OK, I know it's an old film (well, a few years) but I've only just got round to watching it. There will be SPOILERS here.
For a long film I was quite impressed with how captivated I became. I thought it was really interesting at the start and in the middle. On the surface I loved the story of how this guy (Jude Law) decides to leave the army to get back to his "love" (Nicole Kidman) after her letter to him. The journey back was horrible. He runs out of water, almost starves, and all the while is evading Confederates looking for deserters. But he keeps at it. I think it was mentioned in the film that he walked a thousand miles. Impressive. He almost dies on a number of occasions, kills people, spends the night in the same bed as a distraught single-mother, walks through snow and over mountains to finally return home... only to die. Brilliant.
Don't get me wrong, stories are not all about the destination, but also about the journey as well. The journey in this film was incredible. But the ending of this film totally ruined it for me. I'm all for these Hollywood films going against traditional Hollywood-esque films, but really, c'mon, it was like the writer deliberately decided to take it as far as possible and **** everything. There's a reason why Hollywood make those sort of films; they sell. Viewers (at least the majority) enjoy watching it.
Sooo... Yeah. I don't know why this really annoyed me. I'm gonna go ahead and throw in some spoilers for The Mist (remake) now as well.
I enjoyed the ending of The Mist. I thought the father killing the son was a fitting and realistic end to the film. I would've done the same in that position had I not known the army would roll in a few seconds later. But for Jude Law's character to get killed at the end of a film about him getting back to Nicole Kidman's character was just like being stabbed in the back. I imagine. It didn't seem realistic at all, it seemed as if the writer wanted to shock the viewers by killing him. Instead it seemed fake and forced.
What did everyone else think?
For a long film I was quite impressed with how captivated I became. I thought it was really interesting at the start and in the middle. On the surface I loved the story of how this guy (Jude Law) decides to leave the army to get back to his "love" (Nicole Kidman) after her letter to him. The journey back was horrible. He runs out of water, almost starves, and all the while is evading Confederates looking for deserters. But he keeps at it. I think it was mentioned in the film that he walked a thousand miles. Impressive. He almost dies on a number of occasions, kills people, spends the night in the same bed as a distraught single-mother, walks through snow and over mountains to finally return home... only to die. Brilliant.
Don't get me wrong, stories are not all about the destination, but also about the journey as well. The journey in this film was incredible. But the ending of this film totally ruined it for me. I'm all for these Hollywood films going against traditional Hollywood-esque films, but really, c'mon, it was like the writer deliberately decided to take it as far as possible and **** everything. There's a reason why Hollywood make those sort of films; they sell. Viewers (at least the majority) enjoy watching it.
Sooo... Yeah. I don't know why this really annoyed me. I'm gonna go ahead and throw in some spoilers for The Mist (remake) now as well.
I enjoyed the ending of The Mist. I thought the father killing the son was a fitting and realistic end to the film. I would've done the same in that position had I not known the army would roll in a few seconds later. But for Jude Law's character to get killed at the end of a film about him getting back to Nicole Kidman's character was just like being stabbed in the back. I imagine. It didn't seem realistic at all, it seemed as if the writer wanted to shock the viewers by killing him. Instead it seemed fake and forced.
What did everyone else think?