It was a combination of rage, self defense, and opportunity:
- Phil was enraged by the treatment he had just endured... not just held against his will, but also actively taunted by Howard during the ordeal. Not the type to forgive and forget, he killed Howard in angry retribution.
- Then he killed Arno because Arno was now upset with him and therefore a threat.
- Finally, the store was loaded with valuable items that Phil and Nico proceeded to steal, meaning Phil's killings turned the situation into a much bigger payday for himself.
Sorry guys I'm a bit late to the party but I just saw Uncut Gems starring Adam Sander last night,
The movie keeps its audience in a constant state of instability and chaos (which I later found interesting) but the ending really confused me...
It felt like all the stress and sympathy that I constantly kept developing throughout the film because of Howard's helplessness went straight to trash because of his tragic death :(
After bottling so much sadness for him, I really thought that him winning the last gamble can FINALLY be a huge catharsis and release tension - but instead it got even worse because he just died!?
Now it feels like the movie just ended with an amazing music track but left some of us completely stranded without closure :O
Does anyone else feel the same? (You're free to oppose :))
plot explanation - Why did Phil do this to Howard at the end of “Uncut Gems?” - Movies & TV Stack Exchange
[Spoilers] Regarding the ending of Uncut Gems
What the hell was that ending in Uncut Gems
Uncut Gems - Ending Discussion *spoilers included*
Videos
It was a combination of rage, self defense, and opportunity:
- Phil was enraged by the treatment he had just endured... not just held against his will, but also actively taunted by Howard during the ordeal. Not the type to forgive and forget, he killed Howard in angry retribution.
- Then he killed Arno because Arno was now upset with him and therefore a threat.
- Finally, the store was loaded with valuable items that Phil and Nico proceeded to steal, meaning Phil's killings turned the situation into a much bigger payday for himself.
In addition to Shizs answer, i always assumed that he was brooding on this for the entire movie.
Howard was a loser to him anyway, someone to push down and extort. For the first time Howard was starting to have the upper hand and Phil planned on taking everything for himself.
Arno was always the leader of his group. But in their short entrapment he lost his authority. Howard was in charge of the situation now, not Arno. And Phil did not accept Howard as a superior.
It was his chance to restructure the dynamic, get rid of two people to potentially look up to, take all the gains from the robbery and take over the gang.
He planned it out, waited patiently for the opportunity and then took it. No hesitation or mercy.
In the title but again SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
I saw Uncut Gems the other day and loved it, really excellent movie, stressed the hell out of me. The movie is kinda predictable but more in a way that makes you say "god I hope X doesn't happen" and then it of course does. One of these predictable events is how Howard will end the movie, which just so happens to be with a bullet in the cheek. It's really not a surprise based on his actions and "affiliates," but I was still a bit disappointed that he had to die and it is sort of tragic.
The reason I'm making this post though is not to say I wish Howard didn't die but rather, was Howard dying really worse/more tragic than him living?
Personally while I enjoy the ending of the film and am unsure whether the Safdies were going for a "tragic" ending, I think if they were it would have been better to leave Howard alive. Howard was a scumbag and no matter how big he won he'd never change or give up his wild and dangerous lifestyle. I think that had Howard lived at the end of this story that he still would have died later, but perhaps would have gotten even more people hurt/killed or who knows what else.
So yeah again, was Howard dying really worse/more tragic than if he had lived?
Also if Howard did live at the end, how do you think it changes the theme/moral of the film?