The Star Wars franchise and The Force has a contentious relationship.
What does travelling through a wormhole look like?
Nope. CAG got stranded on that little island with the only female in the cast after the Congressman blew up the helicopter. It definitely wasn’t by choice.
Any movie where it’s all a dream is a cop out.
Here’s looking at you, Newhart (TV series).
I love this movie and I agree. The best ending would have been Rachel dying and Robbie living. The 2nd best ending would have had Rachel living and Robbie either dying or unknown. Having both kids live was a copout.
The 1964 Vincent Price film The Last Man on Earth is much closer to the book. Not surprising since Matheson wrote the screenplay. He wasn’t happy with the movie so he had his name removed. I remember coming across the movie on late night tv. It might not have been pre-internet but it was certainly pre-internet on your phone. I didn’t know anything about the movie but as I watched it I realized it seemed familiar. I had read the book and watched the Heston movie. I thought it was pretty well done despite it being extremely low budget (and Italian).
It’s a diversion from the main topic of this thread, but the wormhole transit in Interstellar was very accurate, thanks to advice from Kip Thorne.
On the other hand the end of Interstellar was a bit of a copout. Or something.
I’m not familiar with Kip Thorne. How many wormholes has he travelled through?
The ending of the recent F1 (spoilered because it’s so recent) : Either the team should have lost, or Brad Pitt’s character should have died or been paralyzed at the end. But they went for the completely formulaic ending where the young driver (Damson Idris) was in the lead but was knocked off course by the second place driver, so the unselfish Pitt could get the F1 victory he never got in his youth. The fact that ending somehow got an Oscar BP nomination is ridiculous.
It should look like stepping through a door.
Not really, although there is a short period where the aperture appears to be a disk. A simulation here by Scott Manley, based on Kip Thorne’s math;
Spoilered again:
And they had to give Hamilton a producing credit to be the bad guy.
I really enjoyed it as a fun action movie. However, the protagonist’s growth was setup to be the Pitt character learning to do what was best for the team (setup the kid to win), rather than winning himself at all costs. Instead of picking an arc “Pitt grows as a team player” or “Pitt is still an asshole” they copped out so he could do both.
No Country for Old Men is the one that I always feel like is a cop-out ending.
I know, when I tell this to people they explain to me how the assassin character is a force of nature and without warning changes the course (or ends) people’s lives. He suffers the same fate, and the theme is about how things beyond our control affect us.
I view it much more literally. Here is this super competent bad guy, but instead of bringing him to justice, thus making him less competent, or letting him get away with it, thus letting evil win, let’s just kill him off for some random reason that has nothing to do with anything that’s happened so far.
I found it to be an effective and disturbing movie, right up until the end where it fell down to the dumb of a Law & Order episode where the killer gets acquitted, but “justice” triumphs thanks to a courthouse steps shooting.
If you can’t be confident enough in your audience or your story telling to march right up to the edge of evil wins and still not jump off the cliff, then maybe stick to writing children’s cartoons.
But, and again, IMHO, that was what the whole film was about in the background. Humanity was losing it’s habitat, it’s ability to respond to others, and turning to ever advancing AI to fill in the gaps - with a great deal of failures, and neglecting those failures.
It was part and parcel of the whole movie. Better that it ended on the tragic note, which would have made you think about these results, rather than the tacked on postscript which to my eyes confirmed how bleak the results would be, while trying for a heartwarming tone.
Very much my personal opinion, not dismissing yours @Alessan, or @Just_Asking_Questions’s points. 
After I saw it in the theater when it came out, I described it to my mother.
Her comment on the ending was that it was unoriginal: “They never found the Grail in real life either”.
A.I. has flaws not just related to the ending, so there is no perfect solution to what the movie wanted to do.
I don’t view the utter extinction (apparently) of humans to be the beautiful part; instead, I see how the advanced mechas are in awe (for lack of a better word) of their progenitors, these long-dead humans, and how they are so wishing for any contact or understanding, or thanking them (us) for their existence, that they’ll take a robot in human form and give it exactly what it wants*, just for a chance at being with humans, however close a replica David may be. They don’t hate us, instead they may even worship us. That is the beauty of which I speak. If only we deserved it (they didn’t see the movie! ).
*To the advanced mechas, David is about as sophisticated as a toaster. But still, he has a connection to these humans, so he gets their respect. But he didn’t get his actual mother back, that was a lie. Or more precisely, a polite fib.
Not a movie and, I suppose that just mentioning it in this thread is already a spoiler but we just watched the TV show, The Resort. It’s a mystery show about a couple of tourists who are trying to find out what happened to some missing college students, that disappeared from their resort 15 years ago, during a hurricane.
They’re still alive and still teenagers via magic and totally didn’t drown in the cave because …magic!
I think that the writer was trying to evoke “magical realism” but didn’t lean into it hard enough to sell it. And, even if they had, somehow, accomplished that it’s not clear that there would be some meaning to that deeper than, “We copped out”.
Overall, not the worst thing that I’ve watched through. I still might recommend it on the basis that, “At least they tried.” And the ending doesn’t make you throw the remote control or anything. But it does feel like they just ran out of steam right at the last moment.
My memory of the film is that the car accident does not kill him off. He’s got a nasty injury which the boys help him do crude first aid on, sufficient to let him walk away.
The point of that scene for me is that the boys get to walk away too. Throughout the movie Chigurrh has been consistent in killing anyone, even ostensible allies, who could potentially identify him. (“Are you going to kill me too?” “I dont know, can you see me?”). The only exception to this is the guy who married into a gas station, who gets a coin toss. But why the coin toss? Chigurrh is going to get gas and drive away, until the guy mentions Chigurrh’s Dallas plates. At that point, Chigurrh is no longer just a customer, the guy could conceivably link him to news reports about a wanted fugitive in a car with Dallas plates. On the other hand, murdering him will leave a trail.
By rights he should kill the boys, but he lets them walk. His justification for killing is that everyone is wholly responsible for their fate (If the way that you followed bought you to this, of what value was the way?). But the dumb accident shows him that you can’t control everything. He is vulnerable.
(In the book theres a faint hint that the boys’ witness testimony might just lead cops to him, but not in the film.)
the two movies that I like but also HATE their endings are Mad Mad mad World, and Elf with the stupid cops-on-horseback chasing Santa.