The only movie that really pissed me off by how unfair the ending was, is City Of Angels. I mean, what the hell?
Gah! :smack: Sorry about that…
I always felt the George was treated unfairly throughout the film. His brother, for instance, sticks him in a job he doesn’t want to do and only shows up at the end to give him some money. That’s nice, but George has spent years doing the job that his brother was supposed to do.
Of course, my opinion of the movie is different, since I may be the only living person who read the original story (“The Greatest Gift”), before seeing the movie (in July, by the way, so I never associated it with Christmas). Capra made a decent adaptation, but I think the story was more subtle (not Capra’s strong point) and more interesting.
I also later discovered that the movie was a remake of Capra’s American Madness, which Jimmy Stewart replacing Walter Huston and it being set at Christmas.
not sure if this fits the OP but when i think of unfair, i think of Million Dollar Baby.
Vincent saves Mia when she OD’s. Butch saves Marsellus from Zed. Butch kills Vincent.
The one where the cop gets punked by the body changing demon in the end.
I thought the ending of THE DEPARTED was totally unfair when everyone dies.
I felt it was a hamhanded attempt at making it too fair.
In the original (Infernal Affairs), Sullivan survives, and becomes an honest police officer. The new ending seemed designed specifically to ensure he was punished for his crimes.
Not sure if this counts as unfair, or bad theology, but in Ghost at the end
Sam’s Ghost has caused the death of the bad latin/black guy, who’s dragged off to hell for his deeds - but Sam’s Ghost gets to go to heaven, despite also causing a death!
Possibly, however The latin guy had killed him for money, and for all we know it’s not the first time he’s done it either. He clearly wasn’t a good person. Sam, on the other hand, was, and only killed him to avenge his own death (and potentially protect his girlfriend). So I guess it’s what school of theology you come from that that would be okay, it’s not the like the bible is flat out against killing other people.
In both the book and movie Harry Potter and the Philospher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone I’ve always felt Dumbledore was unfair at the year end banquet. I’m not a particular Slytherin sympathizer, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to let all the Slytherin kids go to the banquet thinking they’ve won the House Cup and then snatch it away from them at the last second. The bit about how the hall was all decorated with Slytherin banners and them Dumbledore changes them to Gryffindor banners particularly bothers me. It’s like he went out of his way to humiliate a whole House. He could easily have awarded Gryffindor the points for Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville’s adventure before the banquet and then publicly explained what they’d done to earn them.
The end of Chinatown, when evil John Huston gets off with a minor gunshot wound, but Faye Dunaway dies
Forget it Chefguy…
I always felt that, too. Draco is a nasty little shit, and Crabbe and Goyle are willing little henchmen, but surely not every Slytherin student is a bastard and those points were honestly come by. I call bullshit on Gryffindor’s win.
The whole points system is arbitrary and a cruel way to pit children against one another. And why put the bullies in the same house where all their negative character traits get positive reinforcement.
Hogwarts is lucky that Harry is an orphan. If Harry’s parents were alive and they’d notice how much shit he has to go through for Dumbledore, they’d sue the school for all its got.
Aliens III, but the beginning:
Newt just dies? It kind of makes the previous movie entirely pointless, doesn’t it?
How many times do we have to say this? There was no Aliens III!
Serenity:
“I’m a leaf on the wind… watch how I–”
I always thought the beginning of Alien III was alright, because it just kind of reinforced the idea that Ripley is essentially alone, no matter what she does. The other guys are just along for the ride, and it’s usually a short one.
I think the end of American History X is unfair. Poetic, but unfair.
I agree. From the first movie, I always thought that Snape was treated like shit. He’s a hardass, but he’s not a kiss-ass, and while he singles Harry out, it’s not like this was entirely undeserved. I thought he was just trying to treat Harry like the other kids without giving him the celebrity treatment. When he tries to punish Harry and Ron for stealing the flying car (which would have gotten any other student expelled), he’s overruled by Dumbledore right in front of the children! Yeah, that’s fair. :rolleyes:
Also, he seems to be the only competent adult in the school. Almost all the other grown-ups either don’t see the danger until it’s right on top of them, or sort of see the danger, but they go ahead and manage to get the children almost killed anyway. It always comes down to Snape to investigate on his own without thanks, ward off danger without thanks, help Harry learn defensive magic without thanks, teach the dangerous thankless classes without thanks, etc . . .
I understand he gets his due later on in the series, but still . . . If Snape had died supporting Voldemort, I wouldn’t have liked it, but I wouldn’t have really blamed him either.
My other pick would be the cop in The Whole Nine Yards. As far as I could see, he was an honest cop doing undercover work pretending to be an assassin hired by Oz’s wife. He winds up getting killed by Bruce Willis’s character, who is aided and abetted by Oz in covering the damned thing up! That’s right! Oz gets away with covering up the murder of a cop who would have probably wound up saving his life and getting him the divorce he was seeking.[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup]I only saw this movie once in 2000, so maybe I’m misremembering it, and the cop really was going to ice Oz, but that’s not how it seemed to me at the time.