MovieChat Forums > Death Hunt (1981) Discussion > Why don't Bronson and Marvin ever face o...

Why don't Bronson and Marvin ever face off?

posted 19 years ago by IceboxMovies
14 replies | jump to latest

Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin... may they rest in peace. Just let me ask why "Death Hunt" doesn't end with the climax it should end with; Bronson and Marvin were supposed to have a face off. How could Marvin simply let Bronson go? Since Bronson is innocent, I guess that would raise questions on why they should battle, but it could happen! Marvin could restrain Bronson then prove him innocent. This movie simply doesn't have the climax it deserves and should be remade soon.

"Snap out of it!" -Cher in Norman Jewison's "Moonstruck"

[–] curtis-8 19 years ago

I always thought the ending was good, and that the entire movie had been leading up to it. By the ending, Marvin has grown to respect Bronson and sees the people hunting him as a bunch of idiotic savages who must unfortunately be satisfied. So he sees the golden opportunity at the end to have it both ways--the idiots think they have their man and a man who is obviously innocent gains his freedom.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rogerscorpion 19 years ago

I agree. This was a character study--with action, rather than an action film. The ending was poetic.

Carpe Noctem

[–] Captain_Bob 17 years ago

The ending is without a doubt the most memorable part of the movie, and leaves the viewer to ponder whatever lay over that mountain.

[–] starrbeat 17 years ago

According to the book, there was more ice and snow, four bears, sixteen wolves
twenty four thousand trees and a snowman.

Starrbeat presents what's happening.

[–] keith81 9 years ago

lol

[–] xredgarnetx 17 years ago

Marvin lets Bronson go in time-honored movie tradition. It is a movie, not real life. He would have brought him in in real life, of course. Look at the end of NATIONAL TREASURE. Or THEY MADE ME A CRIMINAL.

[–] SeanJoyce 16 years ago

This movie simply doesn't have the climax it deserves and should be remade soon.

Your entire post is based on the premise that BRONSON and MARVIN need to face off, yet you insist that a remake is in order. A vein in my head just exploded.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] Doc-McCoy 16 years ago

I liked the ending as it is. The first problem with a remake is how to replace Marvin and Bronson, but since they are irreplaceable a remake would be a really bad idea.

"Women should be obscene and not heard." - Groucho Marx

[–] JayCeezy 14 years ago

I looked at them both as misunderstood protagonists. They didn't have a problem with each other, and understood why the other was taking action.

One other thing, on occasion actors might not take a role if they would have to "lose" to another actor. I can think of David Carradine's contractual stipulation that he was not to lose a fight to Chuck Norris in "Lone Wolf McQuade" as an example. It might hurt their future work prospects, or set them lower on the Hollywood pecking order.

It was a kind of mutual respect, both for their characters and their acting personas.

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

This is such an old thread...

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] JayCeezy 14 years ago

But the topic is timeless...

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

What sense would it make to remake a film of which main value lies in having Bronson & Marvin in it... without Bronson & Marvin? The mistake of not arranging a shootout between these two icons isn´t something that can be remedied...

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan