MovieChat Forums > Prizzi's Honor (1985) Discussion > Why the ending fails (SPOILER ALERT)

Why the ending fails (SPOILER ALERT)

posted 13 years ago by jdown-1
7 replies | jump to latest

John Huston was 78 when this movie was filmed - it's always sad to see a once-great director helming a movie decades after he's lost the touch.
*SPOILER ALERT*SPOILER ALERT* But the main failing with Prizzi's Honor is the ending. It begins with the scene where Charley Partanna, his father, and the Prizzi's are discussing how to solve their dire problem. They agree on a plan. And the rest of the movie unfolds exactly as planned.
That is why the ending fails. In movies, when you see a plan for, say, a bank heist, hatched and discussed in detail, you can be certain that somehow things will go awry. It is the essence of entertainment - the unexpected; the way in which the best laid schemes gang aft aglay. What actually happens as opposed to what we thought was going to happen.
In the absence of that surprise, that twist, the ending becomes a letdown. I'm not sure which way the movie should have gone (after all, Ms Walker did shoot an innocent bystander). But the ending failed to save a movie which, at that point, desperately needed saving.

[–] roncerabona 12 years ago

Some movies do that (A Few Good Men is pretty much another) - it's more about the how than the what. In The godfather we pretty much know from the time Michael volunteers for the shooting which way his destiny lies, but it doesn't hurt the film. And most rom come are predictable - it's the getting there that matters, not the destination.
And the "miss" by the Kathleen Turner character is interesting - deliberate?(she's an experienced assassin with an easy shot).

[–] Charlot47 10 years ago

Wasn’t the ending inevitable, in the sense that Irene had reached a dead end? If she killed Charley, the Prizzis would find her one day. So suicide was her only escape.

[–] roncerabona 10 years ago

Yes, although you could say that about pretty much any gangster - they know they are more likely than most to have a short life expectancy especially if they're un the killing side of things (so why do it?!) Maybe it's dying for love?

[–] rob_sawyer 10 years ago

Wasn’t the ending inevitable, in the sense that Irene had reached a dead end? If she killed Charley, the Prizzis would find her one day. So suicide was her only escape.

So you are saying that she missed Charlie deliberately so she could commit suicide? That ahs to be the only explanation because a professional hit person missing at that distance is ludicrous.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

In the absence of that surprise, that twist, the ending becomes a letdown. I'm not sure which way the movie should have gone (after all, Ms Walker did shoot an innocent bystander). But the ending failed to save a movie which, at that point, desperately needed saving.

I love this movie and don't feel the plot or filmmaking needed "saving"...but the way it's set up, there's little doubt Charlie will win over Irene.

Movies (and society) value males over females. There's no way a major motion picture like this is going to let Jack Nicholson get fatally put down by Kathleen Turner. Of course the female star will be sacrificed. No contest. (And, she'll be wearing lingerie.)

It's sickening, but that's the way it is.

.

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

What you describe is not automatically a failure, as a huge amount of good films could then be called failures.

This CAN be a failure IF the playing out of the plan is not enjoyable or dramatically effective (depending on the genre).