I feel the same way as the OP. It's a cliche of gangster movies for the lead to rise and then, at the end, fall/die, and the manner the events went down didn't go with what came before at all well since Carnival was never like Scarface with a lead deserving of death.
Everything coming full circle with the lead's death in such stories isn't wrong since - as someone else pointed out - the 'hero' in these types prevailing would suggest gangster life is good. My problem is, the lead in Carnival wasn't corrupted by power or a bad guy at all; in fact, he was betrayed and killed because he was too soft and refused to hurt someone he viewed as a friend.
The film SHOULD have only had two outcomes, based on two key moments:
#1: The lead escaped the endless cycle of gangster life by being true to his word and quitting for love, once he made enough money for his family by getting a piece of the real estate pie via his boss. I'm a romantic and feel strongly about childhood love stories, and the effort the lead put in to win over his resitant love - putting everything, emotionally, into winning her heart - made it more than just a mere subplot.
#2: After his director 'friend' screwed him over by betraying him AGAIN - even ruining the attempt at proposing to his love, after he'd FINALLY won her over - the only way the movie could end satisfying would've been with the treacherous *beep* death.
Once the lead became a wanted criminal, any hope he had of finding happiness with his woman and becoming a normal guy with a warm family was gone, so it didn't matter whether he lived or not. What did matter was that revenge got dealt in return for the sly-eyed *beep* betrayal. But, in the end, even his #2 betrayed him; his #2 even going back on his earlier words by saving the director and, at the end, sharing a drink with him.
The film ending with the lead dead, his mother dead, his woman alone - unaware of his death - and everyone who'd betrayed him alive and well is arguably the worst ending ever, in spite of the overall quality of what had been a superb film. It made me change my rating from 9-10/10 to 8/10.
reply
share
akaiken
13 years ago
You say that it's a cliche of gangster movies but more than that I think it's just true to life. If you lead this kind of lifestyle you're not likely to prosper, even if you're a good-hearted person. I would have loved to see the movie end better for the character but I also knew as soon as he struck his right hand man for questioning him about the director that he was becoming like his old boss, abusing his subordinates for his own selfish reasons. Despite, or because of, his best intentions, he became a liability, and in those circles there's usually only one outcome.
reply
share
AironicTonic
13 years ago
Like I said, my problem with the ending wasn't the writer(s) sticking to the unwritten rule of gamgster stories. Even though it would have been a nice bit of originality had the lead got away from his life of crime without dying in the process, it did make sense for his #2 to turn on him for - in contrast to his previous boss - being too kind and not putting his 'family' first.
I listed two possible good endings above. One was the more original path where the romance subplot got seen through to conclusion and, because of love, the lead reverted to his non-violent past self--escaping the chain of violence he'd found himself trapped in after growing up. The other ending, which became the only good ending after the director 'friend' betrayed the lead, involved the lead getting his revenge and then dying.
It ending with the romance left hanging AND the movie's true villain left unpunished meant the film ended with lots of unfullfilled potential, and that's what truly disappointed me--the lack of any satisfaction as the credits rolled. The lead surviving would've just been a nice extra plus.
reply
share
barbarossa4188
12 years ago
Folks, life in the Mob is never a happy one. Great ending imo.
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
reply
share
mysticlegacy
12 years ago
I can see why the OP doesn't like the ending because it's pretty bleak even for gangster movie standards. It's not just a sad ending, it's a Murphy's Law nihilistic ending where the back-stabbing characters triumphed and all the sympathetic characters either died or got screwed over at the end. But I still liked the ending and even though it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, it also elevates the power of the movie by making it more haunting. Over the course of the long 2 and a half hour movie, the main character Byung-Doo was developed superbly, and even though he was a career criminal, he was still sympathetic because he had his own morals and just wanted to earn money to save his family in order to live a normal life. He tries very hard to make a better life for himself and his family but in the end, everything is all for nothing. I understand why some will hate an ending like that, but I think it's a great contrast to the cliche Hollywood bull$h!t happy endings that seem to preach "believe in yourself and you will succeed" because it's more complicated than that. I think the ending basically says that there are consequences to every action. And the repeated line at the end of Byung-Doo telling Min-Ho to make a movie with a "gangster spirit" is also reflective of the main theme of the movie. A reoccurring theme with gangster movies is that it doesn't end happily.
reply
share
my_boomstick
8 years ago
Thank God you weren't involved in the development of this movie. Your endings suck.
reply
share
doginthefog
11 years ago
I agree with what you're saying that people who are traitors usually see a worse fate and ppl love it, but that's really the hollywood ending that ppl expect. Everyone that is a "bad" guy has something bad happen to him and the "good" guys prevail.
Given though how the director has acted so far, I wouldnt be surprised if down the road he rats out all the "bad guys" anyway. The bad guys are alive and well now but in the gangster world things can go bad real quick
reply
share