Films which change dramatically in their last minute(s)? *SPOILERS*

MakeEmLaugh

I was thinking about one of my favourite films, Mathieu Kassovitz's La Haine, the other day. For those who haven't seen it, it's a film where the last minute or so of screen-time is crucial. I'm about to reveal the ending so, if you haven't seen it, please don't look at the following.

As they are walking away from their friend Hubert (Hubert Koundé), Saïd (Saïd Taghamaoui) and Vinz (Vincent Cassel) are accosted by policemen with whom they clashed earlier. One of the policeman taunts Vinz with a gun to his head. Suddenly, the gun accidentally goes off, and Vinz drops dead.

As this happens, Hubert walks towards the policeman and then points a gun at him. The policeman points a gun back. We close up on Saïd's face, cut to black and hear a gun-shot, not knowing who fired or if anyone else was killed.

It's a brilliant ending, made all the more powerful because, had the film ended a minute earlier, audiences would leave with a completely different feeling.

Similarly, Kevin Smith's original ending for Clerks is well known.

Dante (Brian O'Halloran) is closing up the shop when a customer walks in, shoots him dead and then leaves with the contents of the cash register.

This was cut from the film for a less eventful ending, but is available to view online and on the DVD.

Can anyone think of any other films which shift tone dramatically in their final minute or minutes? Please, warn about spoilers!

DazMarz

My shout would be for The Usual Suspects.

The fact that we find out in the last few scenes of the film that absolutely everything that Verbal was telling Agent Kujan was

made up through looking at his surrounding is a sucker punch to the gut and you just wonder what was true or if any of it was true. It begs you to re-watch the film again just to double check and see if ANYTHING of the proceeding hour or so of the film was in any way true, or just a brilliant yarn made up on the spot by Verbal/Keyser

.

e_e

Jeanne Dielman
Vivre sa vie

You kinda have to see them both but they're both French-language films about women that completely turn on their head in the final moments. Even more effective in Jeanne Dielman's case because it happens a whole 3 hours into the runtime.

Tony EH

'The Prestige'

The switcheroo at the end of that picture was such a deceit. Period drama to ridiculous Sci-Fi twist.

'Kill List'

Ken Loach ---> Dennis Wheatley in one easy step.

Goldstein

Knowing there's a dramatic twist at the end of a movie is itself a spoiler. Even if the exact nature of the twist isn't revealed you still spend the whole movie second guessing what it's going to be. No good can come of this imo.

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

'The Prestige'

The switcheroo at the end of that picture was such a deceit. Period drama to ridiculous Sci-Fi twist.

Therein lies the entire premise of the film though. It's probably my favourite Nolan movie.

Does Sunshine count? it's not the last few moments but it goes from

straight sci fi drama to slasher movie

in the last 15-20 mins. Personally I thought the way

the crew members died and the dilemma of having one extra one they might need to bump off to save oxygen

was much more interesting than how it wound up.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

Therein lies the entire premise of the film though.

Mmmm...but it's not though. It's a complete and utterly ridiculous left turn, in an otherwise sensible film grounded in a fairly realistic reality.

Another nonsensical turn in the film, IIRC, is

the twin brother (of Bale's character) who goes to his death to preserve the trick.

That's just feckin stupid.

I felt really let down by that picture.

Alfred Borden

Thought ending/ beginning to Memento was genius

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Mmmm...but it's not though. It's a complete and utterly ridiculous left turn, in an otherwise sensible film grounded in a fairly realistic reality.

Another nonsensical turn in the film, IIRC,

is the twin brother (of Bale's character) who goes to his death to preserve the trick.

That's just feckin stupid.

I felt really let down by that picture.

Best not read the book then; cos while the film is a flimsy adaptation that takes numerous liberties, the novel is also set in a world where magic/magic-science is real (iirc, it has been a while). And in fairness, the clues as to the film's science-fiction were there from the very first shot, just like a good magic trick. The broken narrative made sure it kept the full reveal til the final act, but it was always there in some form or another Would share krudler's thoughts in that it's also my favourite Nolan movie and is frequently forgotten, surrounded as it is by more remembered works.

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

Mmmm...but it's not though. It's a complete and utterly ridiculous left turn, in an otherwise sensible film grounded in a fairly realistic reality.

Another nonsensical turn in the film, IIRC,

is the twin brother (of Bale's character) who goes to his death to preserve the trick.

That's just feckin stupid.

I felt really let down by that picture.

Might want to spoiler that part. You're told about the sci-fi aspect of it in the opening shot of the film, the entire point of the machine is exactly what Michael Caine's character says to the judge about its bells and whistles being a disappointing reality, in that it genuinely does what magicians pretend to do on stage.
The whole point of the film is looking for something beyond a harsh reality, it's a theme that keeps cropping up, from the kid sussing how the disappearing bird trick is really done to the machine. Look at the scene with Bale and Jackman's characters going to see the old Chinese magician, he's living the trick and the act, just

as Bale was, complete self devotion to keeping the illusion alive

. Same as Jackman trying to convince himself that Bale's trick is something much more complex than it actually is.

It's one of those films that definitely rewards on repeat viewings, and how the story unravels with the time jumping and flashbacks within flashbacks is masterfully done.

Mickeroo

I felt the

abuse

angle came out of nowhere towards the end of The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Best not read the book then; cos while the film is a flimsy adaptation that takes numerous liberties, the novel is also set in a world where magic/magic-science is real (iirc, it has been a while). And in fairness, the clues as to the film's science-fiction were there from the very first shot, just like a good magic trick. The broken narrative made sure it kept the full reveal til the final act, but it was always there in some form or another Would share krudler's thoughts in that it's also my favourite Nolan movie and is frequently forgotten, surrounded as it is by more remembered works.

I've no intention of reading the book, tbh. Don't read much fiction these days. It would want to be something exceptional.

I haven't seen the picture in a few years, so my memory is hazy, but the only indication of any Sci-Fi is Tesla, even though he was a real person creating some bizarre (for the time) experiments.

But the

whole clone thing and them being killed off each night so a trick could be performed

was completely out of left field and not at all in keeping with the rest of the running time.

At the end, I really wanted to know what the reveal of the trick was and when I found out at the end, I actually said "for f*ck sake, you're f*cking joking".

Can't tell how much I was disappointed by that ending.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

Might want to spoiler that part. You're told about the sci-fi aspect of it in the opening shot of the film, the entire point of the machine is exactly what Michael Caine's character says to the judge about its bells and whistles being a disappointing reality, in that it genuinely does what magicians pretend to do on stage.
The whole point of the film is looking for something beyond a harsh reality, it's a theme that keeps cropping up, from the kid sussing how the disappearing bird trick is really done to the machine. Look at the scene with Bale and Jackman's characters going to see the old Chinese magician, he's living the trick and the act, just

as Bale was, complete self devotion to keeping the illusion alive

. Same as Jackman trying to convince himself that Bale's trick is something much more complex than it actually is.

It's one of those films that definitely rewards on repeat viewings, and how the story unravels with the time jumping and flashbacks within flashbacks is masterfully done.

It's been "spoilered". But, seeing as this is a thread about the endings of films, I don't anyone can be taken seriously if they're going to complain about spoilers. :pac:

It might reward repeat viewings, because the viewer can enter into it knowing it's hokey Sci-Fi.

But, on a first viewing that final twist is a bullsh*t bait and switch.

God, I'm even getting angry thinking about it now!

But there is nothing in the film as overtly Sci_fi as

the cloning nonsense that is

revealed at the film's end. It's a huge tangent to go off on after the previous two hours.

Perhaps, if I had gone into the film knowing that it was going to go off on some silly Sci-Fi road, I would be a bit easier on it, but there was nothing in advertising of teh film to suggest that that was the type of picture it was going to be...and TBH, as a Sci-Fi film, it would have sucked.

In saying that, I enjoyed the film when I saw it, up until that awful ending. But I was really watching a different film for two hours.

indough

Tony EH wrote: »

It's been "spoilered". But, seeing as this is a thread about the endings of films, I don't anyone can be taken seriously if they're going to complain about spoilers. :pac:

It might reward repeat viewings, because the viewer can enter into it knowing it's hokey Sci-Fi.

But, on a first viewing that final twist is a bullsh*t bait and switch.

God, I'm even getting angry thinking about it now!

But there is nothing in the film as overtly Sci_fi as

the cloning nonsense that is

revealed at the film's end. It's a huge tangent to go off on after the previous two hours.

Perhaps, if I had gone into the film knowing that it was going to go off on some silly Sci-Fi road, I would be a bit easier on it, but there was nothing in advertising of teh film to suggest that that was the type of picture it was going to be...and TBH, as a Sci-Fi film, it would have sucked.

In saying that, I enjoyed the film when I saw it, up until that awful ending. But I was really watching a different film for two hours.

It isn't a tangent at all. You are shown what is going to happen in the opening shot with the hats, but you don't think of it as the movie progresses because you have been misdirected by everything else that goes on, just like a magic trick. There is an awful lot of foreshadowing in the film, for example Caine's character knew all along about bale's trick, and the conversation between bale & Jackman after the Chinese magician's show. To call it out for having a left field ending is pretty wide of the mark.

krudler

indough wrote: »

It isn't a tangent at all. You are shown what is going to happen in the opening shot with the hats, but you don't think of it as the movie progresses because you have been misdirected by everything else that goes on, just like a magic trick. There is an awful lot of foreshadowing in the film, for example Caine's character knew all along about bale's trick, and the conversation between bale & Jackman after the Chinese magician's show. To call it out for having a left field ending is pretty wide of the mark.

Bingo, from the getgo you're asked "are you watching closely?" and you're not, because the film is constantly misdirecting you. You're basically watching a magic trick unfold, and at the end of it all the simple truth is

the machine actually works and Bale has a twin, that's it, simple explanations for complex illusions.

. Same with the wife knowing

the difference between the twins and which one loved her

It's all there being slowly revealed as the film progresses, you're just watching everything else.

I do love how the film is structured too, Bale reading Jackman's diary in which Jackman is reading Bale's. Fantastic editing.

Tony EH

indough wrote: »

It isn't a tangent at all. You are shown what is going to happen in the opening shot with the hats, but you don't think of it as the movie progresses because you have been misdirected by everything else that goes on, just like a magic trick. There is an awful lot of foreshadowing in the film, for example Caine's character knew all along about bale's trick, and the conversation between bale & Jackman after the Chinese magician's show. To call it out for having a left field ending is pretty wide of the mark.

There's nothing in the film to suggest

a Sci-Fi clone

ending. Nothing that I can remember anyway. I don't recall the opening. How does that tie in with Hugh Jackman's

nightly clones

nonsense?

Of course the film is misdirection. But the conclusion, how the trick is achieved is absolute bollocks of the highest order.

The

clone

ending comes out of left field, because everything else in the film has a solid explanation, even the "old" Chinaman trickster, which the two rivals discuss. That makes sense.

The

cloning

ending is just terrible. It's not even good Science Fiction.

e_e

A Serious Man too! Can't believe that didn't pop up right away for me.

JohnFalstaff

Tony EH wrote: »

There's nothing in the film to suggest

a Sci-Fi clone

ending. Nothing that I can remember anyway. I don't recall the opening. How does that tie in with Hugh Jackman's

nightly clones

nonsense?

Of course the film is misdirection. But the conclusion, how the trick is achieved is absolute bollocks of the highest order.

The

clone

ending comes out of left field, because everything else in the film has a solid explanation, even the "old" Chinaman trickster, which the two rivals discuss. That makes sense.

The

cloning

ending is just terrible. It's not even good Science Fiction.

Been a while since I've seen it, but isn't there an extended sequence where Jackman's character goes to visit Nikola Tesla (David Bowie)?

Tesla is the stuff of pure science fiction - death rays and the like - so I don't think it's fair to say that there is nothing in the film building towards that sort of direction.

Zubeneschamali

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Been a while since I've seen it, but isn't there an extended sequence where Jackman's character goes to visit Nikola Tesla (David Bowie)?

Yes, and he sees exactly what Tesla's machine does. All well telegraphed.

JohnFalstaff

This one beats all:

There's a film called Remember Me from a few years back which for most of its running time is a run-of-the-mill romantic dramedy... Robert Pattinson meets quirky but pretty young lady (Claire from Lost) in New York, romance and silliness ensues.

Their relationship comes up against some minor stumbling blocks but love conquers all and, just when things are wrapping up, out of nowhere

Robert Pattinson's character is killed in 9/11.

It's the most bizarre twist.

For the entire movie there were no hints or build-up to 9/11. Then, in the last minute, he goes to work in a tall building and BOOM he's 9/11'd.

The End.

Offensive / Hilarious - delete as appropriate.

krudler

Can we count Se7en? The last act completely turns serial killer movies on their head. Nobody can say they expected

John Doe to just stroll in and give himself up

Skerries

The Lord of the Rings: nobody knew that they wouldn't be able to go home any time soon

maximoose

Tony EH wrote: »

There's nothing in the film to suggest

a Sci-Fi clone

ending. Nothing that I can remember anyway. I don't recall the opening. How does that tie in with Hugh Jackman's

nightly clones

nonsense?

Of course the film is misdirection. But the conclusion, how the trick is achieved is absolute bollocks of the highest order.

The

clone

ending comes out of left field, because everything else in the film has a solid explanation, even the "old" Chinaman trickster, which the two rivals discuss. That makes sense.

The

cloning

ending is just terrible. It's not even good Science Fiction.

I'm sorry, but you're just completely wrong to say it's left field. I think you may need to watch it again because it's alluded to plenty of times throughout the film.

D-FENS

krudler wrote: »

Can we count Se7en? The last act completely turns serial killer movies on their head. Nobody can say they expected

John Doe to just stroll in and give himself up

It's my favourite twist ever, but you could really say the film changes dramatically, you kinda know from the tone throughout that it won’t end with a Lethal Weapon style dinner scene

D-FENS

Empire Strikes Back? Fair few jaw droppers towards the end of that

razorblunt

Red Lights

Cillian Murphy spends the whole movie debunking the supernatural, only for him to debunk De Niro's character by trumping his lies (De Niro isn't blind) with his own supernatural abilities that he had all along

krudler

D-FENS wrote: »

It's my favourite twist ever, but you could really say the film changes dramatically, you kinda know from the tone throughout that it won’t end with a Lethal Weapon style dinner scene

It was originally meant to end with Pitt chasing after John Doe as he was trying to break into the apartment going after his wife or something to that effect. Both Fincher and Pitt fought for the ending we got.

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

It was originally meant to end with Pitt chasing after John Doe as he was trying to break into the apartment going after his wife or something to that effect. Both Fincher and Pitt fought for the ending we got.

I hated that ending: the last two deaths didn't fit the pattern established earlier: a greedy person dies of Gluttony, a Prostitute dies due to Lust, a proud person dies of Pride etc.

but at the end a complete innocent is killed by an Envious person, and then a totally cool person is killed by a Wrathful person.

Nope, does not compute.

krudler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I hated that ending: the last two deaths didn't fit the pattern established earlier: a greedy person dies of Gluttony, a Prostitute dies due to Lust, a proud person dies of Pride etc.

but at the end a complete innocent is killed by an Envious person, and then a totally cool person is killed by a Wrathful person.

Nope, does not compute.

But he was envious of the normal life David had, Doe says this himself.

Tony EH

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Been a while since I've seen it, but isn't there an extended sequence where Jackman's character goes to visit Nikola Tesla (David Bowie)?

Tesla is the stuff of pure science fiction - death rays and the like - so I don't think it's fair to say that there is nothing in the film building towards that sort of direction.

Nicola Tesla was a real man. He isn't Science Fiction at all. He's science fact.

And the idea that Tesla's alternating electric current machine

could be used to make exact clones of Hugh Jackman is just ****in stupid

. It's not even a good Sci-Fi idea.

They might just as well have made him an alien from outer space.

The film goes to great lengths to say that magic isn't real, it's just illusion, a trick...and then throws some hokey supernatural bollocks in at the end.

Tony EH

maximoose wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you're just completely wrong to say it's left field. I think you may need to watch it again because it's alluded to plenty of times throughout the film.

It's faintly alluded to, if I recall correctly. But my point is that all the way through the film, teh story stays within the realms of reality. Tricks are explained, the slight of hand makes sense when revealed.

But Hugh Jackman can

ACTUALLY CLONE HIMSELF USING ELECTRICITY!!! WTF?

. That just changes the whole beat of the picture.

It's just a real letdown that they ended it that way, because the preceding two hours were good and made a certain sense.

BTW, something that's "out of left field" can be unexpected, odd or strange according to the dictionary. So, it's a perfectly apt description.

JohnFalstaff

Tony EH wrote: »

Nicola Tesla was a real man. He isn't Science Fiction at all. He's science fact.

Nicola Tesla was a man?:eek:

Sure Tesla was real - but many of his ideas are the stuff of science fiction... I mean he invented a Death Ray!

At some point Science Fiction can become science fact - one of the earliest examples of Science Fiction was Verne's From the Earth to the Moon...

indough

Tony EH wrote: »

It's faintly alluded to, if I recall correctly. But my point is that all the way through the film, teh story stays within the realms of reality. Tricks are explained, the slight of hand makes sense when revealed.

But Hugh Jackman can

ACTUALLY CLONE HIMSELF USING ELECTRICITY!!! WTF?

. That just changes the whole beat of the picture.

It's just a real letdown that they ended it that way, because the preceding two hours were good and made a certain sense.

BTW, something that's "out of left field" can be unexpected, odd or strange according to the dictionary. So, it's a perfectly apt description.

The point that people including myself are making is that it is not that unexpected, in fact it is strongly suggested in the very first sequence of the film. If you were indeed 'watching closely' as is narrated over that opening sequence then it should be obvious that something strange is going to happen as soon as Tesla is mentioned, and even more so as the meetings with Tesla progress. Whilst he may have been a real life figure in the world of science, he has so many crazy stories attributed to him that the audience shouldn't be expecting his presence to bring anything as banal as real life science to the film, and especially not in a science fiction film. In fact it could be argued that he is more famous for the death ray type ideas than he is for anything practical he ever invented. And of course any expectation of realism in film is always going to disappoint (again, especially so in science fiction), which is why filmmakers instead aim for verisimilitude.

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

But he was envious of the normal life David had, Doe says this himself.

Yes, but he doesn't die of Envy, he dies of Wrath.

Mickeroo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but he doesn't die of Envy, he dies of Wrath.

Destroying Mills in the process, he's not the final victim Mills is.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Destroying Mills in the process, he's not the final victim Mills is.

So who died of Envy?

indough

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So who died of Envy?

Doe's envy brings about his own death

Mickeroo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So who died of Envy?

Mills' wife I would have thought.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Mills' wife I would have thought.

But she wasn't envious!

And if Doe dies of Envy, the wife isn't part of the sequence at all.

As I say, it annoyed the snot out of me at the time.

Zubeneschamali

indough wrote: »

Doe's envy brings about his own death

I'd have to watch it again, but I thought that claim by Doe that he killed her because he was envious was pretty unbelievable: he obviously killed her just to enrage Mills.

DazMarz

Doe is

the "victim" of Envy as it is his own sin as he is "envious of your life". He even says "So I guess 'Envy' is my sin". Wrath is Detective Mills. Doe says it: "Become vengeance, David. Become... 'Wrath'."

That's how I always sussed it anyway. The

wife was a pawn to make Mills go over the edge, nothing more.

MakeEmLaugh

e_e wrote: »

Jeanne Dielman
Vivre sa vie

You kinda have to see them both but they're both French-language films about women that completely turn on their head in the final moments. Even more effective in Jeanne Dielman's case because it happens a whole 3 hours into the runtime.

Well, my original intention for this thread has been pretty much misinterpreted, but I guess I didn't phrase it correctly. Thank you for your post though, it's the kind of thing I was looking for.

Tony EH

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Nicola Tesla was a man?:eek:

Sure Tesla was real - but many of his ideas are the stuff of science fiction... I mean he invented a Death Ray!

At some point Science Fiction can become science fact - one of the earliest examples of Science Fiction was Verne's From the Earth to the Moon...

Yeh, She went through the change by using the Tesla coil. Another eureka moment for her...er...him. :pac:

Anyway, yeh...Nikola Tesla mainly worked with electrical theory, x-rays and radio. His stuff may have been somewhat "fantastic" to a turn of the century Average Joe...but..

IT WASN'T CLONING!!!

Tesla's output was based on real world limitations and even ideas like flying to the moon were still based on a practical reality.

However,

cloning a human being with alternating current is just silly.

Tony EH

indough wrote: »

The point that people including myself are making is that it is not that unexpected, in fact it is strongly suggested in the very first sequence of the film. If you were indeed 'watching closely' as is narrated over that opening sequence then it should be obvious that something strange is going to happen as soon as Tesla is mentioned, and even more so as the meetings with Tesla progress. Whilst he may have been a real life figure in the world of science, he has so many crazy stories attributed to him that the audience shouldn't be expecting his presence to bring anything as banal as real life science to the film, and especially not in a science fiction film. In fact it could be argued that he is more famous for the death ray type ideas than he is for anything practical he ever invented. And of course any expectation of realism in film is always going to disappoint (again, especially so in science fiction), which is why filmmakers instead aim for verisimilitude.

And MY point is that the film cheats at its end by turning into a Sci-Fi flick after two hours of a relatively realistic scenario and frankly a very different type of film altogether. The confirmation of a supernatural machine is an incredible letdown, after the previous couple of hours have gone through great lengths to expose elaborate tricks as illusion.

But, no...it's clones...made by electricity

:eek:

I understand completely the point you and others are making, but I still think the ending of 'The Prestige' totally changes the beat of the picture, because of its utter stupidity and absolute implausibility.

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

And MY point is that the film cheats at its end by turning into a Sci-Fi flick after two hours of a relatively realistic scenario and frankly a very different type of film altogether.

Well, no, because the machine is not a surprise in the slightest if you were watching the previous two hours, and it's operation is not revealed in a twist at the end.

Borden states near the beginning that the machine really does what it appears to do.

The sequence with Tesla shows exactly how the machine works, duplicating hats and even a cat.

There are twists in exactly how the stage tricks work (and the lengths the magicians will go to to make them work) but Tesla's duplicator is not a surprise at the end.

D-FENS

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I hated that ending: the last two deaths didn't fit the pattern established earlier: a greedy person dies of Gluttony, a Prostitute dies due to Lust, a proud person dies of Pride etc.

but at the end a complete innocent is killed by an Envious person, and then a totally cool person is killed by a Wrathful person.

Nope, does not compute.

I thought it was perfect, don't remember it stated at any point that the person who had to die had to be the one who committed the sin.

D-FENS

krudler wrote: »

It was originally meant to end with Pitt chasing after John Doe as he was trying to break into the apartment going after his wife or something to that effect. Both Fincher and Pitt fought for the ending we got.

\
Didn't know that. Thank f*ck for Brad and Dave eh

Zubeneschamali

D-FENS wrote: »

I thought it was perfect, don't remember it stated at any point that the person who had to die had to be the one who committed the sin.

But people are coming up with entirely different people representing the sins! Is Envy the wife or Doe? Is wrath Doe or Mills? If Mills is a victim, there are eight!

Bah.

Mickeroo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But people are coming up with entirely different people representing the sins! Is Envy the wife or Doe? Is wrath Doe or Mills? If Mills is a victim, there are eight!

Bah.

Doe isn't a victim though, he wins imo. Even if I'm wrong, who cares? You can interpret it a number of ways, there doesn't have to be a definite answer that's part of the reason it's so brilliant.

indough

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But people are coming up with entirely different people representing the sins! Is Envy the wife or Doe? Is wrath Doe or Mills? If Mills is a victim, there are eight!

Bah.

Yes but Mills wife is just collateral damage. Nobody actually dies for having committed wrath, but it doesn't really matter as Doe's lesson has been taught to the world

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Doe isn't a victim though, he wins imo. Even if I'm wrong, who cares? You can interpret it a number of ways, there doesn't have to be a definite answer that's part of the reason it's so brilliant.

Well, I was sitting there at the finish going "WTF? His plan failed! Where are the last two sins?"

And to this day, nobody knows.

So no, not so brilliant IMO.