Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
The tacked-on studio ending of the original Invasion Of The Body Snatchers with the National Guard comes to mind but I believe that was at some point, rectified, no?
The additional overexplained Psycho ending is definitely unnecessary but I don't think it damages the movie too much as it just brings in exposition at a time when it isn't really needed. Pointless but for the most part, harmless.
You're not alone. It's difficult to explain but Plainview's characterization in that leap into the future is seriously just wrong-headed.
I never understood the thinking that throughout the film, Plainview was evil & wicked. He was the only (relatively) honest person in the fucking movie and he he had reason to hate every person he'd met because they were all greedy liars (the Preacher, the oil men, the townspeople who were arguing over themselves). Not only that, but he raised a hired hand's infant son when he didn't have to. Sure, doing so had some selfish intent but it was mutually beneficial. Point being that the final 15 minutes treats D.P. like the villain he never really was & removes ALL ambiguity about the character & just says, "From here on out, there is no ambiguity. It's black & white: Daniel Plainview is EVIL. The End".
Fucking lazy.
The most fascinating misreading of a film I've ever read. You and I were watching two different films.
PSYCHO. As Roger Ebert puts it:
"For thoughtful viewers, however, an equal surprise is still waiting. That is the mystery of why Hitchcock marred the ending of a masterpiece with a sequence that is grotesquely out of place. After the murders have been solved, there is an inexplicable scene during which a long-winded psychiatrist lectures the assembled survivors on the causes of Norman's psychopathic behavior. This is an anticlimax taken almost to the point of parody"
It is a weird out-of-place ending, but I think Hitchcock felt it was necessary because many audiences of the day had no idea that dissociative identity disorder existed so they'd be kind of confused as to what was really going on there.
The tacked-on studio ending of the original Invasion Of The Body Snatchers with the National Guard comes to mind but I believe that was at some point, rectified, no?
When it used to air on the late show I always got the classic ending, with Kevin McCarthy hysterically shouting, "Look, you fools, you're in danger! Can't you see?! They're after you! They're after all of us! Our wives, our children, everyone! THEY'RE HERE, ALREADY! YOU'RE NEXT!"
That is the perfect note to end on. It was only when I bought the DVD that i saw the studio mandated framing device. There was a new release this year, so i'm hoping the proper ending is restored.
Identity. It's such a tight, fascinating little murder-suspense film, and the initial twist of where this motel is is a great one. And then, the fucking orange grove happens.
Also gonna throw in the first Paranormal Activity. One shitty CG face managed to tip what was otherwise an absolutely goosepimple inducing finale (seriously, when Katie's screams go absolutely dead silent when she's downstairs....yeesh) into lulz.
Identity. It's such a tight, fascinating little murder-suspense film, and the initial twist of where this motel is is a great one. And then, the fucking orange grove happens.
Also gonna throw in the first Paranormal Activity. One shitty CG face managed to tip what was otherwise an absolutely goosepimple inducing finale (seriously, when Katie's screams go absolutely dead silent when she's downstairs....yeesh) into lulz.
I liked the orange grove scene because it gave us the classic line, " Whores don't get a second chance." 
You're not alone. It's difficult to explain but Plainview's characterization in that leap into the future is seriously just wrong-headed.
I never understood the thinking that throughout the film, Plainview was evil & wicked. He was the only (relatively) honest person in the fucking movie and he he had reason to hate every person he'd met because they were all greedy liars (the Preacher, the oil men, the townspeople who were arguing over themselves). Not only that, but he raised a hired hand's infant son when he didn't have to. Sure, doing so had some selfish intent but it was mutually beneficial. Point being that the final 15 minutes treats D.P. like the villain he never really was & removes ALL ambiguity about the character & just says, "From here on out, there is no ambiguity. It's black & white: Daniel Plainview is EVIL. The End".
Fucking lazy.
I have to disagree with you here. I think what we see in the end is toll that all of those years of being a ruthless competitor has taken. Plainview was certainly a driven and unscrupulous man coming up. But as the relationship with his not brother and his son showed, he did crave a connection. He just reacted with fury when someone would try to use his deeply hidden humanity against him, (standard oil, the brother) so he reacts as he did to his son....and ends up a twisted monster. When you deny your own humanity to reach a goal such as financial successs....I think you can expect the results to look like this.
Now the ending did have a comic feel that may be tonally wrong for the film, I will grant that much. But the final scene between Dano and Lewis was so brilliant that I could never call it a 'bad ending'.
As for Sunshine.....I love that movie. If only Boyle had the confidence to tell the story of the journey without burnt man, have the sun room be the killer....show the inexorable draw of something that powerful. You could even have them find the other ship, and speed the epiphany of the psychologist......oh well, I will always love the movie inspite of burnt man.
edit: I know see that Bailey thoroughly argued this point.....so should change my text to read...yeah...what bailey said.
Oh, I got one. Drag Me To Hell. After an entire movie of fun slapstick gross-out comedy, our likable heroine, having learned her lesson and fought hard against her fate, is... sucked into hell to be tortured for all eternity. Yeah, I know internet fandom pretty much went "so dark! so ballsy! You've still got it, Sam Raimi!" but it's just sadistic. It's like if Army of Darkness had ended with Ash getting ass-raped--and yes, I know the original ending was him ending up in a post-apocalyptic London, but at least there's a glimmer of "How's he going to get out of this one?" hope there. Also, the method of her demise is so contrived and telegraphed, and such a stupid mistake for her character to make when she's not a character that makes stupid mistakes. Did anyone not see "YOU GOT THE WRONG ENVELOPE!" coming?
The "wrong envelope" thing was a bit obvious but Drag me to Hell's ending fits perfectly with the sort of EC Comics feel Sam Raimi is going for.
It is a weird out-of-place ending, but I think Hitchcock felt it was necessary because many audiences of the day had no idea that dissociative identity disorder existed so they'd be kind of confused as to what was really going on there.
That and I always felt like Hitchcock did that so that 1960 audiences could have a few minutes of dull shit to buzz and exclaim through before they got to the real ending, Norman thinking to himself in his mother's voice. If you go right from the fruit cellar to Norman sitting there, the audience is still abuzz and missing Norman's "monologue." I doubt most audiences back in the day even registered much of what the shrink was saying. They were too busy going "OMGWTF DID YOU SEE THAT IT WAS REALLY NORMAN THE WHOLE TIME."
The "wrong envelope" thing was a bit obvious but Drag me to Hell's ending fits perfectly with the sort of EC Comics feel Sam Raimi is going for.
And it would fit perfectly with the 'film serial' feel for Raiders of the Lost Ark to end on a cliffhanger showing Indy surely dying, then start Temple of Doom showing he got out of the car just in the nick of time! But that would've been dumb, so they didn't do that.
In case anyone besides me was interested in more info-
Both Siegel and Mainwaring were satisfied with the film as shot. It was originally intended to end with Miles screaming hysterically as truckloads of pods pass him by. The studio, wary of such a pessimistic conclusion, insisted on adding a prologue and epilogue to the movie that suggested a more optimistic outcome to the story which is thus told mainly in flashback. In this version the movie begins with a ranting Bennell kept in custody in a hospital emergency ward. He then tells an arriving doctor (Whit Bissell) his story. In the closing scene, pods are discovered at a highway accident, thus confirming his warning. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is notified, though it is left ambiguous whether they intervene in time to save the Earth.
Mainwaring scripted this framing story and Siegel shot it on September 16, 1955, at the Allied Artists studio. In a later interview Siegel complained, "The film was nearly ruined by those in charge at Allied Artists who added a preface and ending that I don't like." In his autobiography, Siegel added that "Wanger was very much against this, as was I. However, he begged me to shoot it to protect the film, and I reluctantly consented ".
While the Internet Movie Database states that the film's original ending had been reinstated for a re-release in 1979, Steve Biodrowski of Cinefantastique magazine claims that the film is still being released with its additional footage, including a screening at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2005, honouring director Don Siegel.
And it would fit perfectly with the 'film serial' feel for Raiders of the Lost Ark to end on a cliffhanger showing Indy surely dying, then start Temple of Doom showing he got out of the car just in the nick of time! But that would've been dumb, so they didn't do that.
I don't get your point with that comparison. The envelope switch might be too awkwardly telegraphed but the DMTH ending isn't dumb. Correct me if I'm wrong, but sounds to me like you're just not a fan of those grimly ironic tales which is fine, god knows they can be frustrating, but that's exactly what Drag me to Hell is designed to be from the very beginning. Once that ending hits you can practically hear the Cryptkeeper cackling away and personally I think it works great.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If LA Confidential would have ended right here instead of with the pointless epilogue showing Bud White alive it would have been a better movie.
Bud living and getting the girl in the end is the book's ending, and I liked the movie's ending for Exley. Exley chooses fame and promotion over seeing justice getting done and the LAPD getting a black eye in the eyes of the public. It's wonderfully noir. The bad guy gets taken out, but the hero makes a morally ambiguous choice in the process.
Definitely rolling with you on this one. There's this very specific energy that Drag Me To Hell has going for it and I don't feel that the ending betrays it one bit. I think the only thing that really seperates it from other films with doomed protagonists is having a doe-eyed female protagonist. I can see the argument with the execution on the envelope but my instinct was that Justin Long was being set up to be the fall guy for the finale.
Yeah, I can understand taking issue with White living at the end (I don't have a problem with it), but ending on that shot (while it would be a cool visual shot to end on) robs Exley of his overall arch. He needs to cover up the truth and get the promotion. That's the point of his entire journey.
I'd say that basically every movie Steven Speilberg and Peter Jackson have made for the last 10 years (those that I've seen anyway) have endings that fail not because of what happens plot-wise, but because of how they're edited. I don't have a problem with what the last scene in Munich or Return of the King actually are, respectively, but the way we get there is pretty infuriating, since they feel like the fifth goddamn time the films have ended.
I can't think of any problems you would have of, say, the endings of Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal (which I actually like quite a bit), Tintin or War Horse and how they're edited. Lincoln maybe, but I actually like the way it ends.
And I still think the lot of you are nuts on that whole Minority Report thing that's been discussed elsewhere. The film is, on the whole, a detective story, and ends that way. It doesn't need to turn into the fucking Matrix. About the only quibble I have with the ending as it stands is that I think Spielberg should have left in the line that a bunch of murders were committed in the next year.
I think Chasing Amy and Kevin Smith knew perfectly well how badly thought out, filthy, degrading and insanely creepy Affleck's threesome idea was by Alyssa saying "I am not your WHORE."
I can't think of any problems you would have of, say, the endings of Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal (which I actually like quite a bit), Tintin or War Horse and how they're edited. Lincoln maybe, but I actually like the way it ends.
And I still think the lot of you are nuts on that whole Minority Report thing that's been discussed elsewhere. The film is, on the whole, a detective story, and ends that way. It doesn't need to turn into the fucking Matrix. About the only quibble I have with the ending as it stands is that I think Spielberg should have left in the line that a bunch of murders were committed in the next year.
I probably should have noted that I've only seen about half of Speilberg's output in the last ten years. Of the one's you mentioned I've only seen Catch Me, which I can't remember too well (I remember liking it). I agree with you on Minority Report: they really should have left in that last line. Otherwise, I don't mind where it ended, but I do distinctly remember feeling that the last act dragged on. The man just has a tendency to drag out his 3rd acts.
Castaway's ending is perfect. I'm not saying it's particularly good, but it's a perfect ending for a movie that is so obviously about middle-aged men and their mid-life crises.
And, for God's sake, how can anyone have a problem with the ending to Drag Me to Hell?? The movie's fucking called Drag Me To Hell.
I probably should have noted that I've only seen about half of Speilberg's output in the last ten years. Of the one's you mentioned I've only seen Catch Me, which I can't remember too well (I remember liking it). I agree with you on Minority Report: they really should have left in that last line. Otherwise, I don't mind where it ended, but I do distinctly remember feeling that the last act dragged on. The man just has a tendency to drag out his 3rd acts.
Not sure I agree with that bolded statement either way (I also disagree with the majority opinion on A.I's third act and ending), but thank you anyway.
But disregarding whether you like or dislike the actual ending to AI's story, even it's most ardent defenders have to admit that the film feels like it ends at least 3 times.
I suppose that's a fair judgment, although that could just as well be Spielberg fucking with the audience. And he's not the first director to do so.
Castaway's ending is perfect. I'm not saying it's particularly good, but it's a perfect ending for a movie that is so obviously about middle-aged men and their mid-life crises.
The ending itself, is perfect. I think the 15 or so minutes between the point he gets rescued and the point he gets to the crossroads (basically all the clunky Helen Hunt stuff) hurts a film that was right on the edge of greatness.
The ending itself, is perfect. I think the 15 or so minutes between the point he gets rescued and the point he gets to the crossroads (basically all the clunky Helen Hunt stuff) hurts a film that was right on the edge of greatness.
It's all part and parcel (pun intended) of the same thing. Manufacturing a "tragic" story about how a guy has to say goodbye to his old life and start an all new one, when that's really the movie's central wish-fulfillment.
The epilogue in Matchstick Men is so completely tone-deaf, saccharine, and stupid, retroactively hurting a terrific con man movie adapted from a great book(The book ends like the movie without the epilogue.)
I have to completely disagree. The ending is perfect, in my view. The whole scene at the carpet store is so sensitively handled and never falters, and I was still pretty breathless watching it given everything that happened before it. I think the ending deserved everything that happened before it, and it showed how Roy accepted responsibility for what he did and really grew, while giving a nice wink (literally) that he still has some OCD. This is after we've seen him grow as a father, and now he's grown more as a person and accepts the consequences of being a con man.
I guess I just don't feel like the protagonist of Drag Me To Hell dying is ironic or satisfying on the level you guys seem to think (maybe if she'd said "I'll be damned if I get an envelope mixed up on the single most important thing in my life"). To me, it comes off as forced and unearned, like Raimi's trying to prove he's still 'got it' in a world of torture porn, but just being a suburbs kid going "I TOLD YOU I WAS HARDCORE." And doing so in an uncreative way. How many dumb horror movies have ended with "It's not over yet!" and the lead getting killed hours after the situation was apparently resolved altogether? Actually having a happy ending, even a Mega Happy Ending, would've been more shocking since everyone in the audience was expecting the exact twist they got.
It's. In. The. Fucking. Title.
Disagree about the execution all you want, but anyone going into that movie with THAT title shouldn't have expected anything less.
It's. In. The. Fucking. Title.
Disagree about the execution all you want, but anyone going into that movie with THAT title shouldn't have expected anything less.
It's. Also. On. The. Fucking. Poster.
Did you ever read the post-release thread for DRAG ME TO HELL? There was some great discussion in there in regards to Raimi's almost Old-Testament morality revealing itself through the film.
I get absolutely NO sense of Raimi trying to 'prove himself' in a world of torture porn. (wouldn't he have just made a torture porn if that was really the case?) I see him ending the film in the only way he knew how. For as sympathetic a character she is, Christine Brown truly digs her own grave from the beginning of the film. Certainly in the sense that she was unable to get the rules of the curse to work in her favor, but also in that she made all the wrong choices throughout the film.
-betraying her self-proclaimed morals and her kitty to save her job, her life, her soul...
-denying Ganush the extension specifically because she wanted that promotion
-constantly trying to pawn off the blame to others ("It was my manager!!")
-only accepting responsibility once she thinks she's in the clear
DRAG ME TO HELL is utter genius. The ending is perfect. Even without the connection to EC comics.
EDIT: Comments about the ending being on the poster and the title are hilarious and true... but a little bit snarky to be really helpful, if you ask me. What should they have named it? SAVE ME FROM HELL?
EDIT2: I was also expecting the final cruel twist to be that Justin Long ended up getting dragged to hell. By the end, he was a truly loyal and caring boyfriend. And for a while, I really forgot about the coin envelope. So, while I was expecting some ironic final moment in the end, my expectations were still defied.
EDIT3: I dated a girl who thought DRAG ME TO HELL was stupid. Obviously, I had to end it.
Well, blame the marketing department on that one, but the point still stands.
Clooney's commentary on Confessions of a Dangerous Mind let's you know he's a real film maker AND a hellova nice guy. That film was good, but got better after the commentary. Clooney's no fraud.
Wrong thread. Sorry.
I guess I just don't feel like the protagonist of Drag Me To Hell dying is ironic or satisfying on the level you guys seem to think (maybe if she'd said "I'll be damned if I get an envelope mixed up on the single most important thing in my life"). To me, it comes off as forced and unearned, like Raimi's trying to prove he's still 'got it' in a world of torture porn, but just being a suburbs kid going "I TOLD YOU I WAS HARDCORE.
Huh? There's nothing hardcore, or torture-porny about it. The tone of the piece was one of its main strengths, and the ending was the final, black joke. It wasn't about rubbing our noses in gore, or human misery.
I remember really enjoying this interview with Raimi:
http://screencrave.com/2009-05-27/sam-raimi-interview-for-drag-me-to-hell/
The ending was rather surprising, was that always the ending always the ending you had in mind? Did anyone ever challenge you on it?
Raimi: That was always the ending of the picture. We felt it was always where the story had been heading with the main character. We felt that anything else would just have actually been more horrible if you think about it, because she’s really a despicable character. She starts out with the idea that she’s a good person. She thinks she’s a good person. Hopefully the audience can buy into that illusion because they’ve got so many things that they can identify with. She goes to work every day. She’s sweet to people. She’s pleasant and attractive. She’s got a boyfriend that is a sweet, intelligent fellow. But when push comes to shove and she’s got to impress the parents, she feels that this job promotion would really help her.
At that point, when we all have a chance to be greedy or not, when it’s important, she’s cruel to this old lady for her own betterment. She sins with greed and forces her out of the house, hiding under the rules of the bank. Because I wanted the audience to make this choice with her. I wanted to present her as a nice person. She is a nice person. We all are nice people but we’re all sinners too. And I wanted you, the audience member, to make this choice with her, when the old woman was unpleasant looking, was absurd, I wanted the audience to say, “Yeah, just deny her the loan and get her out of the office for crying out loud.” Because I had hoped that once you sinners had made that choice with her, that like it or not, you would know in your heart that that thing that had been sicked upon her was not just coming for her, but deservedly so for you because you had made that choice with her. And that ending when it came for her, although it may be a surprise or not, you’d know that it could’ve come for you too.
Justin Long reminds her that Ganush had two warnings already. Is there no merit to that?
Raimi: Sure. There’s all sorts of reasons to be greedy and cruel to other people. They can be justified by logic or you could use the rules of an institution or a government or the military. There’s all sorts of reasons to torment and be cruel to others, justifiable wonderful reasons. That’s another one, that she had been given an extension twice before. Did she really expect a third one? Did she really expect mercy after she’d been shown some? It’s another way for people to hide behind their choices.
How do you keep us rooting for her while making her deserve what she gets?
Raimi: That’s a good question. I never know if we achieve that balance but I assume that because – - That had a lot to do with the casting of Alison Lohman. She’s really despicable. I don’t mean Alison. [Laughs] Alison’s okay, but she has a very positive charm that works on the audience, that helps us stay with her despite all the terrible things that she does. A lot of people forgive you if you’re good looking too, and Alison is very good looking and has a very nice smile. You get away with a lot I think with that.
But when you think about what he does besides throwing that old woman out of the house, she goes against her own vows and kills that cat to save her neck. She lies to the old woman’s daughter at that house when she tries to get her way and get the old woman to take the curse off her. At the séance, when she’s asked everyone to risk their lives for her, she tries to blame her boss when confronted with the demon that it was really him. She in fact is ready to give that curse to some poor sap at the local Howard Johnson’s or Denny’s. She barely came up with a better idea. She came that close.
I think she was a good person on the outside but when you really start to look at her, when she gets in an extreme situation, the real person comes out. In fact it’s really the old woman that’s the victim in this story and Alison Lohman, I think her character Christine deserved probably what she got. Maybe she was a little over punished. I wouldn’t have been as harsh personally.
So is the fact that she’s so awful why you liked her?
Raimi: Yeah, it’s what made the character interesting to me, that she was flawed and capable of making mistakes and selfish choices. Unfortunately, I understand her because of that, because I am weak and flawed and scared and selfish and all those things. That weakness fascinates me. I detest it but it’s what interests me. It interests me because I’m flawed because I can sometimes explore the things that trouble me. I think all writers work this way. They take a part of themselves, what they understand as their problems or whatever and they put them out there. I wish I had more noble problems. She’s such an awful character, it’s really embarrassing. That’s how writers work I think.
Yeah, I'm still not getting how Raimi is trying to appeal to some hypothetical ironic and hip audience who wants to see the poor girl tortured for shits and giggles. Again, I think the ending is appropriate given the tone of the whole thing.
Okay, sorry, I'm trying to walk away from this debate before we just start going in circles (yes, I get it, the title's Drag Me To Hell), but if you'll allow me the last word or the next-to-last word... after all, you all got a horror movie you enjoyed, so you can at least let me have this in return for my dissatisfaction.
Reading that interview with Raimi actually makes me lose a little respect for the man. I guess I just can't see Christine as a heinous bitch who gets her comeuppance at the end. I think she acts like pretty much 99% of us would act in a similar situation. If someone put a gun to your head and said "I'm either going to shoot you or your dick co-worker, which is it going to be?" which of us wouldn't even think of saying "The dick co-worker!" And the notion that Ganush is the hero of the movie is just... wow. That's like saying in a movie about someone torturing their boss for firing them or running over their kid's teacher for giving their son an F, the person who assaulted someone is the hero because, hey, the victim was mean.
I see Christine as someone flawed, but who goes through a character arc and ends up taking responsibility for her actions and growing as a person. Isn't that what we keep asking for from movies? Character growth? Moreover, doesn't just about every other one of Raimi's heroes fuck up grandly and then get a chance to redeem themselves? Ash screws up saying Klaatu Barada Nikto, which he could've easily written down or repeated a couple times, and summons an army of the dead that kills several people. Peter Parker lets a criminal get away and his uncle is murdered. Norville Barnes acts like a complete tool and the universe literally breaks the laws of physics to let him get a happy ending. And I'm betting Oz The Great And Powerful will have James Franco be a dickish con man who ends up getting everything he ever wanted.
So, why is it all the men get double-digit chances at a happy ending, but when it's a woman, the movie literally goes "nope, she's a cast-iron bitch and has to rot in hell to pay for her sins"? I mean, not saying Raimi's a misogynist, but there's at least unfortunate implications. Just kinda... there.
On another note, Amazing Spider-Man was never a great movie, but the ending was another tier of suckiness. Like if they had ended the Raimi Spider-Man with Peter walking away from MJ, then running back, saying "I changed my mind," and kissing her while the love theme swells. Just... nope.
And John Carter really didn't need a protracted (plus prologue!) sequence of "Gotta get back to Barsoom!" It's like... c'mon, the movie's over.
I guess I just can't see Christine as a heinous bitch who gets her comeuppance at the end. I think she acts like pretty much 99% of us would act in a similar situation.
In reading the interview that seems very much to be the point that Raimi is driving at.
If someone put a gun to your head and said "I'm either going to shoot you or your dick co-worker, which is it going to be?" which of us wouldn't even think of saying "The dick co-worker!"
But why should it matter if the co-worker is a dick or not? This again goes with Raimi's point. You've made a choice to spare your own life for the death of someone else. You did it because you're scared to die. Putting a judgment on that other person is looking for false vindication for cowardly motives.
And I think this is what invalidates the argument regarding the ending. It wasn't some weak thrown-together ending that they tacked on to othewise worthwhile film. This was the ending the story was meant to have. This is the story Raimi is meaning to tell. If the ending doesn't work for the viewer then I can't see how they like the movie.
Hey now. I love the final moments of Carter trying to get back to Barsoom!
I hardly think Raimi was damning Christine Brown as some grade-A bitch. He says it himself. He sees his own flaws in the character. It could've been any man or woman. But he very specifically chose the purest, whitest female for the part because it attracted the most sympathy, really taking advantage of our own prejudices and everyday misogyny.
And I missed the part where he says Ganush is the hero of the movie. Was that in the full interview? Because I don't see it at all.
Anyway, what you're getting into was covered (and MORE!) in the post-release thread (which got a bit insane with No Diggity/Muckety Muck/CTM). So I'll just lay this debate to rest.
And I missed the part where he says Ganush is the hero of the movie. Was that in the full interview? Because I don't see it at all.
He doesn't say Ganush is the hero; he says she's the true victim (as opposed to Christine, whom we're predisposed to empathize with and view her as the victim instead).
For me its a Clockwork Orange. I like the book ending where he to some degree he has outgrown his evil side and gets ready to start a family. All the while knowing he son will a thug just like him
While I don't qualify it as a "best movie", I'm still irked with Pay It Forward. For most of the film, I was good with its well-meaning cause. It managed to just stay on the right side of beng pretentious then with its big conclusion, it goes for the hokiest, most bullshit absurd situation possible. Fuck that movie.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.
One of the really solid Roger Moore entries. Having the whole sequence at the end with fake Margaret Thatcher calling up Bond and talking to the parrot is incredibly stupid. The film had, for the most part, avoided that kind of shit.
While I don't qualify it as a "best movie", I'm still irked with Pay It Forward. For most of the film, I was good with its well-meaning cause. It managed to just stay on the right side of being pretentious then with its big conclusion, it goes for the hokiest, most bullshit absurd situation possible. Fuck that movie.
Seriously. I wanted to set my TV on fire after watching that God awful movie.
For me, The Grey really went out with a whimper. For a film that was willing to show some pretty brutal realities, it's ending really copped out. I get the themes and I accept the ending but if there were literally 5 seconds added to it, continuing the narrative, I would have been sold. It felt like it was going there and then chickened out.
One of the best westerns of the past 40 years, I'd rank this almost as high as Open Range or Jeremiah Johnson. It's an INCREDIBLE film...until it's jaw-droppingly stupid final 10 minutes when it nosedives into "magic realism" & turns into the clumsiest, ham-handed metaphor for "brother against brother" you'll ever see. Such a shame.
Okay, sorry, I'm trying to walk away from this debate before we just start going in circles (yes, I get it, the title's Drag Me To Hell), but if you'll allow me the last word or the next-to-last word... after all, you all got a horror movie you enjoyed, so you can at least let me have this in return for my dissatisfaction.
Reading that interview with Raimi actually makes me lose a little respect for the man. I guess I just can't see Christine as a heinous bitch who gets her comeuppance at the end. I think she acts like pretty much 99% of us would act in a similar situation. If someone put a gun to your head and said "I'm either going to shoot you or your dick co-worker, which is it going to be?" which of us wouldn't even think of saying "The dick co-worker!" And the notion that Ganush is the hero of the movie is just... wow. That's like saying in a movie about someone torturing their boss for firing them or running over their kid's teacher for giving their son an F, the person who assaulted someone is the hero because, hey, the victim was mean.
I see Christine as someone flawed, but who goes through a character arc and ends up taking responsibility for her actions and growing as a person. Isn't that what we keep asking for from movies? Character growth? Moreover, doesn't just about every other one of Raimi's heroes fuck up grandly and then get a chance to redeem themselves? Ash screws up saying Klaatu Barada Nikto, which he could've easily written down or repeated a couple times, and summons an army of the dead that kills several people. Peter Parker lets a criminal get away and his uncle is murdered. Norville Barnes acts like a complete tool and the universe literally breaks the laws of physics to let him get a happy ending. And I'm betting Oz The Great And Powerful will have James Franco be a dickish con man who ends up getting everything he ever wanted.
So, why is it all the men get double-digit chances at a happy ending, but when it's a woman, the movie literally goes "nope, she's a cast-iron bitch and has to rot in hell to pay for her sins"? I mean, not saying Raimi's a misogynist, but there's at least unfortunate implications. Just kinda... there.
Perhaps because DMTH is a horror movie? When it comes to harsh moralizing, that's sort of a staple of the genre. Not everything that plays out has to be considered the express wishes of the director. A tale can be told from a point of view that is more formal than personal. And, whatever Raimi personally feels about the character, the story is a tale of grotesque and horrible consequence from the very beginning. There's room for that, even if you yourself would be a more benevolent "God" in situations real or fictional.
And the thing was I really wanted to get behind the message and enjoy it like, "Hey! It's this cute little concept about a kid trying to show how forgiveness and selflessness can change the world. I'm not such a cold-hearted cynic that I can't be won over by the sentiment" then they slide in with their fucking pre-teen martyr bullshit complete with Junior High school-yard prison shankings. It legit made me want to hang my head in shame for being sucked in by the first hour and a half.
