Inside (2023) Ending Explained

Max Framewell Profile Image
By Max Framewell
July 20, 2025

tl;dr:
The ending of Inside (2023) is a brutal, nihilistic conclusion to the psychological horror of an art thief trapped in a penthouse. After days of starvation, desperation, and violent encounters with the apartment's hidden inhabitant, the protagonist (Nemo) finally escapes-only to be immediately hit by a car and left to die in the snow. The film ends with the thief's stolen art piece being auctioned, underscoring the futility of his suffering. The finale reinforces themes of isolation, greed, and the cyclical nature of exploitation.

Detailed Explanation of the Ending

The climax of Inside sees Nemo, having endured psychological torment, physical mutilation (including cutting off his own fingers), and near-starvation, finally finding an escape route from the ultra-modern penthouse. In a desperate bid for freedom, he crawls through a ventilation shaft and emerges onto the snowy streets below. However, his liberation is short-lived-within moments, he's struck by a passing car. The driver, barely noticing the collision, speeds away, leaving Nemo to bleed out alone in the cold. This abrupt, almost casual dismissal of his life underscores the film's bleak worldview: no matter how hard he fought, his suffering was meaningless in the grand scheme.

The final scene cuts to an auction house, where Nemo's prized stolen artwork-a self-portrait by Egon Schiele-is being sold for millions. The camera lingers on the painting, now just another commodity in the art world's ruthless economy. The irony is crushing: Nemo's ordeal, his loss of sanity and body, was all for a piece of art that slips back into the system without a second thought. The film suggests that greed and exploitation are inescapable cycles, whether in high-stakes theft or the "legitimate" art market. Nemo's fate is a metaphor for how individuals are crushed by systems far larger than themselves.

Unresolved Questions

  1. Who was the mysterious man living in the penthouse?

    • A former thief like Nemo, trapped by his own greed.
    • A symbolic representation of Nemo's inevitable fate.
    • A hallucination or figment of Nemo's deteriorating mind.
  2. Did Nemo ever have a chance of survival?

    • No-the film's nihilism suggests his fate was sealed the moment he entered the penthouse.
    • Possibly, if he had abandoned the painting earlier, but his greed doomed him.
  3. What does the ending say about the art world?

    • It critiques how art is commodified, with human lives rendered irrelevant in its trade.
    • Suggests that both thieves and collectors are part of the same exploitative machine.

Personal Opinion

Inside is a harrowing, visually stunning descent into existential horror. The ending is uncompromisingly brutal, refusing to offer catharsis or meaning-which is both its strength and its potential flaw. While some may find the nihilism excessive, it effectively drives home the film's themes. Willem Dafoe's performance is phenomenal, making Nemo's suffering palpable. However, the lack of narrative resolution for the penthouse's mystery man feels like a missed opportunity. Overall, Inside is a punishing but thought-provoking film, leaving viewers haunted by its depiction of futile struggle.

Final Thoughts

The ending of Inside doesn't just conclude Nemo's story-it condemns the world he inhabited. His death is meaningless, the art he fought for is commodified, and the cycle continues. It's a stark reminder of how easily humanity is erased in the pursuit of wealth and beauty. Whether you see it as profound or overly cruel likely depends on your tolerance for bleak cinema, but it's undeniably a memorable, visceral finale.