I've loved this movie for so many years, but the ending was complete nonsense to me and lowered my score 9 to 8. There's no way his girlfriend would stay married to the new guy, were this a true story she would divorce and get back with him.
shareIf you want to see Tom Hanks end up with the girl at the end, go watch Forrest Gump. Or at least until she... (SPOILER) !!
shareI think they should've ended up together too.
In a perfect world, she could've actually divided her time between both men. I wouldn't fault her to want to do that. Spend a week with one, then the next week with the other. Or something along those lines. And if both men wanted to be with her bad enough, then they would've gone along with it. Because the circumstances are highly unusual.
The ending made it feel more realistic. Life is not fair
shareThe thing is that it doesnt mean that in real life they would be married and happy in four years. They could have hate each other by that time or be broken up long time ago. Just look at lives of real people who marry, being so in love, then divorcing in 3 years.
He was an old boyfriend she let go long time ago. If she is married then she loves new guy. Who knows - she could divorce him in 10 years and call her old boyfriend to hang out. Or he could me married by that time and have kids. Or could be divorced too.
That ending was very realistic. She thought he was dead and moved on with her life. She didnt have to stay in monastery now for the rest of her live, mourning. And that fact that she moved on that quickly shows that she didnt "love him do death". He was just a current boyfriend.
If she would crash and die in the sea then he would move on too. And start seeing other people. Thats how life goes.
She would be a real a-hole to just dump her current husband to go back with Hanks's character. Why should that guy get screwed over?
shareTh ending was the best part.
shareIf she was a decent person, she stayed with her husband and raised their child. You make your choices in life, and you live with the consequences. When you have a child, you have a duty not to tear that child's family apart out of pure selfishness.
The message you are pushing (and what a number of other films have pushed -- e.g. "The English Patient," "The Bridges of Madison County," and "Sleepless in Seattle," is that if a man treats a woman decently, devotes his life to her, and is in all respects a good, decent man, but is otherwise a bit dull, she'll dump him at the first opportunity for a sportier, more thrilling model. This is supposedly just fine, while if a guy dumps his wife of many years for a younger, more beautiful woman, he's a jerk. Sorry, but I find this "emotional fulfillment" is every bit as superficial and shallow as the quest for big boobs and a tight ass, and it's a lot more dishonest. After all, all the examples above, emotional satisfaction is nothing more than warm, gooshy feelings; it's not curing cancer, or being a great father to your children, or even being a completely devoted husband -- it's just being more fun.
A good person doesn't put their own personal satisfaction first. Your definition of good would have this woman tear her children's world apart just to make herself feel better. Again, that's a totally modern attitude. Previous generations realized you had duties, and not hurting other people -- especially the ones you are supposed to cherish above all others -- comes before making yourself feel good.
8 years later, do you finally understand why?
share