Originally posted by chithappens
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?
Sorry for the tone of my earlier post, I misunderstood you and thought you were claiming that the ending's objectively poor.
I think all it comes down to is taste, you may not enjoy scratching your head after a film, but I certainly do.