MovieChat Forums > The Cincinnati Kid (1965) Discussion > The ending... WTF?!?!?!

The ending... WTF?!?!?!

posted 14 years ago by kiache
27 replies | jump to latest

So I just saw this movie and thought it was really good up until the end. As a poker player myself, the ending is just so completely ridiculous and would have never happened like that in real life. Based on their play in the entire rest of the movie, neither of the players would have played the hand like that AT ALL. Wtf seriously I just can't get over it, and it pretty much ruined the movie for me.

And forget about the ridiculous odds of what happened (which also made me go wtf but hey it is possible for those two hands to come up against each other, although REALLY REALLY unlikely), I'm talking purely about how both players played the hand. It just wouldn't have happened like that, period.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 14 years ago

This film is a work of art . . . as such, take it slowly, there's a reason why that ending is there . . .

[–] generalusgrant 14 years ago

It's a movie for God's sake. Movies are supposed to take ridiculous odds and make it entertaining to watch. The poker scene in this film is a masterpiece.

And the OP didn't explain why Lancy and the Kid wouldn't have played their hands in the manner they did. Why not?

[–] allenrogerj 14 years ago

"Movies are supposed to take ridiculous odds and make it entertaining to watch."
Not when they're movies about professional poker players. By definition, they don't take ridiculous odds. The poker scenes are masterly up to then.
Look at other posts and you'll see why the way they play is completely out of character.

[–] Demarates 14 years ago

Out of character may be right, but perhaps that can be explained by their state of mind at that point.

The Kid is hungry, very hungry. Much like the kid he keeps running into in the street, he wants only one thing "to beat the man". He is very confident he can do it and is thus blinded by his own ambition. During that last hand he smells blood and he pushes forward, harder than he knows he should, despite having a very strong hand (FH).

The Man on the other hand is weary. He's been the top dog for a long time and that is taking its toll. As Shooter points out "he's got a lot to lose". Everybody is watching him, around every corner there's another young man trying to beat him. Fairly or otherwise, because not all his opponents have the morals of The Kid. Notice also how Lady Fingers keeps riding him about his age.
And here he is, faced with The Kid, the prime candidate to finally end his run (remember the suggestions that he's been avoiding meeting him). What if The Man, who's on the run most of the confrontation is plain sick of it ? What if he risks it all on a long shot knowing it will either save him or allow him to go out with a bang ? Maybe, just maybe, deep down he was hoping The Kid would come out on top.

"The elderly, they seem friendly enough, but can you really trust them ?"

[–] allenrogerj 14 years ago

What is the reason, except to give a dramatically effective- if preosterous- climax? We have two people who are supposed to be very good poker players playing like they're playing for matchsticks.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netrek 14 years ago

No you are wrong. You need to understand probability theory. Poker involves skill for sure, but there is *always* an inherent element of randomness and chance which you cannot control. Getting the Jack he needed was not outside the realm of probability. You can't say it would *never* happen that way. In an infinite set of hands this outcome would result an infinite number of times.

><> <><

[–] allenrogerj 14 years ago

"You can't say it would *never* happen that way."
...but we can say it is so unlikely that a good player wouldn't play for it at those odds. The problem is that both players are playing against the odds. A real game would never get there with two players as good as these are supposed to be.

[–] netrek 14 years ago

ok

><> <><

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

No, only the old man was playing against the odds. The kid's play was routine for the hand he had. The reasonable assumption is that the old man got lucky and caught a flush, but the kid's full boat has him beat. A straight flush is way against the odds.

[–] allenrogerj 14 years ago

"A straight flush is way against the odds. "
Agreed- someone listed them somewhere. The problem is, the Kid is also playing against the odds in earlier parts of the hand. Two players who knew anything about poker would never have got to the last card on those hands, and certainly not all-in. The Kid has an edge all the way, but notbigenough toaccept the oddshe's offered and no-one would risk what Lancy risks on a bluff and a gamble that he'll make a very small chance.
Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that the Kid and Lancy are exhausted and just want to get it over with, which is the only explanation that makes any sort of sense.

[–] adsdarts 14 years ago

So the Op - and others - are basically saying that its impossible to get a straight flush ???? Hmmmm okay . I play poker a lot and I got a straight flush this afternoon in Texas Hold Em

It happens !

And when you're playing heads up for HOURS (in this case days) its not uncommon to be decided between 2 monster hands

Maybe I play too much or some guys on here dont play enough

Jeeez

--------------------

" No Ace. Just You "

[–] atthev 14 years ago

get a grip. I'm sure you and most others never, as in ever, saw that ending coming (especailly if they had left out the narration). That is what makes movies like this one GREAT! The unexpected. you say the odds are pretty remote. Well. So ? regardless of the odds of these two hands occuring at the same time...they can and do occur. That is what makes games of odds/strategy so very exciting. Guess you missed that huh (?) Again. You never saw this ending coming. Everyone, including you, thought this was going to be a good luck happy ending. A story about a poor kid from the neighborhood who believed in himself (while others did not - Karl Malden & rich guy with wanting to cheat) and would overcome the odds to become the best at what he did only to fail short. A crushing defeat at every level for "The Kid's" character. A long way back if ever for "The Kid" as shown with him finally losing "picthing" against the shoeshine kid. Who ever thinks the guy would ever be as great again (?)

[–] krisweddin 13 years ago

Yeah, the ending ruins the movie for me.

It was much more likely a meteor would've hit the Kid instead of that poker hand happening. Would've these Suspension of Disbelief proponents accepted that ending?

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 13 years ago

I fear you must analyze further to comprehend the true meaning of the hands the men have been dealt . . .

[–] krisweddin 13 years ago

Fear all you'd like, I've yet to hear acceptable analysis for the hand...

[–] nextwooden 12 years ago

He overplayed his hand. Dangerous mistake

Or something like that...

Doesn't it give you a headache asking stupid questions?
Pépé le Moko

[–] heyuactor 13 years ago

It just wouldn't have happened that way, period.

As I'm not a poker player I had no idea the hand was more luck than skill, so the ending works except it's very disapointing, which I suppose was the point. What I saw was that the Kid wasn't as good as he thought he was. If that isn't the case then the ending is pointless, from my perspective. If he was the best, why have him lose to a hand that no skilled player would worry about?

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 13 years ago

Oh,no, the ending has great meaning . . . after you figure out what's really going on in this story . . . yes, the kid the better player . . .

[–] TheGoodMan19 12 years ago

The only odd bet in Lancey reraising the kid after he got the 2nd 10. Only reason I could see was to find in the Kid had a 10 in the hole. Lancey had a decent drawing hand (two over cards a straight and a flush draw), so a simple call would have been correct.

Lancey drawing the 10d was the key. Now his straight, flush and straight flush draws are stronger. The Kid's A is troubling but for $3,000 its worth it. You would have to be aware of the possibility of Aces and 10's, but any diamond or any J wins. Lots of outs. The kid only has three possible cards, the two Aces and the case 10 that can help him. The final cards are just devastating for the Kid. He can't play the hand on the possibility of Lancey having the Jd and filling his straight flush. If you are playing and know that only one card can beat you, especially playing straight up, you bet the bank, like the Kid did.

A stupendously unlikely hand, but it was played properly on both sides

THERE'S A TREE ON MY HOUSE!

[–] MrSiegal 12 years ago

*Spoiler* (just in case)

I'm not a poker player so no need for me to get bogged down that this isn't how pros would have played the hand. It was a ...what's the term? A bad beat? I would have been much more disappointed in the ending if the Kid had won.

How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

MrSiegal:

Correct . . . the worse thing that could've happened would be for him to get up from the table having won that hand at poker . . . in reality he does "win" . . . a masterfully done film . . . analyzed by most the wrong way . . .

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seahawk3133 12 years ago

The last hand was rigged, but what it proved is that the Kid was still outplayed in that hand regardless. He made a bad raise especially knowing there was a chance of the hands being fixed

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 12 years ago

True, so very true . . .

[–] Ed in MO 12 years ago

I think that the best explanation is that Joan Blondell stacked the deck for Edward G. Robinson. That makes the film perfect. Steve McQueen refused to accept Karl Malden's help, but EGR had no such morals or qualms. He did what he had to do to win.

We like to believe that winners have wonderful morals and sterling characters, but as we've seen with Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Pete Rose, etc., morals have nothing to do with winning. Winners simply do whatever it takes--moral or immoral--to win. Great film.