Seo-yeon finally reunites with her mother at the cemetery. Moments later, Eun-ae vanishes before her daughter’s eyes. What happened in 1999—and does the final scene mean Seo-yeon has been Young-sook’s prisoner for twenty years?
Warning: Major spoilers for The Call (2020), including the mid-credits ending.
For a few precious moments, The Call gives Seo-yeon something she has desperately wanted throughout the film.
Her mother is alive.
After a terrifying confrontation that appears to eliminate the serial killer Young-sook from the future, Seo-yeon visits her father’s grave.
There, she encounters Eun-ae.
Her mother has survived.
The scars on Eun-ae’s body reveal that the confrontation in 1999 really happened, but she is standing in front of her daughter twenty years later.
They embrace.
They walk away together.
It seems that a family broken by violence has finally found a measure of peace.
Then Eun-ae disappears.
There is no farewell.
No warning.
No body.
One moment she is beside Seo-yeon. The next, she is gone.
The film then delivers an even more disturbing image: an adult Seo-yeon restrained in a room associated with Young-sook’s captivity and torture.
What happened?
Did Young-sook murder Eun-ae in the past?
Was the cemetery reunion real?
And how long has Seo-yeon been imprisoned?
The most convincing explanation is that Young-sook survived the fall in 1999 and subsequently prevented Eun-ae from surviving into 2019. But the movie deliberately withholds the exact sequence of events.
That missing information is not merely a puzzle.
It transforms the film’s ending into a devastating story about motherhood, control, and the fragility of a future that depends on someone else’s actions.
1. What Happens to Seo-yeon’s Mother at the End?
The ending unfolds through two connected periods.
In 1999, Eun-ae enters Young-sook’s house while searching for her missing husband and daughter.
A police officer accompanies her.
Young-sook attacks.
The officer is killed, and Eun-ae becomes the killer’s next target.
In 2019, adult Seo-yeon communicates with her mother through the telephone.
She encourages Eun-ae to fight back.
During the confrontation, Eun-ae pushes Young-sook over an upstairs railing.
Both women fall.
At the same time, the older Young-sook disappears from Seo-yeon’s present.
The house changes.
Seo-yeon escapes.
Later, she encounters her mother at the cemetery.
Eun-ae is older and bears physical scars, but she is alive.
The apparent explanation is that Eun-ae survived the fall while Young-sook did not.
However, the mid-credits sequence reveals that the younger Young-sook also survived.
The future changes once again.
Eun-ae disappears.
This sequence strongly suggests that Young-sook’s survival leads to a different fate for Seo-yeon’s mother.
2. Did Eun-ae Actually Survive the Fall?
Yes, in the version of events represented by the cemetery reunion.
Eun-ae’s appearance is not simply presented as a ghostly vision.
She is physically present.
She embraces Seo-yeon.
They walk together.
She also bears scars consistent with having survived the confrontation.
These details matter because the scene establishes an emotionally and physically coherent outcome.
Eun-ae was injured.
She survived.
She lived long enough to reunite with her adult daughter.
The movie then removes that outcome.
This is different from revealing that the reunion was an obvious dream.
The film has already demonstrated that changes in 1999 can alter reality in 2019.
The cemetery sequence therefore fits the story’s established pattern of a present being rewritten.
The most natural reading is that Seo-yeon briefly experiences a reality in which her mother survived.
That reality does not last.
3. Why Does Eun-ae Disappear Instead of Dying on Screen?
Because the decisive event affecting her existence occurs in the past.
The audience does not see a new attack on the older Eun-ae in 2019.
Instead, her presence is erased from the future.
Throughout The Call, changes to the past alter the present.
When someone dies in 1999, that person’s existence in 2019 may disappear.
The ending uses the same visual language.
Eun-ae does not collapse from an injury.
She vanishes.
This tells us that the problem is not something happening to her in the cemetery.
Something about the history that allowed her to reach the cemetery has changed.
Young-sook’s survival is the newly revealed factor.
The most likely inference is that Young-sook, after regaining consciousness in 1999, prevents Eun-ae from escaping alive.
But the movie does not show the killing itself.
That distinction matters.
We can identify the likely cause of Eun-ae’s disappearance without pretending that the film shows exactly how she dies.
4. Did Young-sook Kill Seo-yeon’s Mother?
That is the strongest interpretation.
After the fall, the younger Young-sook opens her eyes.
She is alive.
The earlier appearance of her death was misleading.
Because Young-sook is a violent killer who has already attacked Eun-ae, her survival puts Eun-ae in immediate danger.
The next major consequence is Eun-ae’s disappearance from 2019.
The causal implication is clear.
Young-sook’s survival leads to a history in which Eun-ae does not remain alive.
Many ending explanations interpret this as Young-sook killing Eun-ae after recovering from the fall.
That is reasonable.
But there are limits to what the audience can confirm.
We do not see Young-sook deliver the fatal blow.
We do not see Eun-ae’s body.
We do not learn whether Eun-ae dies immediately after the fall or at a later point.
Nor does the film provide a detailed account of the revised history.
Therefore, the most accurate conclusion is:
Eun-ae’s disappearance strongly implies that she was killed or otherwise prevented from surviving in the revised past. Young-sook is the obvious cause, but the precise event is left off-screen.
5. Why Did the Movie Give Us a Happy Ending First?
The cemetery reunion is designed to feel like emotional closure.
Seo-yeon has spent much of the story living with grief, guilt, and a damaged relationship with her mother.
At first, she blames Eun-ae for the childhood fire that killed her father.
Later, she discovers that her own actions caused the fire.
Her understanding of her family changes.
The mother she resented becomes the person who risks everything to save her.
By the final confrontation, Seo-yeon understands Eun-ae differently.
She no longer sees her simply as the person responsible for her childhood suffering.
She recognizes her courage.
The reunion therefore offers more than physical survival.
It offers reconciliation.
Mother and daughter have finally reached a point where they can acknowledge each other without the old accusation standing between them.
Then the movie takes that possibility away.
The cruelty of the twist depends on the audience having briefly believed in the reunion.
Without that moment of relief, the final disappearance would be merely another act of violence.
With it, the disappearance becomes the destruction of a future that seemed possible.
6. The Scars on Eun-ae’s Body Are an Important Clue
When Eun-ae appears in 2019, she bears scars from the earlier confrontation.
Those scars serve two purposes.
First, they connect the older woman to the events of 1999.
The audience understands that she did not escape the ordeal unharmed.
Second, they distinguish survival from the erasure of suffering.
Even in the apparent happy ending, Eun-ae carries physical evidence of what happened.
The past has not been magically repaired.
She has lived with its consequences.
This makes the reunion more emotionally convincing.
Eun-ae is not restored to an untouched version of herself.
She is a survivor.
The film briefly allows her suffering to lead somewhere other than death.
Then that history disappears.
The loss becomes especially painful because we have seen what Eun-ae might have endured and survived.
Her scars represent a life that was difficult but still possible.
Young-sook’s revised history removes that possibility.
7. Why Does Young-sook’s Survival Change Everything?
Young-sook is not an ordinary antagonist.
She can act in 1999 while receiving information from 2019.
That gives her access to knowledge about future consequences.
The mid-credits scene reveals that her older self warned her younger self about Eun-ae and the police officer.
The warning allows Young-sook to approach the confrontation with information she otherwise would not have possessed.
Although the movie does not explain every detail of the revised sequence, the result is clear.
Young-sook survives.
Eun-ae’s future existence is erased.
Seo-yeon ends up captive.
The difference between the apparent happy ending and the final outcome is not simply that Young-sook is stronger.
She is better informed.
She can prepare for danger before it arrives.
And she can use that advantage against people who have no comparable power over their own past.
This is why the telephone is so destructive.
It allows one person to turn another person’s future into something that can be manipulated.
8. The Cemetery Scene Is Not Necessarily a Dream
One tempting interpretation is that Seo-yeon imagines seeing her mother.
Perhaps grief produces a comforting vision.
Perhaps the reunion is only a fantasy.
But the film provides stronger support for a changing-history explanation.
Eun-ae’s appearance follows the apparent defeat of Young-sook.
The older Young-sook disappears.
The environment changes.
Then Eun-ae appears.
Later, the younger Young-sook is revealed to have survived, and Eun-ae disappears in direct visual correspondence.
These events are structured as cause and effect.
The reunion is therefore best understood as an outcome of one version of history.
The subsequent disappearance represents that outcome being overwritten.
A dream interpretation is not impossible in an abstract sense.
But it is not the interpretation most strongly supported by the film’s narrative structure.
The tragedy is that Seo-yeon seems to experience something real enough to embrace—and then loses it.
9. Did Eun-ae Disappear Because Young-sook Woke Up?
The sequence strongly suggests that connection.
Young-sook is shown lying injured after the fall.
She opens her eyes.
Eun-ae subsequently disappears from Seo-yeon’s side.
The film invites the audience to understand Young-sook’s survival as the turning point.
But survival alone is not necessarily sufficient to explain Eun-ae’s erasure.
Two injured women could theoretically survive the same fall.
The decisive change would likely involve what Young-sook does afterward.
Perhaps she attacks Eun-ae again.
Perhaps she prevents Eun-ae from receiving help.
Perhaps another violent event occurs.
The film does not show which possibility becomes reality.
This distinction prevents an overly simplistic explanation.
Young-sook opening her eyes is the clue.
Eun-ae disappearing is the consequence.
The missing action between them is left for the viewer to infer.
10. The Most Likely Revised History
The final scenes support a plausible reconstruction.
In 1999, Eun-ae pushes Young-sook over the railing.
Both women are seriously injured.
In one apparent outcome, Eun-ae survives and Young-sook does not remain a threat.
That produces the cemetery reunion in 2019.
But Young-sook has received a warning from her older self.
She survives the fall.
After regaining consciousness, she prevents Eun-ae from surviving into the future.
Young-sook also maintains control over young Seo-yeon.
The consequences extend across the next twenty years.
By 2019, Eun-ae is absent, and adult Seo-yeon is imprisoned.
This reconstruction explains the visible ending without requiring the movie to have shown every intervening event.
However, the precise chronology remains a theory.
The film confirms the outcomes.
It does not confirm every step.
11. What Happens to Seo-yeon in the Final Scene?
The movie’s final image shows an adult Seo-yeon restrained in a room associated with Young-sook’s violence.
Her face is revealed beneath a covering.
She is frightened and unable to escape.
The scene establishes that Young-sook has gained control over her.
But it leaves important questions unanswered.
Was Seo-yeon kept prisoner continuously from childhood?
Was she allowed to grow up outside captivity before being captured again?
Did the revised history produce an entirely different adult life?
The film does not give us enough information to answer definitively.
The continuous-captivity theory is especially disturbing.
Young-sook had already taken the young Seo-yeon hostage in 1999.
If Young-sook survives and retains control of the child, she could theoretically keep her imprisoned for years.
But the movie does not show twenty years of imprisonment.
That is an inference, not a confirmed fact.
12. Was Seo-yeon Imprisoned for Twenty Years?
Possibly.
The final captive is an adult woman.
Young-sook’s control over young Seo-yeon begins in 1999.
This creates the possibility of prolonged imprisonment.
Some viewers interpret the ending as revealing that Seo-yeon has spent the intervening twenty years in captivity.
That interpretation fits the film’s bleak tone.
But it also raises unanswered questions.
How did Young-sook keep her alive?
How did Seo-yeon reach adulthood?
What happened to the outside world?
Could she have escaped at some point?
The movie does not explain.
An alternative is that Seo-yeon was captured later in the revised timeline.
Both readings remain possible.
What matters most is the power relationship the final image establishes.
Young-sook is free.
Seo-yeon is not.
The woman who once believed she could change the past is now trapped by the consequences of someone else’s changes.
13. Why Doesn’t Young-sook Simply Kill Seo-yeon?
This is one of the ending’s most unsettling unanswered questions.
Young-sook has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness to kill.
She murders people who threaten her.
She eliminates witnesses.
She uses violence to protect her freedom.
So why keep Seo-yeon alive?
The film does not provide a definitive answer.
One possibility is that Seo-yeon remains useful.
She understands the telephone’s extraordinary connection.
She possesses knowledge Young-sook may want.
Another possibility is that Young-sook enjoys exercising control over her.
Captivity can become a form of punishment.
A third possibility is that Young-sook wants to preserve the person most closely connected to her extraordinary power over time.
These are interpretations, not confirmed motivations.
But they reveal a distinction between killing and domination.
Death ends a person’s resistance.
Captivity allows the captor to control the victim repeatedly.
Young-sook’s final victory may therefore be less about eliminating Seo-yeon than about possessing her future.
14. Seo-yeon’s Mother Was the Only Person Who Could Break Young-sook’s Control
In the final confrontation, Eun-ae does something extraordinary.
She acts despite fear.
She fights a killer who has already murdered a police officer.
She risks her life to protect her daughter.
Unlike Seo-yeon, Eun-ae does not possess knowledge of the future.
She cannot predict every consequence.
She does not understand the full mechanics of the telephone.
But she can act in the present moment of 1999.
And her action changes 2019.
This makes Eun-ae an essential counterforce to Young-sook.
Young-sook controls events through information and intimidation.
Eun-ae resists through physical courage and maternal determination.
For a moment, that resistance succeeds.
The older Young-sook disappears.
Seo-yeon is freed.
The tragedy of the mid-credits scene is that Young-sook finds a way to undo the victory.
Eun-ae can defeat Young-sook in a confrontation. But she cannot defend herself against information sent backward from a future she has never seen.
15. TTK Original Analysis: The Film Reverses Seo-yeon’s Judgment of Her Mother
At the beginning, Seo-yeon’s relationship with Eun-ae is shaped by blame.
She believes her mother caused the fire that killed her father.
That accusation has influenced her understanding of her childhood.
Later, the film reveals that Seo-yeon herself was responsible for starting the fire.
This revelation changes the moral structure of the family story.
Eun-ae has carried the burden of a tragedy for which Seo-yeon blamed her.
The daughter has misunderstood the mother.
But the movie does not simply replace one guilty person with another.
It shows how grief can distort memory and relationships.
Seo-yeon has lived with an explanation that protects her from confronting a painful truth about herself.
The final confrontation forces her to see Eun-ae differently.
Her mother is not merely someone associated with loss.
She is someone willing to risk everything to protect her.
The cemetery reunion briefly allows Seo-yeon to acknowledge that truth.
Then Eun-ae disappears.
The emotional cruelty is precise.
Seo-yeon finally understands her mother at the very moment the possibility of living with that understanding is taken away.
16. Why the Mother’s Disappearance Hurts More Than a Conventional Death Scene
A conventional death scene allows the audience to witness the event.
There is a moment of violence.
There is a body.
There is a clear before and after.
Eun-ae’s disappearance denies us that certainty.
We do not see the fatal act.
We do not hear her final words.
We do not know exactly when her revised death occurs.
We simply watch her cease to exist beside her daughter.
This creates a different kind of horror.
It is not only the horror of losing someone.
It is the horror of having a shared reality withdrawn.
Seo-yeon has just embraced her mother.
She has felt the relief of reunion.
She has begun walking toward a future in which they can remain together.
Then that future disappears without explanation.
The film transforms bereavement into something even more unstable.
The loss is not merely remembered.
It happens while memory and reality are changing.
17. The Film’s Most Important Contrast: Two Women Who Control a Child’s Fate
Eun-ae and Young-sook are connected through their relationships with young Seo-yeon.
Eun-ae tries to protect her daughter.
Young-sook uses the child as leverage.
Both understand that the child’s survival matters enormously.
But their responses are opposites.
Eun-ae accepts personal danger to preserve Seo-yeon’s freedom.
Young-sook threatens Seo-yeon’s life to secure her own freedom.
One woman places the child’s future above her immediate safety.
The other treats the child’s future as a resource she can control.
This contrast gives the ending a moral clarity that the time-travel mechanics do not possess.
We may not know precisely how every timeline changes.
But we understand what each woman is willing to do.
Eun-ae risks herself so Seo-yeon can live.
Young-sook preserves herself by taking control of Seo-yeon’s life.
The true conflict is not simply between two women fighting in a house. It is between protecting another person’s future and claiming ownership of it.
18. Young-sook Recreates the Captivity She Once Feared
Young-sook’s early life is marked by confinement and abuse.
Her adoptive mother subjects her to frightening rituals and attempts to kill her.
Young-sook is initially presented as someone trapped within a violent household.
Seo-yeon sympathizes with her.
She warns her about the impending danger.
But Young-sook’s escape does not produce liberation for everyone around her.
It produces another regime of terror.
She kills her adoptive mother.
She becomes a murderer.
She confines young Seo-yeon.
And the final scene shows adult Seo-yeon restrained under her control.
This creates a disturbing pattern.
Young-sook escapes being dominated.
Then she dominates someone else.
The film does not suggest that victims inevitably become abusers.
Nor does suffering excuse Young-sook’s crimes.
Instead, it shows one character reproducing the very structure of captivity from which she wanted to escape.
Young-sook’s freedom is built upon Seo-yeon’s imprisonment.
That is one of the ending’s darkest ironies.
19. The House Becomes a Prison Across Generations
The house is the film’s central location.
It exists in both 1999 and 2019.
It connects the two women.
It changes as history changes.
At first, it is a place where Seo-yeon discovers an extraordinary connection.
Later, it becomes the center of Young-sook’s violence.
Its rooms contain evidence of murder.
Its walls conceal secrets.
Its telephone links people who should never have been able to speak.
By the ending, the house represents something more than a haunted or dangerous building.
It becomes a structure in which one person’s power can extend across decades.
Young-sook does not need to pursue Seo-yeon into an unfamiliar world.
She controls the history of the place Seo-yeon calls home.
The final captive image completes that transformation.
A home that once promised connection becomes a prison.
And the prison is not confined to one moment in time.
It reaches backward into childhood and forward into adulthood.
20. Was the Cemetery Reunion Real if It Was Later Erased?
This question is more philosophical than it first appears.
If a version of history is overwritten, did the events within it truly happen?
For Seo-yeon, the reunion is experienced.
She sees her mother.
She embraces her.
She walks beside her.
The audience witnesses those events.
Then the reality changes.
From the perspective of the final history, Eun-ae may never have survived long enough to reach that cemetery.
But Seo-yeon’s experience of reunion has already been presented to us.
The film does not clearly explain what happens to memories when history changes.
That uncertainty creates a painful possibility.
Seo-yeon may remember a mother who, in the final version of history, has been dead for twenty years.
If so, she carries the memory of a life that no longer exists.
This is one of the most unsettling consequences of the film’s premise.
A person can lose not only someone they love, but also the world in which that love was recently returned.
21. Why the Final Captivity Scene Is Worse Than the Mother’s Disappearance
Eun-ae’s disappearance is devastating.
But the final image suggests that Young-sook’s victory extends beyond killing.
Seo-yeon is still alive.
Yet she is deprived of freedom.
The film offers no indication that she can escape.
The telephone, which once gave her extraordinary influence over the past, no longer guarantees her safety.
The woman who used the connection to save her father and warn Young-sook has become the victim of that same connection.
This is a complete reversal.
Seo-yeon began with the power to intervene.
She ends with the inability to act.
Young-sook began as someone who feared an approaching death.
She ends as someone who has used future knowledge to preserve her control.
The final scene therefore changes the meaning of the title.
The Call is not simply about a mysterious telephone conversation.
It is about the consequences of allowing one person access to another person’s past.
The final horror is not merely that Young-sook survives.
It is that Seo-yeon’s life becomes something Young-sook can possess.
22. Could Seo-yeon Ever Save Her Mother Again?
The movie does not establish a definitive answer.
In theory, another intervention in the past might change the outcome.
The story has repeatedly shown that history can be altered.
But the final scene places Seo-yeon in captivity.
She may no longer have access to the telephone.
Young-sook understands the connection and knows how dangerous Seo-yeon’s knowledge can be.
That makes another successful intervention much more difficult.
There is also no confirmed evidence that someone else can use the telephone in exactly the same way.
The possibility of changing history does not guarantee that Seo-yeon retains the ability to do so.
The film therefore ends with an asymmetry.
Young-sook has successfully used future knowledge to protect herself.
Seo-yeon has lost the practical freedom needed to fight back.
That is why the ending feels final even though the story’s supernatural rules leave theoretical possibilities open.
23. What the Ending Says About Motherhood and Sacrifice
Many thrillers use the death of a parent to create emotional stakes.
The Call does something more complicated.
It begins with a daughter who misunderstands and resents her mother.
It gradually reveals the mother’s suffering.
It places the mother in direct danger.
It allows her courage to produce an apparent victory.
Then it erases the victory.
Eun-ae’s actions remain morally significant even if the outcome is overwritten.
She fought to protect her daughter.
She accepted the risk of death.
She acted without the certainty that her sacrifice would succeed.
Young-sook’s later survival does not make Eun-ae’s courage meaningless.
It reveals the cruelty of a world in which courage does not always guarantee a lasting result.
That is an important distinction.
The film is not saying that maternal love is powerless.
For a moment, it changes everything.
But it is also not offering the comforting promise that love will always defeat violence.
Young-sook’s final victory exposes the limits of sacrifice when an opponent can repeatedly rewrite the conditions of the struggle.
24. Final Verdict: Seo-yeon’s Mother Disappears Because Young-sook Rewrites the Victory
Why does Seo-yeon’s mother disappear at the end of The Call?
The most convincing explanation is that Young-sook survives the 1999 fall and changes what happens afterward.
In the apparent happy ending, Eun-ae survives and reunites with Seo-yeon twenty years later.
In the final outcome, Young-sook’s survival prevents that reunion from remaining part of history.
Eun-ae is erased from Seo-yeon’s present.
The film strongly implies that Young-sook kills her or otherwise causes her death in the revised past.
But the precise act is not shown.
Likewise, the final scene confirms that adult Seo-yeon is captive, but it does not establish whether she has been imprisoned continuously since childhood.
These uncertainties are important.
They distinguish what the movie tells us from what we must infer.
Yet the ending’s emotional meaning is clear.
Seo-yeon finally recognizes her mother’s love.
She receives the reunion she desperately needs.
Then the past changes, and that future disappears.
The film’s final cruelty is not simply that Young-sook wins.
It is that Seo-yeon has already experienced what victory would have meant.
She does not lose a mother she never had the chance to embrace. She loses a mother she has just found again.
And in the final image, Seo-yeon becomes the captive of the woman who took that future away.
That is why The Call remains so disturbing.
It turns time travel into a struggle over who has the power to decide another person’s life.
The greatest horror is not that the past can be changed. It is that someone can change your past after you have finally begun to heal from it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Seo-yeon’s mother disappear at the end of The Call?
Eun-ae disappears because Young-sook survives the confrontation in 1999, producing a revised history in which Eun-ae does not remain alive in 2019. The exact events causing her death are not shown.
Did Young-sook kill Seo-yeon’s mother?
The film strongly implies that Young-sook causes Eun-ae’s death after surviving the fall. However, the actual killing is not depicted.
Was the cemetery reunion real?
The film presents it as an experienced version of reality rather than an explicitly identified dream. The later disappearance suggests that this outcome is overwritten by another change to the past.
How did Young-sook survive the fall?
The mid-credits scene reveals that older Young-sook warned her younger self about the approaching confrontation. The younger Young-sook is later shown opening her eyes after the fall.
Why did Eun-ae have scars at the cemetery?
The scars indicate that she survived the violent confrontation in 1999 with lasting injuries in the apparent happy-ending version of history.
Was Seo-yeon held captive for twenty years?
Possibly, but the film does not confirm continuous imprisonment. It shows young Seo-yeon being taken hostage and ends with adult Seo-yeon restrained, without revealing the entire intervening history.
Why didn’t Young-sook kill Seo-yeon?
The film does not explain her exact motive. Possibilities include maintaining control, punishment, or preserving access to someone who understands the telephone’s power.
Did Seo-yeon imagine seeing her mother?
There is no clear indication that the cemetery reunion is a hallucination. The film more strongly supports the interpretation that Seo-yeon experiences a reality that is subsequently rewritten.
Can Seo-yeon change the past again?
The film does not rule out another change in principle, but her final captivity leaves her without an obvious opportunity to use the telephone.
Is The Call’s ending happy or sad?
The film presents an apparent happy ending, then overturns it in the mid-credits sequence. The final outcome is tragic: Eun-ae disappears, Young-sook survives, and Seo-yeon is imprisoned.
Sources and Further Reading
IMDb — The Call (2020), Plot Summary
Detailed account of the two time periods, the confrontation, Eun-ae’s reunion with Seo-yeon, and the mid-credits reversal.
High On Films — The Call (2020) Ending Explained & Themes Analysed
Discussion of Young-sook’s survival, Eun-ae’s disappearance, and Seo-yeon’s final captivity.
This Is Barry — The Call Ending Explained
An independent timeline reconstruction, including the theory that Young-sook survives and later kills Eun-ae. The specific sequence is interpretive rather than explicitly shown.
Distractify — The Call’s Shocking Final Scenes
Explanation of the cemetery reunion and the mid-credits reversal.
Monsters and Critics — The Call: Korean Movie’s Ending Explained
Discussion of the mother’s survival, Young-sook’s return, and the alternate ending.
Continue Reading — The Call Ending Analysis
Part 1 — The Impossible Phone Call
The Call Ending Explained: How Did Young-sook Call Herself?
Part 2 — The Disappearing Mother
The Call Ending Explained: Why Did Seo-yeon’s Mother Disappear?
TTK Original — Beyond the Headlines
True Taste Korea | October 23, 2026
This article distinguishes events directly shown in The Call (2020) from plausible interpretations of its final timeline. The exact circumstances of Eun-ae’s death and the duration of Seo-yeon’s captivity remain unconfirmed.