The whole film was leading to the death of either brosnan or neeson, but at the end none of them die! WTF was that? The whole film was bout the hunt and then at the end its like "Oh I forgive you". I wish both of them or either one of them would die in the film, that would make it much much better. Anyone else agree?
I loved the ending in all its pretentious and redemptive glory. This movie is way underrated, and I've not seen a (modern) Western as good as it is other than Unforgiven. (I've yet to see the new True Grit, though)
shareI was more ???
bushtony and his mother suffer from Congential Stupidtiy and they didn't see it coming.
Whoever first said they really died, and this final battle was one for their souls and not their lives is brilliant! I must say though that overall this movie left me more going two directions at once then satisfied and understanding the message. So much of this movie is wrapped up in the nitty gritty realism of survival, the sudden switch to surreal and moral...um...whatever it was, was very jarring and confusing.
I enjoyed the movie, but felt the switch was too sudden and drastic to leave the story intact nor the experience be a positive one.
It's a real shame, as they could have made the transition more obvious, and let us know, "here comes something new" simply by having both men start to hallucinate something biblical, like a burning bush or something, much like in the original Matrix, when Neo starts tripping on the mirror after taking the red pill, it lets us know to hold on to your butts, we are in for a ride.
Excellent film let down by a weak ending imo. The whole gypsy/devil character was way too leftfield.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
My interpretation of the ending is that they had both died in the desert. Neeson's need for vengeance was so strong that he was still seeking retribution and Brosnan was still trying to escape the sins of his past. Both characters spirits could not be at peace until they put the past behind them.
shareBingo. It seemed obvious to me, and the symbolism (Louise C. Farr?!?) and metaphor were awesome. Really, they 'go their separate ways' in a blinding white-hot desert? Like maybe there is going to be a 'Seraphim Falls 2'? I loved it, been a big fan of Eastwood's revisionist westerns and there are tons of homages to them throughout the film. Neeson and Brosnan had a blast making this film, the commentary is great for those wanting another look.
shareMy interpretation of the ending is that they had both died in the desert.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ok, this is written almost 10 years ago, but I'll reply anyway.
Possible spoiler:
The indian's name was Charon, like the greek ferryman that ferries people into the realm of the dead.
My guess is that there never was an indian nor a Madam Louise and more importantly no water.
Both men are fatigued and delirious from dehydration, and both died in the desert looking for each other....in their dying moment they gave up on revenge, but still died.