I liked the ending but it was a little depressing. She was so smart, strong willed and family orientated I expected her to end up running a large family bussiness, maybe starting a franchise or something. But she just ended up an old spinster.
Please consider me as an alternative to suicide
She was a woman missing the half of an arm, a cripple as they would had judged her as at the time. No one would be interested in such a woman, so that just ads reality to that situation.
shareNo, you are making an unfounded presumption, I think. The loss of limbs was far more common back then, before antibiotics. If a woman had charm and interest she could land a husband; and he may have had a peg leg. The movie made it clear at the end that she lacked interest in marriage. It was a question of her temperament. She was an austere character, despite her good looks.
shareIf you have ever seen photos of women from the 1800s they were far more "rough looking" than what we think of today as a great looking woman.
shareThis is true. Also, since much of life was also tied more toward the practical than the superficial for both genders at the time, what men found attractive in a woman was also different from what we look for today.
shareYup. The cost of blood vengeance in long term. Right there.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sink your boat!
I was born in the house my father built
One element I wish this film had kept more of from the novel was the idea that not only did Mattie grow up old and lonely and having not really matured from her journey, but that she grew to be kind of a hypocrite as well.
For example, there's a passage where the older Mattie praises the government for having passed...the Volstead Act. If you know your history, you know the Volstead Act brought in the era of Prohibition, which lead to gangsters far more heartless and with weapons far more dangerous than Tom Chaney ever could have been coming into power.
I always found the idea of the gangster genre being a descendant of the Western interesting anyways.
"An image can say a thousand words, whereas a word cannot show a thousand images." - N.W.R.
Which would be an anachronism. The main story supposedly takes place in 1880, and the ending 25 years later, which would make it 1905. The Volstead Act was introduced in the House in 1919 and came into effect on January 16, 1920, after both House and Senate overrode a Presidential Veto.
A lot of good people did honestly believe that it would bring something positive, by getting people away from alcohol, unfortunately as we now know the opposite happened and there was probably a higher consumption of alcohol in the US during Prohibition than before or for a long time after.
The Volstead Act did demonstrate what good it does when Legislature bends to the will of a minority represented by strong lobbying, unfortunately it seems that today most of those lessons have been lost.
With all the negative that comes with the Bootleggers and Gangsters of that era, they did embody a very fundamental American trait: entrepeneuralism. They saw a large demand for a product, and delivered it to the customers, making a lot of money.
Which would be an anachronism.
A lot of women were behind the support and the instigation of prohibition, no one could've imagined that it would make things worse and propagate and strengthen gangsters. The only reason you're more aware than the people back then is because it is now history that you're looking back on.
shareyou talk about the sad ending and don't even mention the horse, brilliant film until they added that cruelty in there, i know it was tough back in them days but that was unnecessary, i would of given it a high rating until that bit combined with the girl losing her arm which seemed silly, disappointing.
shareAw, this guy wanted a generic crowdpleaser.
shareRooster showed early in the movie that he did not believe in animal cruelty when he kicked the boys off the porch who were tormenting the mule.
But when Mattie's life was in danger he knew the only way to save her was to get her to the store as quickly as possible and that meant forcing Blackie to get them as far as possible as fast as possible. When he collapsed Rooster knew he was going to die anyway so he put him out of his misery. He took no pleasure in it but he had the "grit" to do what was necessary to save Mattie's life.
And Mattie loses her arm in the book also so I don't get the complaint about that.
Unnecessary? As sad as it was, we're all meant to sympathize with the horse, the stabbing and eventual killing of the horse was so Rooster can save Mattie's life. How is that unnecessary?
shareWas in my eyes needless to add such a 25 years later scene. Downgraded the end to me.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
? As they ride off they leave Ned Pepper's horse grazing lazily, which I thought immediately 'spare horse!' if there's along ride back but they left it...dramatic effect rules
shareI think the end scenes were a mistake as they put a downer on the movie. Yes she was a one armed plain (as written not in the movie) girl so was never likely to get married. But seeing her as a bitter old woman ended the whole thing very depressingly.
A voice over simply stating that she never married and he lived for another 25 years ending up in a wild west show would have been far more appropriate.
I think allot of it was due to the actresses involved. The young girl they had playing Mattie was brilliant as not only was she stubborn and bit waspish there was also a great vitality about her. To see her what she was really depressing.
As others have pointed out it was realistic but so would ending most action movies with the hero 30 years later alone and depressed in an old people's home!