One of the wierdest ironies I ever say was Brian de Palma’s Body Double, a remake of Vertigo. Because de Palma was working in the 1980s, he could throw in oodles of nudity, profanity and graphic violence. Unlike Hitchcock, though, he couldn’t resist tacking on a happy ending.
Lest anyone jump in with this, I think the original cut of Blade Runner was just fine.
In the theater release of Missing, at the very end of the film when Charlie Horman’s coffin was rolling off the airplane there was an epilogue in rolling text that talked about the hassles the family had getting the body back, and so on. I can’t remember exactly what it said, but I do remember it was chilling.
It isn’t on the VHS release and wasn’t shown when the movie played on HBO. I always wondered why it was cut. Anyone know?
In the novel First Blood, John Rambo kills the sheriff, then Col. Trautman kills Rambo.
It would have spared us the two–soon to be three–sequels.
[chill runs down spine]
Did you say “soon to be three”? :eek:
[searches IMDb]
Oh, shit . . .
Worse yet, the plot sounds like a total ripoff of one of Schwarzenegger’s worst movies, Commando.
After reading We Were Soldiers Once… and Young, the ending of the movie version kinda bugs me, since unlike everything before it, it has pretty much no basis in history.
I don’t think that was ever intended to be the movie’s original ending. IIRC, the book & the movie ended the same way. BUT Ray Bradbury did write at the time that HIS ending would have been to have Rosemary grab her baby, flee the coven & run into a church, holding little Adrian up before the Crucifix, demanding “God, take back Your son!” and freezing on that. No battle or resolution, just a challenge.
Not too shabby.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The film Hannibal should have ended the way the book did,
I agree, BrainGlutton…unusual name to be commenting on this film…
But she was hyp-no-tized, and there is no mention of further killings or unusual dining, allthough it is stated that to recognize them would be fatal.
This might not have anything to do with this thread. But I recently saw Return of the Jedi and the new Anakin is there with Yoda and Obi! What the hell is that?!
I liked that change. In the original version, Yoda and Obi-Wan appeared along with some third dude who you had to assume was probably Anakin. He didn’t really look anything like Vader, even the unmasked version. Since the ghost is supposed to be Anakin Skywalker, as he was before becoming Darth Vader, it makes sense to swap in a ghost of Anakin, as seen in Episodes II and III.
I agree. Hayden did a good job, there, too. His little laugh and pose made the whole scene seem more alive and reunion-esque. His bad acting in Episodes II and III aside, it introduced a character whom I knew in place of one I, as Diceman says, had just to assume was Anakin.
I actually really like Hayden Christensen as an actor in his roles outside of those movies, but I too had been annoyed by his presence at the end of the trilogy. Likely more out of disliking changes than anything else. Seeing it from that perspective kind of changes things, though. Good call. I think I can live with it that way.
Me, too–as well as Natalie Portman, and Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson and the rest. I think they just happened to be good actors (or great ones, in the case of Neeson and McGregor) who were hamstrung by a terrible, terrible script.
They should have left the original ending to “It’s a Wonderful Life”, as seen on the Conan O’Brien show.
George Bailey decides everything is great, runs through the town, and is shot to death at a cop blockade.
Let me put forth the film Lucky Lady. It was a very good film starring Gene Hackman, Bert Reynolds, Liza Minelli for about 5/6 of the film. It had a point where the happy-go-lucky heros get doublecrossed and all except Minelli are killed ala Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Bonnie and Clyde. That was supposed to be the ending.
The studio didn’t like the ending, and despite Reynolds fighting for the original ending, they reshot a happy ending where the likeable crew of misfits beat out the bumbling mafia (they really hadn’t been bumbling until that point).
Until the redone ending, the film is quite good.
Naw, they should have used the one from SNL, where at the end, after everything is saved and all of George’s friends and family have rallied around him to save the bank, the scatter-brained uncle runs in, having finally remembered what happened to the money, and the whole lot of them head down to Old Man Potter’s and give him a savage beating. While singing Christmas caroles.
How could you not tell that was the unmasked Vader plus hair minus disgusting skin diseases?
I understand that The 'Burbs was meant to end shortly after Tom Hanks’s “people who mow their lawns for the 800th time (…) it’s us” speech, providing a totally different message than the film as it now appears. It would have been original, unexpected, interesting, and very, very un-Hollywood. But no. Instead we get a stupid, tacked-on ending that makes the movie’s message “Those weird neighbours who keep to themselves and disturb no-one else are probably serial killers”.
What, you mean you don’t live by that moral?
Dude, I am that weird neighbour who keeps to himself and disturbs no-one. That movie is offensive to my people.
Fair enough - and given that I live in London if everyone who kept to themselves and never spoke to their neighbours was a serial killer then there’s be no-one “normal” left to catch them and lock them up.
Saying that I made a point to introducing myself to my new neighbours last week, just to make clear to them that I’m not a serial killer, you understand.