That was a shit ending. Just like "No Country For Old Men" and critics eat it up.
That was so dumb. The whole point of watching the movie was to know what happened once everyone find out about the child or once the project go to the child... that's the whole point of the movie.
It was about the main characters but it was bigger than them. What happened to the world? Can women become pregnant again? There are a myriad of unanswered questions. And that sequence with at the end with all the gunfire was cool but so unlikely to occur that way. The army let them walk away... Are you serious?
Sigh, the last 10 minutes hurt my feelings
Originally posted by chithappens
That was a shit ending. Just like "No Country For Old Men" and critics eat it up.That was so dumb. The whole point of watching the movie was to know what happened once everyone find out about the child or once the project go to the child... that's the whole point of the movie.
It was about the main characters but it was bigger than them. What happened to the world? Can women become pregnant again? There are a myriad of unanswered questions. And that sequence with at the end with all the gunfire was cool but so unlikely to occur that way. The army let them walk away... Are you serious?
Sigh, the last 10 minutes hurt my feelings
I didn't mind that, in a way it was a story about Clive Owen's character in a weird setting, it ended with him and was left as open as it was for him.
Originally posted by chithappens
I feel cheated. The build up was cool but all of that so open ended... You don't even know how the baby affected the rest of society or if that "project" was using the baby for leverage as terrorists or anything...That ending was so lazy.
The movie is from Theo's point of view. The audience only knows what he knows and is only present for what he is present for. When he dies at the end, so does the audience.
The ending is lazy? Seems like you're lazy because you don't want to put any effort into thinking of what happened after the credits rolled.
I personally thought this was a brilliant film.
Originally posted by Röland
Maybe we aren't meant to know any of those things.The movie is from Theo's point of view. The audience only knows what he knows and is only present for what he is present for. When he dies at the end, so does the audience.
The ending is lazy? Seems like you're lazy because you don't want to put any effort into thinking of what happened after the credits rolled.
I personally thought this was a brilliant film.
QFT
Originally posted by Röland
Maybe we aren't meant to know any of those things.The movie is from Theo's point of view. The audience only knows what he knows and is only present for what he is present for. When he dies at the end, so does the audience.
The ending is lazy? Seems like you're lazy because you don't want to put any effort into thinking of what happened after the credits rolled.
I personally thought this was a brilliant film.
Originally posted by SnakeEyesThanks for giving credit to the guy that ripped me off.
QFT
Originally posted by RölandThe ending is lazy? Seems like you're lazy because you don't want to put any effort into thinking of what happened after the credits rolled.
Originally posted by chithappensIt was about the main characters but it was bigger than them. What happened to the world? Can women become pregnant again? There are a myriad of unanswered questions. And that sequence with at the end with all the gunfire was cool but so unlikely to occur that way. The army let them walk away... Are you serious?
...
Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't mind that, in a way it was a story about Clive Owen's character in a weird setting, it ended with him and was left as open as it was for him.
I agree but I at least wanted to know what happened with the project. It was about him but that's is what he spent the whole movie risking his life for. At least have him live long enough to have seen if they full of shit or not. The way he died was so cliche. Girl names baby after his, he foreshadows his death with the whole "don't let her go"; the beginning of the movie hits you with a lot of moments you are not expecting and then the end hits a lot of cliches.
I write a lot so it just bugged me a bit.
Side note: I finished that story on the Zeus religion. Just making some revisions now. If you want to check it out let me know.
Originally posted by chithappens
...I agree but I at least wanted to know what happened with the project. It was about him but that's is what he spent the whole movie risking his life for. At least have him live long enough to have seen if they full of shit or not. The way he died was so cliche. Girl names baby after his, he foreshadows his death with the whole "don't let her go"; the beginning of the movie hits you with a lot of moments you are not expecting and then the end hits a lot of cliches.
I write a lot so it just bugged me a bit.
Side note: I finished that story on the Zeus religion. Just making some revisions now. If you want to check it out let me know.
I guess some of the scenes were cliche, but at least the ending was not an "Oh, Happy Hollywood Ending" ... I think the movie was relatively unusual anyways and I did enjoy it a lot.
And I'd like to read it when you are done. Can you PM me it?
Yeah well Hollywood is doing a lot of these "disjointed, end abruptly" endings and calling them instant classic (i.e. No Country For Old Men which was even more of a head scratcher in a sense). It's annoying to me cause I feel like that is lazy on the part of the director and the studio. The ride there was nice but I walked away kinda upset.
To me, all the soldiers and people acting so surprised that no one was trying to grab the baby or attack them (when the whole movie sets you up to be cynical after so many betrayals and random attacks) did not make sense because of the tone of those times set up before that moment. But then a guy shoots a rocket and the entire army forgets everything and not one soldier pursues them... Just clunky writing in my opinion.
But yeah, I will certainly show it to you when I'm done. It came out pretty decent but the end needs to be crafted carefully. I don't want a reader to cringe like I did after finishing "Children of Men."
Why don't you go to a book shop, buy No Country For Old Men and try and get it into your head that the adaptation was true to the novel and also made a good film?
Once you've done that, go back to the book shop and buy The Children Of Men. This film was loosely based on the novel.
It seems to me that you don't appreciate film as an art form, but rather as a medium which should tell you everything, without you having to think for yourself.
If you read these and are unsatisfied by the endings, then it's nothing more than a matter of taste. Your taste does not equal to laziness on the writer's behalf, just because you felt unfulfilled at the end.
Yep, and so your aggressive tone makes you more right... I think I understood the jist of that.
We are talking about the conclusion of a movie and if we think it is quality or not. It is merely subjective, not an objective fact.
The book might wrap it up better but I'm talking about the film. Nothing about the book will change my opinion of the film.
Originally posted by chithappens
To me, all the soldiers and people acting so surprised that no one was trying to grab the baby or attack them (when the whole movie sets you up to be cynical after so many betrayals and random attacks) did not make sense because of the tone of those times set up before that moment.
To me, the soldiers didn't try to grab them or the baby because they were in awe. There had been no people born for around 18 years if I remember correctly, so I can understand the fight stopping and such. I thought the scene was very moving myself.
They were the British army. If I remember right, Britain was the only country left standing (aka having civility; then again, we only see Britain so it could just be propaganda). They had been seen on the news as fugitives.
Remember right before that scene when the guy who helped them into the camp betrayed them (the guy recommended by Theo's father)? He says he saw them on TV and there would be a reward for them. So yeah, they could have just been in sentimental awe, but not one of those hundreds of soldiers thought to say, "You should come with us." They were criminals. It's cute to think they would all be like that, but at least one of the soldiers would have suggested they stay with them even if were simply for protection and not to take them into custody.
It struck me as odd. The same way that "No Country For Old Men" made me scratch my head a few times. The movie can't even be longer than 15 minutes if the main protagonist doesn't go back to the scene of the crime (and I was never certain of this but did he go back only to give that dying man some water?). It never made sense because he got away free with the money before he drove his truck back to the drug scene where he got the money from in the first place (some other really questionable moments of judgment and some disjointed editing after the hotel scene seemed odd to me). So he was dumb enough to do that, but meticulous enough to put the bag with the money into the vent with the string? And if he counted the money when he first got it, how did he not notice the tracking device before he was about to be shot in the hotel? It seems dumb but it is the minute details in characterization that make a difference to me.
But I'm not one of the 5-star reviewers so what do I know?