I think the problem is people put way too much importance on the way movies end. It's not necessarily their fault or intention, it's just how things work. We got 112 minutes of a very solid, 8.0 B+ movie, then a lousy 5 minutes at the end. When a movie ends and you start deciding whether you liked it or not, the mood it left you in is highly influential. That is why so many movies have happy endings or at least upbeat songs over the credits. They want the people watching in the theaters on opening weekend to spread the good news by word of mouth, and it's always best to leave them in a good mood. It's almost like brainwashing and the point of course is to make money.
Movies have traditionally had a problem tying things up. For whatever reason there's always been difficulty with the third act. Most times, everyone is enjoying the hell out of the first two acts, and then they're hit by a truck of ridiculousness because movies aren't that long, and 3rd acts and endings always feel forced and awkward. This is why we're living in such exciting times with all the resources traditionally thrown into Hollywood slowly being migrated to television. Talented actors, directors and writers follow the money, and producers are noticing the advantages of television, finally. One of them is that the problem of tying things up in a short amount of time is greatly diminished.
I can't blame the edge at all for having a bad ending. It's hard to make a good one. And at least this bad ending was quick.
The Bloody Gate, The Bloody Hound, Evidently Chickentown.
reply
share