I simply cannot believe it. This movie could have been a very good one, had it finished five minutes earlier. The film would have been a stronger cry against death penalty, had Frank Beachum finally been killed. So I wonder why the movie has such a laughable endind...Any ideas out there?
share[deleted]
Agreed, Marco. And i thought the movie was great. The ending was maybe a bit on the boring side, but i was ok with it .. and i'm very happy BEachum lived. But i'm still very much in favor of the death penalty.
share[deleted]
I agree about the point this film is trying to make...how many men in history haven't been as fortunate as Beacham was?
shareEven with that ending, the film still makes a strong cry against the death penalty.
I think that the happy ending and the presence of Eastwood were the prices that the studio charged to make the movie. They did the same thing to Mel Gibson in Braveheart. He had originally intended to let someone younger play William Wallace, but the studio wouldn't let him make the movie if he wasn't the star (they did let him keep the sad ending though). Similarly, Salma Hayek appears naked in Frida, which she didn't do in other movies.
shareFrom what I understand and have read, they have no concrete evidence that they've ever actually executed an innocent man. There are innocent men on death row. There are innocent men who spend 20 years in prison. There are innocent men who spend a month in prison. Does this mean one should be against 20 year prison sentences? Or should one be against prison all together?
Even if a couple innocents are executed, I still am for the death penalty. You can't make an omelet....
As for the film, the ending hurt it. I think of Ransom in the same thought as I would think of True Crime. Both good movies, but missed being great by having a happy ending. Ransom's was much worse, cause without question Senise should have gotten away.
"You can't make an omelet..."
Maybe one day you--or someone you love--will be one of the eggs. Hope you'll appreciate the irony.
"From what I understand and have read, they have no concrete evidence that they've ever actually executed an innocent man."
Sure, and there's no proven link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
There have been many attempts to investigate Death Row cases after execution; courts have refused to allow any such case to be reopened, every single time. Why? Good question.
Innocent people have been put on Death Row on the basis of weaker evidence than you require to prove there are innocent people who have been executed. Is that a GOOD thing?
Even if a couple innocents are executed, I still am for the death penalty.
I certainly wouldn't want to be executed or put in prison for any amount of time, whether I was innocent or guilty. It doesn't mean I don't believe in the system and deep down feel I should be punished in those ways. Innocent people get imprisoned all the time. Some of the injustices can be fixed (like the fact the more money you have, the better justice you receive) and some cannot.
When I was younger, I would get profiled quite a bit by the police, especially in my home town. I went a number of years where it was a rarity to not be pulled over on average once every couple weeks. I get stopped at the airport and hassled a bit every time I fly. Am I against any of this? No. I fit a profile, I want them to do what they have to do to insure safety. Plenty of people view this as unfair, I do not.
So, in the grand scheme of things, if I am that egg, I am ok with it if it means the other 11 eggs get proper justice.
"like the fact the more money you have, the better justice you receive"
If you actually believe this, then you are one of the more naive people I've ever encountered. The more money you have, the less likely you are to be convicted (regardless of innocence or guilt). That does NOT mean that it is more likely that justice is being carried out. It simply means that you have a higher likelihood of getting away with doing bad things without getting sentenced as harshly.
I would know. I work at a law firm that defends white collar scumbags who pay their way to 'innocence'.
Why do people like you feel the need to use absolutes? I'm one of the more naive people you've ever encountered? Like in your entire life, you have a list of naive people you've encountered. There are some higher on the list. You've now encountered me so you feel I should be higher up on the list. Its always a poor way to stress a point. I don't see anything in your reply that even negates what I said. Obviously, true justice wasn't found in the OJ case. That clearly wasn't the point I was making.
shareOr should one be against prison all together?
All things considered, I thought the ending was very well done.
SPOILERS************
All we saw was Clint at the door of the warden's home. The next thing the call comes through to the hotline in the execution module. We don't really know the guy is still alive until we see him in the mall with his wife and daughter, nodding to Clint. Imagine how sappy and sentimental it COULD have been. I'm glad Clint chose the more subtle way. I didn't think it was laughable at all. It was intelligent.
Steve is seen at the door of the governor's house, not the warden's.
If the purpose of the movie is a libel against the death penalty, which I believe it is, I would simply remove the "Santa Claus" happy ending.
The impact on the conscience of viewers would then be greater, and the revenue from the film, perhaps lower.
Americans love an happy ending... Too many like the death penalty...
________________________________________
___________ SPOILERS!!!_________________
fanaticita, i agree. i just watched the movie for the first time (what a GREAT movie!) and i figured the happy ending was coming...i WANTED the happy ending, unlikely as it would be in real life...and they handled it really well. you can have a happy, "hollywood" ending...as long as they handle it well. Underappreciated Flick!
you watched it, you can’t unwatch it
I thought for sure Washington's character would have died (and I'd have liked the movie more if he had), but they killed Kevin Spacey off in Life of David Gale and everyone seemed to have hated that movie.
"Action is how men express romance on film." -- Kurt Wimmershare
I'm not sure why they held the camera on Beachum's wife at the glass for about 20 seconds if that wasn't going to be the ending. That actually felt like the proper ending, with the 5 minutes afterwards seeming somewhat tacked on.
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
i agree Beachum's wife banging on the glass would have been the perfect ending for me.
shareI'm not sure why they held the camera on Beachum's wife at the glass for about 20 seconds if that wasn't going to be the ending. That actually felt like the proper ending, with the 5 minutes afterwards seeming somewhat tacked on.
that's exactly the way i see, joekiddlouischama. Although the ending is what the audience wanted, as they got involved with the character, is not sappy at all, and makes you anxious until the last scene, also being very subtle by just a nodding, (frank didn't run and hugged eastwood, what would be sappy). I think clint made his point about death penalties, and handled very well the job as a director, and actor.
sharealso being very subtle by just a nodding, (frank didn't run and hugged eastwood, what would be sappy). I think clint made his point about death penalties, and handled very well the job as a director, and actor.
I think the ending was more a statement about the Eastwood character. He was trying to get a story; as it turns out, he gets a profitable book published as well. I think the simple nod at the end is an oblique statement that he really wasn't concerned about the life or death of the prisoner as much as the story to be told. It's great that he didn't die, but it's not the point. The simple nod between them shows that each knows where the other stands. Eastwood really has NOT gone through a dramatic catharsis at the end (he did have one when he came to believe the man was innocent, but there was no fundamental change in his character.) I think that is quite likely the point Eastwood was making -- it was all a story for him.
shareAbsolutely right.
I really really loved the way Eastwood has handled the whole movie & especially the ending. Although Frank lives in the end, Eastwood strongly makes his points. This movie surely made an impact on me. An excellent movie. Eastwood never fails to deliver. Goddammm !!! He is a talented director & actor, for sure !!!!
I thought the movie lost its integrity towards the end. The chase scene was almost like something out of the Blues Brothers. And the whole setup, having the governor call at the very last second ... well, there's enough suspense to keep it entertaining, but hardly credible.
The whole movie depends far too much on coincidence anyway. As one of the characters points out, after a trial and six years of appeals, the odds that one guy is going to spot the discrepancies in the trial record and save the condemned man on the very last day ... well, it's a whopper. True, if no one cared enough to take a good look, it's conceivable, but ... oh well, it's only a movie.
What's more of an issue to me than the death penalty is how easy it is for people to assume someone's guilty the moment he/she is accused. Like the accountant, we generally see what we *want* to see. And that's why I'm personally against the death penalty in most cases, because it's too easy to get the wrong guy.
It is certainly true that there are huge plot gaps here ... as you said, the inconsisencies would have been caught by someone years earlier. But I still really like the film. The suspense is good, Eastwood's performance works, and he lets Jimmy Woods steal the show. Yes, that final car chase is absolutely ridiculous, but it works.
shareI concur. The movie should have ended with Lisa Gay Hamilton's fists pounding at the glass od the death room. I think by ending the movie this way they actually state that an innocent man couldn't possibly be put to death, whilst everybody who's got half a mind can say that that's not the case. Clint Eastwood is a powerful actor and a brilliant director, but his mild republicanism and evangelical Christian faith got in his way this time.
shareYour expectations are unfounded because you're attempting to ecapsulate your feelings about capital punishment in five minutes of a movie. If you don't politicize the movie it has a most excellent movie, because in all actuality this IS a "romantic" movie. But one that is defined in one piece of dialogue and the ending song. When Clint is speaking of his nose to Frank Beechum and how he doesn't care about jesus or anything.....but his nose, that and the song at the end (which Clint actually wrote) is talking about a romantic aspect of NOT caring. The mood music, the slow speech, the calm attitude of the picture show how life can be viewed as "romantic" no matter the sequence of events. Kind of like an old 50's detective thriller. Get over the ending. It was a clean, well-written flick with just the right tightness at the end.... Because, even though we ALL knew he'd get off in the end....we didn't know HOW, and that's what is important. Be well, be filmed..... Jack
shareYeah, kill him, so yet another movie ends on a sour note with an end that was so predictable it would choke me on my own bile. I fully expected the guy to die simply because EVERY MOVIE TODAY WINDS UP THAT WAY. Seems that somewhere along the way every movie maker in existance thinks ending a movie by killing someone innocent is some kind of "surprise ending." This actually HAD a surprise ending by not killing the the innocent. Killing someone who "didn't do it" has been worn out since its inception in The Postman Only Rings Twice sixty years ago.
shareI thought this was an excellent movie. The story was compelling and it was a believeable pair of performances from Eastwood as Everett and Isaiah Washington as Beechum. The scenes and dialogue between Eastwood and James Woods are hilarious with terrific dialogue!
share