My theory for the low rating

that's extra funny because probably 80-90% of the users of this site don't know that gambit is a regular word... we're kind of all morons (as a whole)

Sorry, did not check my mail earlier.

I think you are right, particularly in your second hypothesis, which is indeed ingenious.

Now if you are right - and the fake copy was the only compensation Harry Dean was giving to a woman who saved his life, that makes Dean one hell of a bastard. Which would not surprise me - after all, there IS the Coens' script behind this, and they are not overly sentimental, to put in mildly.

So what seems like a happy ending is actually just one "cad" winning some points over another "cad". Which actually makes the film edgier and zanier.

My case, a more romantic and sentimental one and obviously less likely for a Coens' film (OK, a Coens' film three times removed ), was indeed based on very flimsy "evidence" - there is a remote possibility that PJ visited Harry's flat between the lion scene and the airport parting scene. She obviously spent the night at Savoy and not on a couch in Harry's apartment, but we are not shown everything that happened between the two scenes.

I really had a slightly better opinion of Harry and particularly the Major. But then again, as far as PJ was concerned, Harry had not gained anything at that crucial night - and yes, the Major even worried that upgrading the ticket would look suspicious. (Harry's answer was priceless: you know me, I'll think of something).

I'll watch the ending once again, yet I do tend to agree with you. "Paying" the wages of someone who had helped him in a scheme involving a fake painting by giving them another fake painting (and making them believe it comes at huge emotional and monetary cost, so they would be really almost moved to tears) would be a suitable paradoxical ending for a farce of this kind. Which makes Harry's almost tearful eyes and fairly romantic facial expressions at the airport really cynical. Thereby making the film even better than I first thought.

So thanks!

Sorry for the long post!

So I watched the end once more. Which is kind of stupid of me, since with a movie that contains the absurd - though absolutely delightful - scene of a rodeo queen actually taming and binding up a lion one should not take logic too seriously.

I hope you will excuse me for the following digression.

One should not be too logical in analysing a film that obviously not exactly defies, but definitely has fun with logic.

Clearly, if one tries to be realistic, the very fact that Harry went to a building that ordinarily would have had all of the usual security devices activated, without having any proper authorisation and thus no hope of escaping the security cameras - well, the very fact is absurd.

I do not think the original script was too concerned about logic. Clearly we do not know how much of it was preserved, but my suspicion, based on other Coens' films but yet more on the internal structure of this particular film itself in the form in which it was actually produced, is that logic is not a priority . Logically, the lion should not be lying there, all tied up, and feebly protesting!, as Harry is at "serious" work changing the Haystacks at Dawn painting. But the lion is there and boy how much amusement he provides!

Back to the logical analysis.
Harry tells the Major at the end of the film, "You'll see to it that she gets what we owe her", and the Major answers: "Certainly , Sir" - that's RIGHT after PJ discovers the painting and says, with obvious pleasure, "Oh, Harry Dean!". The Major then asks Harry whether they might perhaps upgrade her ticket, to which Harry responds "Yes, why don't we" - to which the Major, again realistic and cautious, responds "Seems like a bit of extravagance, how do you explain it?" To which we get Harry's priceless answer, "Oh you know me, I'll think of something".

So if one tries to be logical, the fake Sisley may have been wholly the Major's idea, who was feeling that poor Harry really needed help from someone more grounded. Harry, however, still felt that some part of that 10 million could be used to compensate PJ, while the Major probably disagreed - sending her what they owed her would certainly seem suspicious, since in her view the plan had flopped (what was the term. gone gooey?) and Harry was deprived of any substantial funds, reduced to counting his "quarters". As opposed to the Sisley painting, which, to her knowledge, Harry already owned.

There is, however, one logical snag: how did the Major know about PJ's admiration for, or even knowledge of, the value of a small painting in Harry's apartment? Did Harry really bother to tell him about this? Also, Harry is clearly under the impression that some money should be sent to PJ. Even if they concocted the faking of the Sisley together with the Major - which seems at least plausible - what about the "You will see to it that she gets what we owe her?" He does not seem to think that a fake Sisley would be enough. He is not a man very much in touch with reality, but at least in the euphoria of having pulled the stunt off successfully, he has a bout of generosity.

So the end is a tad enigmatic. Harry may, at least at the height of his euphoria, have been more generous than the Major, who, on his part, tried to keep the whole thing grounded. For me, all of this ambiguity adds to the value of the film.

To repeat, I understand those disappointed. Expectations! I also think that the marketing strategy that not only emphasised the Coens but almost reduced the film to them did a serious disservice to the film. It essentially backfired, and backfired badly.

I am a little bit skeptical, though, about the the unanimity of the critics - they do tend to have a group think of their own. Nary a critic except Ebert dared to say Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy might be confusing to viewers (mind you, I love the film - but not the one hundred critical reviews that parroted one another almost verbatim in totally empty praise). So Gambit has been condemned by the critics - again so unanimously one is not sure most of the critics actually had the time to even view the film. Condemned to the extent of practically killing the film.

I am not saying it is a great film. But neither is it the total failure it is being portrayed to be.

I remember being in raptures with "How to Steal a Million". Same theme, great cast, but things actually going smoothly as in Harry's first, daydreaming version. No loose ends, no ambiguity, and a GREAT, totally unambiguous romance between the main characters. The film was quite a hit at its time and is still admired by many. I admire it, too, since I am a human being and desperately need witty feel good movies once in a while. There were people on this board that actually expressed the view that if the first, unrealistic, daydreaming part of it would have been true and adventures added to this. it would have been a great film. That is, if it had been another "How to Steal a Million".

But an ambiguous film, with romance undermined, with not positive characters, with no unambiguous plot that logically and inexorably leads to a happy ending, is something I do welcome, too, or actually even more. More often than not. there is exactly the gap between the ideal plan and how things turn out in reality ...

One can criticise the pacing, one can critisise everything the director did - and as per me, the director was definitely the weakest link in the team. But a rating below even 6 is not remotely fair. It is a combination of wrong expectations (fuelled by wrong marketing) and the group think of the critics.