MovieChat Forums > Big Jake (1971) Discussion > The ending wasn't terribly satisfying (s...

The ending wasn't terribly satisfying (spoiler)

posted 14 years ago by Eric-1226
14 replies | jump to latest

Okay, so Big Jake and his men were able to rescue the kid, and that was all to the good, but... I felt a little cheated by not seeing the kid reunited with his grandmother (Maureen O'Hara's character, Martha McCandles). I mean, they concentrated a lot on her plight at the beginning of the film, what with the kid being kidnapped amidst all the murder and mayhem at her ranch, plus her effort to pony up the money (which turned out to be a switcharoo).

Anyway, it just seemed like a natural evolution in the plot arc to have shown the boy being reunited with Martha McCandles at the end, since she was one of the people in the beginning who was so instrumental in putting the posse together. But by the end of the movie, all trace and reference to her had basically been removed from the film.

On TCM, in the intro to this movie, Robert Osbourne mentioned that a lot of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Maybe there is a director's cut somewhere that shows a more satisfying ending (and more of the lovely Maureen O'Hara)??

“Take Major Danby out and shoot him.” — Catch-22

[–] flavia18 14 years ago

I am so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way! She was so shorted in this film - how could anyone have wasted her like that??

Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

[–] Eric-1226 14 years ago

Thanks! Glad to see I'm not alone!

"It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the courtesy to thank her." — W. C. Fields

[–] JackBravo69 14 years ago

I agree and i felt bad for Dog too. That dog was a bad-ass mofo!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] thundercloud47 12 years ago

They should have shown dog killing machete man instead of machete man killing dog. The scene of John Wayne killing M.M. with a pitchfork wasn't satisfying enough for me.

I know it was only a movie and dog really did not get killed but I too did not like that scene.

[–] lexyladyjax 12 years ago

It was the studio that demanded a shorter film. That's the reason those scenes were left out.

'Or not.'

[–] Grendel1950 14 years ago

I've always felt that they ran out of time or money (or both), or that some real calamity occurred on set during the time the ending was shot. I realize most movies are not shot in sequence, so the running-out-of-money aspect may not be correct, but the ending scenes are just throw-aways after the previous build up.

[–] powersroc 12 years ago

What bothered me too was the way the deaths of Jake's good friend Sam & Jake's dog were not acknowledged at all by the family.The final shot has Jake,his sons,& grandson all grinning & walking off into the sunset happy as clams.No remorse for Sam or the dog,no mention of them at all.Very cold.

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

Yes, Maureen Ohara had a bigger part with more scenes, but in interest of time they were cut. She lamented this in her autobiography but understood.

I guess when they make a movie and it is too long, they have to cut anything that doesn't further the plot.

The ending was way too abrupt. They decided to go home and no one even mentioned Dog or Sam dying.
What the heck?

I do not think anything like that would happen today especially if Kevin Costner was directing. He is known for not making short movies!!

I wanted to know why Jacob had to leave the family (drinking maybe) and to see the reunion of all of them.

[–] a_l_i_e_n 11 years ago

The ending was way too abrupt. They decided to go home and no one even mentioned Dog or Sam dying.

Yes, it's a disservice to both characters that Jake and his sons don't acknowledge Sam and Dog's sacrifice. And no reunion with the grandmother was disappointing, too. I would bet that even the last shot wasn't originally intended to be the movie's closer as the actor's faces aren't even in particularly sharp focus for an intended freeze frame. If they'd wanted to release a shorter movie they should've trimmed out the lengthy buildup to the attack on the McCandle's ranch. An abrupt ending like that can almost ruin the experience of watching an otherwise decent movie.

[–] buddyboy28 11 years ago

I thought the ending was kind of abrupt as well but maybe if it had shown him returning the kid home it might have given it a climax too similar to The Searchers.So I'm fine with it.

- - -
Fill your hand you son of a bitch!

[–] marylizautos 10 years ago

I agree...It would have been nice to see all reunited with Maureen O'Hare but..i really felt Sam and dog were not acknowledged in any way which seemed unbelievable

[–] kinara94-128-405265 10 years ago

Mentioned this on other threads but we are sure there is another ending ...where they get back to the ranch and see the other son bandaged up but alive.
Kathy.....dog mom

[–] ipeedaily 9 years ago

The movie was not very good with terrible acting by Wayne's son & Mitchum's son and the ending was abrupt and ridiculous....

"We should head home"....."That's a good idea!".....END!!!

So....yeah let's head home and leave our hacked up Indian friend to the buzzards.

I agree that there should have been a final scene with the underused and always great Maureen O Hara back at the ranch where her & Duke could have a reconciliation and some kind of final interplay with each other. That's the way the movie should have ended (that and Wayne's & Mitchum's son riding off for acting lessons).

[–] residentevil6901 9 years ago

Yep, I believe it would've made the movie so much cooler if they would've mentioned getting Sam and Dog and that they were going to give them a proper burial. Then all we needed was one five minute final scene with them making it back home to the ranch to show them all reuniting with each other.