MovieChat Forums > Mississippi Grind (2015) Discussion > Ending feels changed [SPOILERS]

Ending feels changed [SPOILERS]

posted 9 years ago by toddp-10
29 replies | jump to latest

The ending just doesn't seem to fit the whole movie.

Reynolds character could walk away because he was not chronic like Mendelsohns character. There is a big difference from someone who likes to gamble and someone who just keeps going and going like Gerry. Even when they were already up over a quarter million dollars, amazing from $100 start, his reaction was to "bet it all"

More money than he has ever came close to, literally life changing, and he wanted to risk it all in one toss. That is a degenerate gambler.

He was even acting bizarre as they were celebrating and eating steak and lobster. I believe the scene was to show how it's never as good as the chase itself to this type of person. I find it hard to believe the original ending planned was happy after that because the two scenes do not gel.

If I had to guess, originally they wanted to end with Gerry at a table when Curtis came down to check out, and he would be almost out of money again. Or something like that. If he was to pack up and go on to a new life, no need to sneak away.

The "we won big" ending where it seems everyone gets a fresh start doesn't fit. This wasn't a heist movie or two guys needing cash and getting lucky, it was about a degenerate gambler. One who gave up everything to his gambling. Everything.

Sure it was nice to see them do so well and get fresh starts, and Gerry crashing again to nothing after such a great amount of money would be depressing. But isn't that who he is?

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Gerry crashing again to nothing after such a great amount of money would be depressing. But isn't that who he is?

"Who he is" is what's wrong with other gambling movies, the loser always loses, the winner always wins.

This movie worked because we finally saw Curtis lose (basketball) and we saw Gerry win.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] toddp-10 9 years ago

I don't agree with your view of this. Just my opinion naturally. The loser always losing when it comes to a degenerate gambler like Gerry is not some cliché. They simply do not just change. The whole journey shows that.

And not that it matters, but you missed the point of Curtis losing to basketball and getting his ass kicked. He did that on purpose. This was not meant in any way to show a switch in characters luck at all. Curtis actually won at the race track because he did not bet on the horse Gerry picked at all, he bet on his first choice and won

I know the unhappy ending now has become over used just as much as the happy ending. However in this case, it was more or less completely and totally against the character

[–] submachine 9 years ago

He wasn't a "degenerate gambler", whatever that means beyond the stereotypical fictional cliche.

He was a gambler. Gamblers win and lose. He even would have won the poker game if it wasn't for a bad beat.

And Curtis did lose at the basketball game, it doesn't matter why, the point is when you gamble you could win, or you could lose. That's why the film works so well.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] toddp-10 9 years ago

He wasn't a "degenerate gambler", whatever that means

You either missed the whole jive of the movie altogether or have zero idea about serious gambling addiction. Either way, we are are on two very separate pages

[–] submachine 9 years ago

No you're the confused one.

The movie worked, and you don't appreciate it because you require formulaic gambler-cliches and predictable storylines.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] toddp-10 9 years ago

you don't appreciate it because you require formulaic gambler-cliches and predictable storylines.

Do you seriously think the compulsive degenerate gambler winning the "big night" and riding off in the sunset is the opposite of a movie cliché??

A: Degenerate gamblers are a very real thing. Not some movie made up mythology. To suggest as much you are just embarrassing yourself
B: These kind of gamblers do not quit when they hit the big score - Ever

You're actually arguing that by having this big score, happy ending they avoided the Hollywood ending. It's the opposite man.

I suspect you are somehow connected to the film or just some stubborn kid. Your argument for the ending is actually the opposite of your actual argument...

Agree to disagree, I'm out

[–] enigma-lake 9 years ago

Sounds like you watched it and because it didn't end the way you wanted to you were out. He didn't raise his hands and hoot and all that.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Degenerate gamblers are a very real thing.

Losing consistently or winning consistently is a very fake thing.

This movie felt real, the fact that you needed him to lose speaks volumes about your own sad life.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] nybigapple 9 years ago

I think the ending was brilliantly ended. OP is right in many ways. Possibly the worst thing that could happen to a compulsive gambler is to win. Compulsive gambling isn't about money at all. It's about the need for people to feel the winning/losing and it's affect on the person. The money is just a major side effect of it. Compulsive Gambler's generally do not ride off into the sunset after winning back their money, learning their lesson, and never gambling more they can afford again. But Gerry hasn't done that. It is literally the day after a big win.

Gerry tried to lose. 280k dollars won and he decides to risk it all. When he won, you see a realization with the steak. He wasn't even comfortable eating steak. He thought winning big would be a magic lightswitch to fix all of life's problems and it isn't that. He did the smartest thing he could for himself which is to get away from the casino as fast as possible. He looks at that picture of his daughter and it's clear he has a desire to be a better person.

This movie ending was very realistic. If this was to be continued in a second movie the OP's expectation is the likely outcome. Compulsive Gambling is a disease. One that doesn't just go away. You can't cure a shopaholic or a gamblaholic's problems by giving them money. I suspect Gerry would pay off his debts, try to reconnect with his daughter with an expensive gift. Maybe talk to Vanessa again. But pretty soon you'd see him right back in the casino. He'll eventually be in the exact same situation he was in the beginning of the movie. But it doesn't have to happen overnight which is why the movie picked the best possible place to end.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Compulsive Gambling is a disease.

If gambling is a disease, it's the only one where you can win money.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] nybigapple 9 years ago

But for people who compulsively gamble winning money is only the intermediary to being in Gerry's position. Broke, owing everyone money, and resorting to stealing to fund the habit. There have been studies on compulsive gamblers. Their brains react to gambling like an addicts react to drugs. It's like taking a hit when they place a bet.

Winning money is also the worst outcome. The psychology is funny. A man goes to vegas. Loses all his money immediately. Feels terrible. A second man goes to vegas. Wins some. Loses some. Eventually loses all his money. Feels terrible. The first man is far more likely to stop gambling. The second man on the other hand is far more likely to continue gambling thinking he can win it back.

For some this can get as bad Gerry where it's not just money lost. It cost him his wife, his child, and pretty much his life. The only people he talks to are other gamblers. The only thing he thinks about is gambling. Yes he won money. But every time he won money he eventually lost it and more. The emotional, mental, relationship, and time cost are far greater than dollars and cents.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Maybe his luck will change?

Seriously, there are successful gamblers. You're just describing the losers.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] nybigapple 9 years ago

There are only 2 non-contested ways a gambler can win. Poker. Sports Betting. That's it.

If a professional gambler is good enough and does either of those 2 they can be a career winner. There are still lots of psychological diligences a person has to follow even with those. Like bankroll management. Playing in optimal situations etc.

Then there are a few contested ways. Like counting cards in blackjack. Edge-sorting in Baccarat. Etc. That's it.

Gerry doesn't follow any of that. He bets on everything and anything. There's no such thing as luck turning around "in the long run". Yes if you're lucky you can have an insane run like Gerry did at the end of the movie. But in the end it's all math. Those are casino edge games, and if he plays long enough he will eventually lose it all. There's a reason casinos try to get the players playing as much as possible.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

There are only 2 non-contested ways a gambler can win. Poker. Sports Betting. That's it.

So...Gerry.

in the end it's all math

And math dictates Gerry should have also won the poker game.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] nybigapple 9 years ago

So do you just pick out the parts of a message you like and you ignore the rest?

He doesn't stick to poker and sports betting does he? He bets on everything. Craps, Blackjack, Horse Races, Roulette, hell even pool when he doesn't know how to play. He's a compulsive gambler. There's no way to be a long term winner gambling on everything.

Math says he should have won that hand in the poker game. But like I mentioned there are psychological necessities needed to be a successful poker player like bankroll management which you conveniently ignored. Playing with all or even most of your money guarantees you go broke. Like you saw in the movie, bad beats happen. If he was playing with 10% of his money then he can withstand the bad luck and his skill will win out. Instead he was playing with all his money so game over.

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Craps, Blackjack, Horse Races, Roulette, hell even pool

Craps has good enough odds, Horse racing is sports betting, Roulette he wasn't serious about, pool they were hustling.

bad beats happen.

Mathematically, not often. A big win can change a gambler to stop gambling, or gamble smarter. Especially because his focus is on helping his daughter.

The point is nobody knows what the result of gambling will be, which is why the movie ending works.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

[–] cableaddict 9 years ago

Submachine, you're a complete idiot.

Almost no one ever wins, year in & year out. The odds are literally against it.

[–] a-1133 9 years ago

It's almost as if he reads stuff, and you think he'd learn something, but he just seems to get dumber.

[–] mchzanes2 9 years ago

This movie ending was very realistic. If this was to be continued in a second movie the OP's expectation is the likely outcome. Compulsive Gambling is a disease. One that doesn't just go away. You can't cure a shopaholic or a gamblaholic's problems by giving them money. I suspect Gerry would pay off his debts, try to reconnect with his daughter with an expensive gift. Maybe talk to Vanessa again. But pretty soon you'd see him right back in the casino. He'll eventually be in the exact same situation he was in the beginning of the movie. But it doesn't have to happen overnight which is why the movie picked the best possible place to end.

I kind of agree with the above, but give Gerry a bit more wiggle room to find redemption in the joys of everyday life. Gerry wants very much to be a responsible adult, and "true desire" factors into an addict's behavior--but it will be hard for him, no doubt.

These kind of gamblers do not quit when they hit the big score - Ever

Compulsive gamblers can and DO grow up or find redemption or just..change. People DO change, all the time. Folks overcome addictions all the time. Labeling someone a "degenerate gambler" then saying they can NEVER change is just plain short sighted and rather nihilistic. Sometimes all they need is something to live for that is more important than than the momentary thrill of placing a bet. Learning new ways of being takes time, so it's a tough road, but people DO change, and so maybe Gerry changes.

Gerry is very aware of his condition--I'm thinking of the scene where he tells the prostitute's girlfriend that he has problems and warns her off of getting involved with him. This puts him ahead of others in his boat. It shows, at least, that he is not in denial about his problem. SO it appears that all he needs is really the desire to change, and in that last scene in the car with the picture of his daughter propped up so he can see it--he does seem to have that desire, in those moments.

[–] withnail69 9 years ago

A: Degenerate gamblers are a very real thing. Not some movie made up mythology. To suggest as much you are just embarrassing yourself
B: These kind of gamblers do not quit when they hit the big score - Ever

exactly! if they did we wouldn't have profitable casino's right

[–] radams-06744 9 years ago

While I'm not entirely sure what the whole basketball scene with Curtis meant, I do know that he did not play it in order to lose as you seem to put it. If he only played that game to lose, then he would have paid the man the $100 he owed him after he achieved what you say his goal was. He played that game because he wanted to get beaten up, that much was obvious. What isn't obvious is why he wanted to get beaten up.

I took it as him feeling guilty that he had enabled Gerry all that time and was mad at himself. Right before the basketball scene he found out that Gerry had actually lost all the money in Memphis. So then he realizes that the only reason Gerry wanted to go to Little Rock, was so he could attempt to steal the money he knew his ex wife would have in her sock. I think Curtis actually thought Gerry wasn't such a bad person, but then came to realize that Gerry is a horrible person that will steal and lie in order to keep the gambling going. I got the impression that this has happened to Curtis before as well. When he said Gerry was a "good guy" to Simone, Simone said, "That’s what you said about George". I took this to mean that Gerry was not the first shady person Curtis had attached himself to. I think he was upset at himself, that's why he went and got his butt kicked. I think in a way, Curtis was betting on people, and that's when he found out he lost that bet.

"He wasn't a "degenerate gambler"

Gerry was the epitome of a degenerate gambler. He tried to steal from his own daughter, and would have if his wife hadn't known what he was up to. He gave up everything in his life, everything, to keep gambling. He gave up his wife, daughter, job(s), cats, car, etc, just to keep gambling. You should look up the definition of degenerate.

[–] RSBonos 9 years ago

The ending was a complete cop out and if you want to have a happy ending at least have a more reasonable payout. He turned pocket change into half a million...plz

[–] shaundee 9 years ago

It's a movie about moving on with your life, not a statement on gambling itself.

[–] tabbycat 9 years ago

You're mostly right.
I can't stand pasted-on, unearned happy endings, but Hollywood just can't seem to stop itself when it comes to gambling.
The film lost me at the big win from the last C-note. Ridiculous.

What I give this one credit for is trying to break new ground with the characters.
They're both degenerates really -- kind of two sides of the same coin.
The new question asked is, can a degenerate gambler really be a good-hearted person?
The film's answer seems to be yes.

[–] amitynow 9 years ago

It seems possible that one of the reasons he quit while he was ahead at the end, and thus insuring a happy short term ending at least, is due to the fact that they could not bet anymore, or at least not bet everything they had like they had been continuous doing. On their last roll in craps they had to have the security radio to the bosses to get the ok for them to bet that time, I can't imagine they would be able to do it again with half a million dollars. I could be wrong but that seems like 1 plausible explanation for why they quit at that point.

[–] withnail69 9 years ago

AGREE with OP 100%. THe best thing about this movie was the fact ben mendlesohn was so convincing as the loser. You could see that no amount was ever going to be enough. He was gonna have to hit rock bottom in order to stop. He wasn't gonna be able to stop whilst there was still something to bet

[–] maximusveritas 9 years ago

Yeah, if they wanted a semi-happy ending, they should have just ended with them reuniting at the Blackjack table and him calling for 2 Woodfords. I actually thought that's where it was ending when I watched. The rest seemed not just unnecessary, but downgraded the movie.

[–] tinoynk 9 years ago

Gerry does win in the sort term, but from everything the film has showed us, do you really think it's ultimately going to end up well? Sure, maybe he gets his act together and invests the money in some safe mutual funds or something, but somehow, I really doubt that.

Also, the very end of the movie is him getting his old car back and listening to the same old poker CD, which if you take to mean anything beyond a literal story level, probably points to the fact that he's just going to go right back to gambling. And sure, a quarter million dollars is a lot, but to a guy like Gerry, that could go very quickly.

And hey, people do get lucky sometimes. The reason people get addicted to gambling is because they do win sometimes, sometimes they even win big, sometimes really big. But degenerates like Gerry will always lose it sooner or later.

_____________________________________________________________

Live and learn. At least we lived.

[–] jimpemmas 9 years ago

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." - Orson Welles

***All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.***