ok, i just watched the ending of Blind Fury twice - and as far as I can see, the main villain, MacCready, played by Noble Willingham.....never dies in the movie! It shows him and Frank wrestling on the floor for a shotgun, then the action cuts to the sidekick badguy getting chopped in half and tossed out the window. Am I missing something here - or did they forget to film a conclusion to the story?
share[deleted]
Try to put a SPOILER WARNING before asking these questions. And give the topic a more subtle name next time...
shareits an action movie camruud, the bad guy/s usually have to die....except this one.
but anyway, i just watched this for the first time (loved it btw) and i thought
it was a bit odd they didn't show that guy dying. my take on it is that the bad
guy got away and that was the whole reason Rutger didn't get on the bus. maybe
he was gonna track that guy down. and maybe they were planning a sequel.
my take on it is that the bad
guy got away and that was the whole reason Rutger didn't get on the bus. maybe
he was gonna track that guy down. and maybe they were planning a sequel.
Dude, how the hell can that be a spoiler?
And wouldn't you be more upset if it headline read something else and you read it and found out a hidden spoiler?
But anyways... the ending sucked. Clearly a case of poor editing and/or post-production tinkering by producers or the MPAA or something.. perhaps the guy's head was blown to smithereens ala "Scanners"-style.. at least that's what I hope happened.
[deleted]
A spoiler to a movie made nearly 30 years ago? seriously. If they havent seen it yet, chances are they never will
sharei thought the samething, it's funny just bad editing and or screenplaying ha, but i loved it anyway. I loved this movie when I was a kid and watching it again as a big bad grown up I see how bad of a movie it is. But I love it, it's heart is in the right place.
shareI just watched it for the first time and like you, I watched the ending twice because I couldn't quite believe they would disregard the main villian like that (seeing him being dragged away by the cops would've been something!).
The last shot was corny and predictable, too Rutger doing what now has become known as "the sexy cry" The Nostalgia Critic TM. Apart from that, I quite liked it. A solid, easily accessible action flick that didn't take itself too seriously.
7/10 I'll probably watch this again in the future :)
I knew a hoocker once named Minnie Mazola.
So...what actually happened to the main bad guy after he was wrestling on the ground for the shotgun ?.
shareI think he died. That was a very, very long drop and it was freezing outside, besides, he was cut in half. No one could survive that.
shareI think he died. That was a very, very long drop and it was freezing outside, besides, he was cut in half. No one could survive that.
In answer to the question posed in your subject line: No, they never did kill the bad guy.
Who knows if they filmed it or not, or if it was even in the script. No one will ever know. We can all sit around and type out our theories and opinions, but the fact is that it's not on-screen.
However, my theory is that it was scripted and filmed, but they thought that wutzhisface falling to his death made for better pacing, and they wanted the actual mastermind to be in the sequel.
11... 92... 12...share
MacCready wasn't much of a mastermind, in fact he seemed to be an rather clueless and inept villain overall. The bit about Bruce Lee and his "brother", the failing casino, his debt problems, drug dealers not taking him seriously, etc.
Don't get me wrong though, this was another little aspect of the movie I loved. MacCready may have been a joke of a crime boss, but that made him desperate, and hence more dangerous, to the protagonist and his surrogate family.
Once MacCready's army of goons were dispatched however, he was finished. He didn't need a death scene. Best comeuppance for a clod like him is to leave him for either the police, the bank, or other underworld figures--whichever would get to him first. Not that dissimilar to the corrupt senator from Hard to Kill.
The sequel deserved a more worthy adversary.
He wasn't much of one, but he was the mastermind behind the whole thing.
The problem we're having is that you seem to have a brain in your head, unlike the people who made this movie. They weren't sitting around thinking, "Does this make a whole lot of sense." They were thinking, "How can we pump out a dozen sequels, each worse than the last?"
If you were in charge of the film, he wouldn't just be forgotten somewhere in the film-making process awaiting justice in a sequel that never happened, he would have been dealt with by the police, the bank, other underworld figures... hopefully all three. Any of those would have been better than just simply not knowing what to do with him. That's the difference between you and them. In your one post, you wrote a better story, and you barely even tried. Anything would have been better than just leaving your audience to wonder what happened to the main bad guy because the movie makers were too inept to deal with it. They were paid tons of money, and you did a better job for free.
And that's why he would have been in the sequel.
11... 92... 12...share
Did you ever consider that this movie was never about revenge or 'killing bad guys', but it was about friendship, loyalty, and most importantly..
..FORGIVING.
The main character accomplished what he set out to do, forgiving Frank.
Whatever else has to happen, fine, but the main point was forgiving Frank, and he did that. Who cares what happened to some boss villain? Maybe the boss learned his lesson and became a monk to try to atone for his sins.