. I have always been a fan of Rebecca and this is one of her best performances. And that scene in the end where her face expression changes was creepy.
My theory on the origin of the tooth: Fact: the tooth is a maxillary first premolar. The close up shot that David smiles reveals the toothless space corresponding where that exact tooth is located in the mouth. It is anatomically correct. Now where did the tooth originate from if David was not real? My theory is this: many teenagers around Abbie’s age have premolars removed as part of their orthodontic treatment. It is entirely plausible that one of Abbie’s teenage acquaintances who had that tooth extracted could have surreptitiously placed it in her wallet as some sort of juvenile prank.
I never understood why she didn't just tell the daughter or the boyfriend what was going on and what happened, especially when the daughter was leaving like this movie could’ve been 30 min instead of a hour and a half. 😂 this movie made me so frustrated hahaha
You forgot one major clue that basically confirms your theory. She wakes up one morning and her shirt is wet over her nipple. She began lactating because she was pregnant with Peter. The title "Resurrection" is in reference to how at the end, the same fantasy was resurrected by having Peter's baby to fill the hole from losing her child, Abbie, the same way that she had Abbie to fill the hole from losing Ben. This reinforces the idea of trauma being generational.
@@bloodiebunniez I think it's the opposite. The whole reason she was hooking up with Peter was because she was trying to get pregnant to replace Abbie, now that Abbie has began separating from her. She doesn't find it traumatic or difficult being pregnant, she wants to be pregnant to comfort her.
I agree with how you think it played out. I think she did get pregnant again. Wasn’t there a scene where she wakes up and looks in the mirror and sees she’s lactating.
Fabricio Delesderrier há 1 segundo I think that she was indeed pregnant, and had the baby on the hotel room, by herself... and cutting the umbilical cord with a knife.
Good review. I need this film to sink in before I fully comment... Here comes the "However' moment though... I think there is another major clue to add: David repeatedly says 'He's in my belly." And what do we see Maggie having a nightmare of? Ben cooked in an oven.... Food for thought (No pun intended).
Maybe the violent hotel scene was her giving birth to the baby boy and metaphorically killing David who represents past trauma which had resurrected when Margaret became pregnant again. Coincidently or not Abbie was the same age as her when she met David. I don't recall Abbie ever talking to anyone other than Peter. Peter was also confused when Margaret said children. We assume that he was confused because she used a plural but maybe it's because she never had a child. Maybe Abbie was the version of herself before she met David which she's been trying to protect but felt she was in danger again when she fell pregnant. It would explain why Abbie doesn't have a father. Margeret is Abbie and Margeret is trying to protect Abbie from past trauma which has resurrected from falling pregnant.
I like the idea that Abby could represent the young endangered Maggie. In the fantasy sequence she is no longer scared, Abby that is even though Maggie ends with fear returning to her face (maybe at the realisation that she is in her subconscious realm now)
My opinion he was never there! The girl in the office who spoke about her abusive and controlling partner to Meg triggered something in her and resurrected that memory from her past and she relived it plus her daughter getting close to 18 similar age to hers when she met him... she felt the need to keep her daughter safe coz she failed her son in the past... yes all these were major events to trigger a psychotic episode. Deep down in her subconscious she needed to do now what she didnt do before ... to save her baby. The ending I think she is in a psychiatric ward with all these meds on the bedside table!
Absolutely. I'm not sure why so many viewers are taking this film as literal narrative or text. So many references & specific dialogue about her being or not being a bad mother or murderer, baby in oven, and no one else ever interacts with David. It seems fairly apparent especially by the climax that he is a psychological projection, a male projection of her guilt or shame from the past over abandoning a son but potentially from an abortion, possibly coerced by the boyfriend "David." Any element of him actually eating the baby & showing up 20 years later as the objective literal truth seems ridiculous. I don't buy it, at least not in the style & tone of how these scenes were presented. More likely she blames past boyfriend for her giving up/losing baby Ben, so his present day (Tyler Durden-esque) with baby in belly is accurate projection of guilt avoidance until she can't hide that trauma any longer. The movies metaphorical elements have some issues and don't entirely work, but I did love the dedicated choices they took and enough uniquely intense moments to be a critical & interesting film.
Your explanation helped me a lot in the interpretation of the film's ending. What is clear is the unstoppable fall of the extraordinary protagonist into madness, especially her total inability to pull herself out of it. The fact that she agrees to go barefoot to the office every day to please David once again is an unmistakable sign of her still very strong dependence on David. The final scene is clearly a reconstruction of the dream that the protagonist had from the beginning, with David dead (perhaps only in her mind), Ben still alive and her daughter close to her. After all, the madness she has arrived at is the only possible salvation for the protagonist.
Yeah this movie is as dark as it is goofy. The whole “maybe he ate a baby” thing was weird, I didn’t believe him, it was odd, and yeah… I don’t know. Rebecca Hall nailed it though. I’m starting to wonder if she’s just incredibly good at play distressed characters and how much she might actually be like that in real life. She’s good, but she feels this way in every movie going back to Vicky Cristina Barcelona
One thing I caught was the blanket was real. I think she was in her delusion and the room she went into had a pregnant women, and she cut her belly open and took the baby. The first trip all she got was the blanket. Ending was all her delusion. To make it worse, it’s been done before. The taking of a baby.
True.. although even that scene I found was oddly contextualized. Based on what I read from the director/writer they tried to make it play both ways. Like he’s there… but they oddly refer to him as “a man”. And they don’t show him being shown in by a secretary or him talking to the front desk. we just “cut to” and he’s in her office. The intern and friend with benefits dude, Peter I think, they are looking into her office concerned, so maybe they’re looking at him but maybe because they know she’s been acting weird… maybe they’re watching her talk to herself. so it’s done very intentionally. the more I think about it the more I think he did actually show back up. it’s weird.. because yanno.. why now? You would think such an ego maniac would have found a new victim to haunt. Why track down some girl to another country from 20 years ago. I don’t know.. you think 20 years he’d have gone through gaslighting a bunch of other people and would be too vein to even remember someone like Maggie. just my thought. anyway thanks for the kind word and thanks for watching. I love these kind of movies 🙏
@@BurnsReviews true, it could definitely play both ways. I thought he had been looking for her for all this time and finally found her. Maybe she changed her name when she left? He was obsessed with her. I love these kind of movies too. And Rebecca Hall is amazing!
The man in the office was the boyfriend, it literally pans to him during that scene very quickly. Watch it again. As soon as i saw it, i realized David was fake.
It seems fair to believe that David is indeed real (the grey hair and beard) and .the hotel indeed real,after which, our heroine lost her mind! She just snapped completely. A tragic ending.........
I think, everything did happened. After she killed him. she went home, and she imagined she had the baby and everything was fine and happy, then realized that she was all alone in her bedroom.
did anybody notice what was airing on the news at the receptionist's desk, when she entered the rooming building where tim roth was residing? It was the capture of james kopp who murdered barnett slepian in his home outside of buffalo ny . spooky!!!!
Movies with plots like this are becoming redundant and predictable to the point of becoming tedious.The pattern is repetitive like most psychological films and it ain't fun anymore. Films like these are on the same alley with beautiful mind or shutter island or the requim for a dream or the machinist but not quite crafted on that level.
I’m glad you’re explaining this movie because I didn’t get the whole eaten baby reconditioned and living in the ex-boyfriend’s stomach at all. Apparently it could still be heard crying?!? What on earth was going on? Should be interesting.
He wasn’t really hearing it and neither was she. He was just gaslighting her SO HARD that see eventually believed him and thought she heard their child. It’s insane, but she admits she also remember believing him when he said he heard the voice of god. So she’s clearly affected by him and his BS.
He was kind of a sick play on pregnancy. The pregnant one asking the other partner not to abandon them and then the final “Caesarean section”. Of course that wasn’t the case, he had kill the child, possibly eaten the child and the child was dead.
I suspect David did something to lead to the fact that the baby doesn’t exist in the present day. I don’t believe he ate the baby though. he’s a master manipulator, gaslighter, and liar.. cannibal though? I don’t know.. no evidence to suggest either way
Basically the film is a about a woman who has ppd David made her have an abortion a trauma she never got over then fantasizes about killing him because she can never get over the fact she had an abortion. Tim Roth is great as is Hall 2 very good actors on a terrible script and movie at the same time what a waste of talent this film was. I give it ⭐️⭐️
That’s my take on it. Someone mentioned that the daughter is actually playing along, and then someone mentioned she’s not even there because she left and never looked back and her reaction is her realizing that in reality that she’s actually sitting there all alone.
😂I Believe her EX was in the present time and everything happened the way it showed besides the End with the bright room. EVEN her secretary at work said that a man was there to see her. What man who knows? 😊 Well I didn't get the answer I was looking for but I did get an answer, sooo thanks! 😊
I think the producers definitely wanted to make a ‘bun in the oven’ pun for the viewers with that scene where Maggie saw the baby in the oven in her nightmare😂
All imaginary on her part. No way the daughter would just embrace a new baby like that. Where had it come from? Plus the daughter would never talk like that about her mother who she was very suspect of. It gave it all away for me. It didn't ruin it at all just wasn't any other interpretation viable to me. She just imagined it all and was alone in the end.
Why did the lady freak out on her at the hotel screaming at her to get out WTF was that? Im thinking she had a baby boy who passed away then I think she gutted a pregnant woman and took her baby which turned out to be a girl i only think that because when she gutted David at the end and took the baby. Idk the movie was BSC
Could be! To be honest I think this movie is intentionally ambiguous with random scenes like that for the audience to think whatever they want. Which yeah.. like Deadpool says, feels like lazy screenwriting
Yeahhh but even that, I don’t know. if you can imagine him out of thin air, you can imagine him ordering a coffee. it plays both way for me on account that it was an incredibly simple exchange.
@@BurnsReviews hmm..That is the only one scene that doesnt make sense. If that scene was not there, i would peacefully assumed that she saw someone who looks like david in the convention and then after that it was all her imagination.
✋ Rebecca Hall is the definition of Grace And c’mon man… doesn’t your mind ever go numb watching cars that get furious, and heroes that wear capes? Isn’t nice once in awhile not being spoon feed exactly what to think or feel but rather be put in a place where you can decide for yourself? I know I enjoy stuff like that. Granted, Resurrection is a bit of a bleak film with heavy story beats, but you have give the film credit engaging with the audience, rather than tell them exactly what to feel.
"Open to interpretation" but it's called 'Resurrection' ~ I had no idea what to think at the end, but I wasn't trying to necessarily. // Makes sense that she suffered post partum, cooked her baby 'accidentally', found a way to tie it all up in her head, had a life, got triggered cuz her daughter was leaving ? edit: maybe the coworker talking about her a-hole boyfriend was the initial trigger; then the daughter getting ready to leave while not being on the best terms with mom etc edit2: and the random tooth her daughter punked her with. If she accidentally cooked her baby and thought she got over it, her kid being like: "LOOK MOM, RRRRRGH plop into hand, TOOFTH! ... IDK WHERE I GOT IT .. eyeroll."
if i knew this was one of those "interpret your own ending" movies I wouldn't have watched it. story feels incomplete this way and as a watcher who just wants to enjoy a movie, it was completely frustrating.
@@colewilliams9432 It was pretty obviously about gender norms, which were just literalized into a movie monster. That's all it was, just a horror movie literalization of basic, garden variety political commentary. I don't see what you found confusing about it.
@@GlynDwr-d4h just that. So the whole thing was just a metaphor? With no explanation of what was happening or how or why? Well then I still say it made no sense. Metaphor or not
i like your theory much better. Because I honestly thought that she may have stalked a pregnant person & opened some baby shower gifts or something for that person. But I like the idea of most of it being in her head & the child being for FWB possibly
He’s definitely there - where else would the tooth come from? Also her co-worker tells her there’s a man at the office to see her, so others see and interact with him. Her lack of boundaries at the office are in line with someone who had been sexually abused. I think that she has some kind of disorder, maybe bi-polar, because her daughter mentions an episode, and co-worker mentions not sleeping, seems to be in a manic state. It’s possible he killed her in the hotel room, or she passed out, and the ending was a dream/afterlife/coma that she wakes up from.
We never see anyone interacting with him without her being there too.. thats the important point.. and the tooth is a coincidence, like the bike accident, but she automatically thinks its his fault because she's already back in her trauma phase
my jaw was on the floor for many parts of the film but truth be told, it was a too overboard and confusing. if that was the goal then congratulations but if there's a definitive explanation in it, I have no clue what that is and it's not worth a second watch because that just might make it worse. If you're analytical or into psychology I guess this is your thing but if you just want something straight to the point with minimal perplexity then skip it.
SUBSCRIBE and help us get to 10,000!
Twitter: twitter.com/jburnsreviews
Instagram: instagram.com/burnsreviews
Letterboxd: www.letterboxd.com/burnsreviews
Patreon: patreon.com/burns_reviews
#Resurrection #Resurrection2022 #ResurrectionMovie
My take is that David is real. He finally finds Maggie again and is able to pick up where he left off controlling her; taking it even further this time to the point where she is even losing control of her own mind. But Davids narcissistic arrogance becomes the tool for his own demise when, in an act of poetic justice, 😊 Maggie kills David in order to retrieve her baby, because David has convinced her that her baby lives inside him. YES! He thought she would be under his control forever because she needed to be near her baby. But nope. Thats what happens when you drive a woman out of her mind.
When Margaret (Rebecca Hall) does that long monologue, I was in awe. She is a GREAT actress. Made the movie worth watching.
Absolutely!
amazing acting. It went on for so long. Def one of the best parts of this film.
Two things stuck with me in the movie: I don’t think David was really there. I think the notion of the girl finding one of his teeth in her wallet was just as ridiculous as him tracking down Margaret. That’s a narrative Margaret tells herself to avoid the reality of losing another child. The other thing that stood out to me was that Margaret was becoming David. The constant demands for Abbie to check in, be safe, not go out. It bad the same effect on Abbie in that it drove her to want to run away from her and never look back. My interpretation was that in one of her delusions, Margaret killed a man to “save Ben” while in reality, she probably just slasher open a man’s innards. Her anxious breaths at the end was her realization that her delusion was not real and soon she’d be waking up to the reality that Abbie’s gone, just like Ben.
Good stuff.
The things that make me think he’s really there are 1) the tooth. 2) the fact that he snatches her gun away. And 3) the call at her office that a man is there to see her. Not definitive, for sure. But enough to make me think that maybe he was really there. In the end, it seems his manipulation backfires, he pushes her too far, and she has a complete breakdown, imagining a happy ending. That final look is her realizing that she’s actually lost both her children and that this reunion is all in her mind (and she may even be laying in a pool of blood, dying from her wounds). I think you’re spot on with regards to her relationship with her daughter, who just turned 18 during the events of the movie (same age Margaret was when she met homeboy). She’s super overprotective of her, and her intern for that matter. Man, so much to discuss in this flick.
Your #3 is something i noticed in the movie. It was NOT david. They show that the man who called and showed up was the BOYFRIEND. Because of that single instance, i immediately realized that david did not exist during the movie.
I would say as well that David was acknowledged by the cafe worker and responded to him
20 years ago, depression made her cook her own baby in the oven and let unsuspecting David eat it. That guilt is haunting her until the present.
What makes you say that she put the baby in the oven?
@@BurnsReviews the dream
Not sure who killed Ben between the two, but the baby and David are both dead before the movie begins
@@Brazz27 How do you know David is dead?
Jackpot! I think you nailed it!
I think It's too simplistic to see the movie as a crazy episode that never happened. If you lean towards any direction (either it being real or not) this probably says more about the viewer than about the movie. The movie is largely about the effects of gaslight and how it messes up someone's sense of reality. The whole purpose of the ending is to convey how it feels to be uncertain about what is real or not and have the audience experience (and live with) that uncertainty. So the purpose of the movie is that you won't leave with a formed opinion.
If you leave the movie thinking it's a maniac episode then the only "point" here would be "crazy woman does crazy things because she has a crazy past". I feel the movie is striving for more than that.
yes like how both the women she opened up to told her that she was making it up, I feel like a lot of people saying David never existed are just the same, dismissing what happened
If this is about gas lighting, then what demonic ritual took place for dude to eat the baby then be 'carrying' it? jk, maybe
So he kept fucking with her right up until she stabby stabbed him.... then she hallucinated pulling out a baby and so on from going mad?
I don’t know, I think it’s unnecessary to criticise people who have a different take on the movie than yourself. It’s good to be confident in your opinion but assuming that you understand what many others have failed to grasp?
Small things like the fact that she was lactating when she looked in the mirror imply that she may have been pregnant the whole time by her coworker.
The fact that she was not in jail in the end.
The fact that she changed her name and went from the UK to the USA, so how did David find her? Remember him being shocked that she had changed her last name? You don’t have Social Security numbers in the UK you have national insurance numbers. seriously, how?
Maybe there isn’t a straightforward answer as to whether it is real or not?
@@MFLimited i wasnt doing that lmao just pointing out how many times she was called a liar
It was made well to show how real these episodes are to the mentally ill.
I don’t think David was real. I also think she was pregnant the whole time.
The main reason? David didn’t know that she had changed her name until he showed up in her office. So then, how did he find her in the first place? He met her in Canada, he took her back to England. And 22 years ago she ran away to the USA and now she is in New York City with a completely different name. in the USA you have Social Security numbers, in the UK you have a national insurance number. You don’t use the other one in the opposite country. He would not have known her Social Security number.
Also, she went to the police but failed to tell them that someone she had fled in a different country 22 years ago who she believed killed the child was stalking her. Now why would she not bring that up?
I suspect she had become pregnant by her married coworker and the pregnancy triggered memories from the horrible event that happened to her 22 years before. Both the memory of her dead child and the idea of having a baby was “resurrected“ in her. I think she had experienced a serious psychotic episode, she had a Caesarean section and, I am assuming, she is now with her baby in a secure psychiatric unit. I’m sure her horrible bratty daughter is not visiting her there.
I hope she can maintain the illusion for as long as possible.
There are lots of ways of finding missing people. I live in Miami, where sexual slavery is a major problem. And I know two private detectives who specialize in finding the sex slaves, who actually have no identify in America. But I do agree the fact that he was surprised that she had a different last name was obnoxiously strange. It would have been much easier to have some ex-cop simply look up people who changed their names...I think cost to do something like that is $500 at most.
As far as reporting a crime of a known child's murderer, that is a big no-no! She is an accomplice to murder and severe child physical abuse. And this is why her guilt is driving her insane, sort of like in The Tell-Taie Hart.
This is the reason I'm not very impressed with this film, it has two different tales. The main plot is extremely obvious, where the story line of David not existing was told rather poorly (possibly do to a shoe string budget). It's rather clear that he exists which sort of sucks be cause it would have been an amazing film otherwise.
I love the movie and was expecting some explanation in it, but it really works anyway, because the main "character " is trauma. The mother repeated a little bit what she went through with her daughter, not out of perversion or sadistic reasons, but fear. The daughter was turning 18, the same age she got stuck into a extreme abusive relationship, utterly alone, cause her parents didn't gave her the security she needed in such young age. At the same time, 18 is when we are walking into the world and society and making plans for our own life, so I think the mother couldn't handle this extreme moment of their lives. I don't know if David is real or not, but it is absolutely incredible how trauma and domination is portrait in this movie. I think David invented that the baby was living inside him just to control her with her guilty. The movie makes it's interesting to think about motherhood and the man with the baby inside his belly, I think maybe it's a way to say to her that she doesn't have "power, or control about anything without him, because she carry the baby, but I think later David lies telling that he is carrying the baby. I think that in the end she was alone i ln the room and I think that she was pregnant of the coworker, but she was not sleeping, not eating right, so she was so unhealthy that probably affect the belly growing and a healthy baby. So I think that she was hurting herself thinking it was David and she did a c section on her and died later. But I don't know. I do.know that it's a excelent movie about trauma!
Yeah it’s definitely a messed up movie. I haven’t revisited it though. I remember her doing a good 7 minute monologue and like Rebecca hall, but over time it hasn’t aged well in my head.
she is actually in psychiatric hospital after commiting murder. and She is seeing her children finally fear free in Happy place ie her mind. almost every scene in Dark tone in this move only the last scene is crispy white kinda reminds me of hospitals. and also the ending shot, from brigthness it becomes dark again.
Hi, I truly appreciate your review & view on what was Real vs. not in the movie. However I believe David was really there & tragically fully Manipulated Maggie again to believe that poor Dead baby Ben was actually still in his stomach, in David's Sick attempt to get her to stay With him again in order to be with baby Ben. In Emma of Spooky Astronaut's review of Resurrection, you'll see that's how I think she took the movie too, cus David's type of sick, manipulative Abuse does happen , so the movie likely is trying to show how David tragically was able to fully Manipulate Maggie into believing her poor baby Ben, who David Did Murder & may've really sickly eaten 22 years prior, was still alive in his stomach, which clearly is impossible! So I believe David was really there being his twisted self Manipulating her again to walk to work barefoot, etc, so came to his hotel room, but it backfired on him as I think she did Kill David, & her total Break from reality began Then, as she Imagined she found baby Ben in his stomach, but really did Not, & left there w/David's intestines allover, but No baby; so That's what I think she realized at the very End, that she was Alone in her apt without Abby or baby Ben.
Firstly, thank you for being respectful with your comment. I can't begin to tell you how many people aren't in the comments section when they have a differing opinion. Secondly, I'm right there with you.. Despite my diagnosis of events made in this video, i've still viewed multiple times and with different points of view. I think your pov holds a lot of water, potentially more than mine the more I think about it. Honestly, the fun with this movie is not being 100% sure where reality ends and delusion begins and that's the point, but i like your version better. Fits better in my head canon. Thanks for watching :)
also since he's that twisted he could have snuck into the apartment to put the tooth or somehow met up with the daughter because when he leaves the diner he says "we don't want anymore accidents" so somehow he was behind her daughter getting drunk/getting hurt on the bike
➡️ STH ADDITIONAL HERE - Margaret as a teen was depicted as a kid who could draw patterns for hours thus it’s a hint about her MENTAL issues, probably OCD with (apparently) additional problems as they appear in groups. David was aware of her problems and mental vulnerabilities so he used them against her what also shows his narcissistic and sadistic personality.
This is a well made explanation video John, im excited for more future videos
Thanks a lot man. There’s a whole backlog of recent movies if you’re interested. And thanks for watching 🙏
From my understanding, while trauma creates a lot of psychological problems, in no case does it turn you into a schizophrenic with extended and elaborate paranoid delusions and hallucinations. A profound and sustained break with reality like that is due to neurobiological reasons, not unresolved trauma necessarily. But it's also clear that David isn't there, so what I think the film is suggesting is that not only is David not there, but he was never there. It's more likely that he never existed at all. When her co-worker reacts that way to her story of trauma, it's because it's absurd. Really think about the story she tells. It has the quality of a psychotic break, not a thing that actually happened to her or anyone else. If David really did exist at some point, we no reason to think that his treatment of her turned her into a paranoid schizophrenic, even if the treatment she describes is accurate. The only thing that makes sense is that she was always a schizophrenic or schizo affective, and she may or may not have experienced trauma, but even if she did, we can reasonably speculate that whatever it was, it didn't resemble the story she told. It's just how she remembers it because she's delusional. Her story may be how she's remembering a previous psychotic break that she recovered from, but we also have to consider the possibility that this is the first psychotic break she's ever had and that this imagined history is part of that delusion. The guilt she feels about Ben, who like David may never have existed at all, could be due to anything. She may have had a child previously and killed him after having a psychotic break and in her mind, invented David to blame for it rather than confront what she had done, for instance. Or maybe she just miscarried, had an abortion, and so on. We could imagine countless other scenarios which would be as plausible.
I loved this film, and I'm so happy to have found your channel. I especially agree with you that David might not have been real in the current events shown in the movie. What he did to her in the past made the poor murdered lookalike real in her head. That disconnect between the man who said, "You introduced yourself," to the point where he smiled with a tooth clearly missing, was that made it for me. Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice. It's scary what the mind can do to you because of the past. She was okay at the start of the film, and then everything just escalated beyond no return.
Whether real or not, I found Tim Roth's performance proper chilling.
Rebecca Hall's too.
Thank you for this. I'll be watching more of your reviews.
Great video 😊
I really thought at the end we would see the daughter looking at an empty blanket or something, and the daughter was just playing along with the mom because she knows she's crazy... But, based on the final few seconds, I just think that she realized there is no baby, and her daughter is gone...
I SAY YOO CALLED IT! ~~~~
There was no baby or David; quite the metaphorical ending!
Damn… just when I thought my imagination couldn’t get any bleaker 😂 Here you come. That’s dark. I like it 🙏
Yes. Alternatively, she was pregnant by her coworker, gave birth to the baby and now she is in a secure psychiatric unit. her daughter is gone.
@@BurnsReviews The most reasonable thing to think is that neither of her children is there. Its a fantasy of hers or a delusion.
People seem to ignore the oven scene, i think she killed her own baby and is hallucinating everything in a catatonic state.
What makes you say that? and did she bake her baby 20 years ago or in present day?
@@BurnsReviews Its hard to say, they really left it up to interpretation to the point i dont think there is a real answer. The oven baby doesnt line up with the story she tells though.
I thought the same thing because in the monologue she says something along the lines of "I did something terrible" she doesn't say "something terrible happened" why would she say that she did something?
@@AnaParadisi
In the end of the speech her intern says "I don't understand" and she specifies exactly what she meant when she said "I did something bad". She explains: "I let him poison my brain with lies, I let him kill my child and then I ran".
First of all she never reported what happened to the police, she just left and ran away from the situation. Thats clearly something bad that she did. She just let the lunatic who killed her son get off the hook.
Then she obviously also blames herself for not protecting the baby. She feels like the baby is dead because she let herself be manipulated by David and allowed the abuse to happen. Obviously is not her fault but it's common for people in abusive relationships to blame themselves for the abuse.
Finally there is a part of her that still feels the baby was indeed in David's belly and she feels like she abandoned him. At a point of the speech she says she that she did her best to keep doing the kindnesses until they got harder and she just ran away. Although she knows the baby is not in his belly she somehow feels he is. This creates a conflicting feeling in her.
Its unclear if David killed the baby or if she did, but David and Ben are both dead when the movie starts
Love this analysis. One of my favorite films of the year and it’s because you could really go with ANY takes you made. Not for everyone sure, but I like a movie that makes me wanna check out other people’s takes immediately after it ends.
I believe that David wasn't real and the 'man' in the office was meant to throw us off. Notice that Peter, who claims to love Margaret, never asked her about the 'man' who visited her at the office. It may have been work-related and they then cut to the scene of her speaking with David in her office. I have always been a fan of Rebecca and this is one of her best performances. And that scene in the end where her face expression changes was creepy.
The man in the office was the boyfriend, it literally pans to him during that scene very quickly. As soon as i saw it, i realized David was fake.
I miss the days when movies made sense. I lasted about halfway through the movie, then gave up.
My theory on the origin of the tooth:
Fact: the tooth is a maxillary first premolar. The close up shot that David smiles reveals the toothless space corresponding where that exact tooth is located in the mouth. It is anatomically correct.
Now where did the tooth originate from if David was not real?
My theory is this: many teenagers around Abbie’s age have premolars removed as part of their orthodontic treatment. It is entirely plausible that one of Abbie’s teenage acquaintances who had that tooth extracted could have surreptitiously placed it in her wallet as some sort of juvenile prank.
I never understood why she didn't just tell the daughter or the boyfriend what was going on and what happened, especially when the daughter was leaving like this movie could’ve been 30 min instead of a hour and a half. 😂 this movie made me so frustrated hahaha
You forgot one major clue that basically confirms your theory. She wakes up one morning and her shirt is wet over her nipple. She began lactating because she was pregnant with Peter. The title "Resurrection" is in reference to how at the end, the same fantasy was resurrected by having Peter's baby to fill the hole from losing her child, Abbie, the same way that she had Abbie to fill the hole from losing Ben. This reinforces the idea of trauma being generational.
I think it also shows how traumatic and difficult it can be to become pregnant/have a baby after experiencing loss
@@bloodiebunniez I think it's the opposite. The whole reason she was hooking up with Peter was because she was trying to get pregnant to replace Abbie, now that Abbie has began separating from her. She doesn't find it traumatic or difficult being pregnant, she wants to be pregnant to comfort her.
Smash it with the explanation, no one else break it down any better
Thanks
I agree with how you think it played out. I think she did get pregnant again. Wasn’t there a scene where she wakes up and looks in the mirror and sees she’s lactating.
There is. I was gonna drop that clip somewhere in the video, but RUclips is finicky on what they take down and don’t.
Fabricio Delesderrier
há 1 segundo
I think that she was indeed pregnant, and had the baby on the hotel room, by herself... and cutting the umbilical cord with a knife.
Best explanation of this film.
Great review!
Good review. I need this film to sink in before I fully comment... Here comes the "However' moment though... I think there is another major clue to add: David repeatedly says 'He's in my belly." And what do we see Maggie having a nightmare of? Ben cooked in an oven.... Food for thought (No pun intended).
Man… I enjoyed Hall’s performance but I never have the need to watch this movie again. Tim Roth… I just can’t 🤮
Maybe the violent hotel scene was her giving birth to the baby boy and metaphorically killing David who represents past trauma which had resurrected when Margaret became pregnant again.
Coincidently or not Abbie was the same age as her when she met David. I don't recall Abbie ever talking to anyone other than Peter. Peter was also confused when Margaret said children. We assume that he was confused because she used a plural but maybe it's because she never had a child. Maybe Abbie was the version of herself before she met David which she's been trying to protect but felt she was in danger again when she fell pregnant. It would explain why Abbie doesn't have a father. Margeret is Abbie and Margeret is trying to protect Abbie from past trauma which has resurrected from falling pregnant.
So, David is trauma, guilt, etc., and at the core of that is Ben.
I like the idea that Abby could represent the young endangered Maggie. In the fantasy sequence she is no longer scared, Abby that is even though Maggie ends with fear returning to her face (maybe at the realisation that she is in her subconscious realm now)
My opinion he was never there! The girl in the office who spoke about her abusive and controlling partner to Meg triggered something in her and resurrected that memory from her past and she relived it plus her daughter getting close to 18 similar age to hers when she met him... she felt the need to keep her daughter safe coz she failed her son in the past... yes all these were major events to trigger a psychotic episode. Deep down in her subconscious she needed to do now what she didnt do before ... to save her baby. The ending I think she is in a psychiatric ward with all these meds on the bedside table!
Absolutely. I'm not sure why so many viewers are taking this film as literal narrative or text. So many references & specific dialogue about her being or not being a bad mother or murderer, baby in oven, and no one else ever interacts with David. It seems fairly apparent especially by the climax that he is a psychological projection, a male projection of her guilt or shame from the past over abandoning a son but potentially from an abortion, possibly coerced by the boyfriend "David." Any element of him actually eating the baby & showing up 20 years later as the objective literal truth seems ridiculous. I don't buy it, at least not in the style & tone of how these scenes were presented. More likely she blames past boyfriend for her giving up/losing baby Ben, so his present day (Tyler Durden-esque) with baby in belly is accurate projection of guilt avoidance until she can't hide that trauma any longer. The movies metaphorical elements have some issues and don't entirely work, but I did love the dedicated choices they took and enough uniquely intense moments to be a critical & interesting film.
If he didn’t exist why did her receptionist call and say “a MAN is here to see you.” She clearly seen David as well.
It just seemed odd for her to say “a man”. usually it’s like mr. so-in-so
My take: at that point Maggie is so detached from reality that she imagined it. The phone call was not real.
Best review of this movie yet. Well done 👏
Thank you!
Your explanation helped me a lot in the interpretation of the film's ending. What is clear is the unstoppable fall of the extraordinary protagonist into madness, especially her total inability to pull herself out of it. The fact that she agrees to go barefoot to the office every day to please David once again is an unmistakable sign of her still very strong dependence on David. The final scene is clearly a reconstruction of the dream that the protagonist had from the beginning, with David dead (perhaps only in her mind), Ben still alive and her daughter close to her. After all, the madness she has arrived at is the only possible salvation for the protagonist.
Yeah this movie is as dark as it is goofy. The whole “maybe he ate a baby” thing was weird, I didn’t believe him, it was odd, and yeah… I don’t know. Rebecca Hall nailed it though. I’m starting to wonder if she’s just incredibly good at play distressed characters and how much she might actually be like that in real life. She’s good, but she feels this way in every movie going back to Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Love your take!! I think it was very plausible!! Great movie
Awesome! Yeah Rebecca Hall is great.This and Night House are her best
Loved this video! are you on audea? Most of my audio is consumed there and would appreciate the audio version of your content on that platform.
I am currently not. I honestly had never heard of Audea before. I’ll look into it.
One thing I caught was the blanket was real. I think she was in her delusion and the room she went into had a pregnant women, and she cut her belly open and took the baby. The first trip all she got was the blanket. Ending was all her delusion. To make it worse, it’s been done before. The taking of a baby.
That’s wild.
When he comes to see her at work, someone says there's a man here to see you. He was definitely there. P.S. I love the movie and your interpretation!
True.. although even that scene I found was oddly contextualized. Based on what I read from the director/writer they tried to make it play both ways. Like he’s there… but they oddly refer to him as “a man”. And they don’t show him being shown in by a secretary or him talking to the front desk. we just “cut to” and he’s in her office. The intern and friend with benefits dude, Peter I think, they are looking into her office concerned, so maybe they’re looking at him but maybe because they know she’s been acting weird… maybe they’re watching her talk to herself. so it’s done very intentionally. the more I think about it the more I think he did actually show back up. it’s weird.. because yanno.. why now? You would think such an ego maniac would have found a new victim to haunt. Why track down some girl to another country from 20 years ago. I don’t know.. you think 20 years he’d have gone through gaslighting a bunch of other people and would be too vein to even remember someone like Maggie. just my thought. anyway thanks for the kind word and thanks for watching. I love these kind of movies 🙏
@@BurnsReviews true, it could definitely play both ways. I thought he had been looking for her for all this time and finally found her. Maybe she changed her name when she left? He was obsessed with her. I love these kind of movies too. And Rebecca Hall is amazing!
The man in the office was the boyfriend, it literally pans to him during that scene very quickly. Watch it again. As soon as i saw it, i realized David was fake.
I didn’t even notice that baby had 8 fingers, well noticed!
I think this is one of those movies that my wife would love, and I'm sitting there like a dip shit. She had to explain Mother to me.
It seems fair to believe that David is indeed real (the grey hair and beard) and .the hotel indeed real,after which, our heroine lost her mind! She just snapped completely. A tragic ending.........
Maybe… but it stands to reason that she could just be imagining him older.
I think, everything did happened. After she killed him. she went home, and she imagined she had the baby and everything was fine and happy, then realized that she was all alone in her bedroom.
did anybody notice what was airing on the news at the receptionist's desk, when she entered the rooming building where tim roth was residing? It was the capture of james kopp who murdered barnett slepian in his home outside of buffalo ny . spooky!!!!
Movies with plots like this are becoming redundant and predictable to the point of becoming tedious.The pattern is repetitive like most psychological films and it ain't fun anymore. Films like these are on the same alley with beautiful mind or shutter island or the requim for a dream or the machinist but not quite crafted on that level.
I had these exact same thoughts as the credits rolled (along with my eyes 🙄)
I’m glad you’re explaining this movie because I didn’t get the whole eaten baby reconditioned and living in the ex-boyfriend’s stomach at all. Apparently it could still be heard crying?!? What on earth was going on? Should be interesting.
He wasn’t really hearing it and neither was she. He was just gaslighting her SO HARD that see eventually believed him and thought she heard their child. It’s insane, but she admits she also remember believing him when he said he heard the voice of god. So she’s clearly affected by him and his BS.
He was kind of a sick play on pregnancy. The pregnant one asking the other partner not to abandon them and then the final “Caesarean section”. Of course that wasn’t the case, he had kill the child, possibly eaten the child and the child was dead.
It was not a "gray hair" on the desk, but a cup watermark.
David missing a tooth at 5:42 is so creepy
Definitely. Tim Roth was so creepy with that smile that i completely didn't notice the missing tooth until my second watch
I adore Rebecca Hall and I’ll watch anything just because she’s in it.❤
Same! Except those terrible Godzilla Kong movies where the humans are cardboard cut outs rather than 3 dimensional characters.
She is beautiful
Hell yeah!
I'm confused as to what actually happened to baby Ben. Did she have an abortion? Did she actually murder baby? Or did David actually murder the child?
I suspect David did something to lead to the fact that the baby doesn’t exist in the present day. I don’t believe he ate the baby though. he’s a master manipulator, gaslighter, and liar.. cannibal though? I don’t know.. no evidence to suggest either way
Basically the film is a about a woman who has ppd David made her have an abortion a trauma she never got over then fantasizes about killing him because she can never get over the fact she had an abortion. Tim Roth is great as is Hall 2 very good actors on a terrible script and movie at the same time what a waste of talent this film was. I give it ⭐️⭐️
06:50
Hahahah
I like the idea that the baby is Peters and the ending takes place months later.
That’s my take on it. Someone mentioned that the daughter is actually playing along, and then someone mentioned she’s not even there because she left and never looked back and her reaction is her realizing that in reality that she’s actually sitting there all alone.
😂I Believe her EX was in the present time and everything happened the way it showed besides the End with the bright room.
EVEN her secretary at work said that a man was there to see her. What man who knows? 😊 Well I didn't get the answer I was looking for but I did get an answer, sooo thanks! 😊
I think the producers definitely wanted to make a ‘bun in the oven’ pun for the viewers with that scene where Maggie saw the baby in the oven in her nightmare😂
All imaginary on her part. No way the daughter would just embrace a new baby like that. Where had it come from? Plus the daughter would never talk like that about her mother who she was very suspect of.
It gave it all away for me. It didn't ruin it at all just wasn't any other interpretation viable to me. She just imagined it all and was alone in the end.
Why did the lady freak out on her at the hotel screaming at her to get out WTF was that? Im thinking she had a baby boy who passed away then I think she gutted a pregnant woman and took her baby which turned out to be a girl i only think that because when she gutted David at the end and took the baby. Idk the movie was BSC
Could be! To be honest I think this movie is intentionally ambiguous with random scenes like that for the audience to think whatever they want. Which yeah.. like Deadpool says, feels like lazy screenwriting
What! they did show a waitress taking his order in the restaurant.
Yeahhh but even that, I don’t know. if you can imagine him out of thin air, you can imagine him ordering a coffee. it plays both way for me on account that it was an incredibly simple exchange.
@@BurnsReviews hmm..That is the only one scene that doesnt make sense. If that scene was not there, i would peacefully assumed that she saw someone who looks like david in the convention and then after that it was all her imagination.
Its all in her imagination
This movie was terrible but that woman is one of the best actresses I have ever seen. I’ve seen two of her movies and she is very talented.
you're giving this movie too much grace. as a viewer, we shouldn't have to "interpret" the entire second half of a film.
✋ Rebecca Hall is the definition of Grace
And c’mon man… doesn’t your mind ever go numb watching cars that get furious, and heroes that wear capes? Isn’t nice once in awhile not being spoon feed exactly what to think or feel but rather be put in a place where you can decide for yourself? I know I enjoy stuff like that. Granted, Resurrection is a bit of a bleak film with heavy story beats, but you have give the film credit engaging with the audience, rather than tell them exactly what to feel.
David is real, and she killed him but after that she's gone mentally
Yeah that seems the most likely
"Open to interpretation" but it's called 'Resurrection' ~
I had no idea what to think at the end, but I wasn't trying to necessarily. // Makes sense that she suffered post partum, cooked her baby 'accidentally', found a way to tie it all up in her head, had a life, got triggered cuz her daughter was leaving ?
edit: maybe the coworker talking about her a-hole boyfriend was the initial trigger; then the daughter getting ready to leave while not being on the best terms with mom etc
edit2: and the random tooth her daughter punked her with. If she accidentally cooked her baby and thought she got over it, her kid being like: "LOOK MOM, RRRRRGH plop into hand, TOOFTH! ... IDK WHERE I GOT IT .. eyeroll."
if i knew this was one of those "interpret your own ending" movies I wouldn't have watched it. story feels incomplete this way and as a watcher who just wants to enjoy a movie, it was completely frustrating.
What if David never existed, none of that shit ever happened and she's just a psycho
_I think she kept that man’s tooth all those years and put it in her daughters pocket._
interesting
Well it made more sense than "men". Which was stupid and made no sense at all
Yeahhhh……
Men made sense, it was just dumb.
@@GlynDwr-d4h it was dumb because it made no sense
@@colewilliams9432 It was pretty obviously about gender norms, which were just literalized into a movie monster. That's all it was, just a horror movie literalization of basic, garden variety political commentary. I don't see what you found confusing about it.
@@GlynDwr-d4h just that. So the whole thing was just a metaphor? With no explanation of what was happening or how or why? Well then I still say it made no sense. Metaphor or not
i like your theory much better. Because I honestly thought that she may have stalked a pregnant person & opened some baby shower gifts or something for that person. But I like the idea of most of it being in her head & the child being for FWB possibly
Its so boring movie , I loste my time I regret
I think you also lost your login information for Grammarly
He’s definitely there - where else would the tooth come from? Also her co-worker tells her there’s a man at the office to see her, so others see and interact with him. Her lack of boundaries at the office are in line with someone who had been sexually abused.
I think that she has some kind of disorder, maybe bi-polar, because her daughter mentions an episode, and co-worker mentions not sleeping, seems to be in a manic state.
It’s possible he killed her in the hotel room, or she passed out, and the ending was a dream/afterlife/coma that she wakes up from.
I can definitely see that. I guess we’ll never know what happened. she might be in jail or a mental ward or dead
@@BurnsReviews ooooo Jail or ward makes sense too - but we're only seeing the world through the inside of her head
We never see anyone interacting with him without her being there too.. thats the important point..
and the tooth is a coincidence, like the bike accident, but she automatically thinks its his fault because she's already back in her trauma phase
Hiw do we know she did not really kill her baby then went on the run. Alot if signs point to that.
Yeah, the clues within the moive makes it clear sheblost her mind after her kid left.
my jaw was on the floor for many parts of the film but truth be told, it was a too overboard and confusing. if that was the goal then congratulations but if there's a definitive explanation in it, I have no clue what that is and it's not worth a second watch because that just might make it worse.
If you're analytical or into psychology I guess this is your thing but if you just want something straight to the point with minimal perplexity then skip it.
Now can you make a video without an appearance from you? Thanks
But I’m the best part darling 😘
Trash movie! Should be seen by no one!
Fr
So its anti-Trans movie??? :P
No.
@@BurnsReviews I swear its a JK Rowling TERF snuff flick hehehhe
@@chasx7062 wtf, creep
@@jessam4875 Why are you calling me a creep, when it was some woman cutting up a man, just coz he wanted to have a baby LOL
@@chasx7062 I misread. I thought you were laughing at the idea of JKR being in a snuff film
The movie sucks
😂😂😂😂 these comments always crack me up. I’m not even entirely sure why 😂
U just didn't understand the movie
@@Nnvjdj typcal ass white women problems. Stupid ass movie negative 5 stars . Negative 5 rotten tomatoes. And you can kiss my ass.
😂