Did anyone else feel this movie could have had a much more dramatic and hard-hitting ending? I was expecting something far more shocking. Edward Zwick seems to always shy away from gut-wrenching endings in favour of a feel-good cop-out. The Last Samurai was a similar disappointment.
shareSPOILERS
I agree somewhat. I felt Tom Cruise should have died at the end of the Last Samurai.
As for Blood Diamond, the ending was okay. Leo died doing something unselfish. It would have been cooler for Djimon to pick him up and bring him to the CHOPPER!
Have to disagree on that idea.
SPOILERS
I wanted Djimon to either shoot his son or be shot by his son. That would have been amazing (and far more realistic).
______________________________________________________________________________
I wanted Djimon to either shoot his son or be shot by his son. That would have been amazing (and far more realistic).
______________________________________________________________________________
it would be more realistic, but Digmon's great acting made it look realistic the way it is in the film.
Did you all miss that the diamond was locked away, one more gem kept off the market to keep supply low?
The filmmakers only showed that segment to convey to the user the notion that despite the possibility of being exposed, the diamond cartel will continue their dishonest practice of controlling supply. This also allowed all of the main characters to gain proof of the sale, and bring validity to their "Blood Diamond" claims and message to the world. Thus, Danny did not die in vain.
shareAgree with paulus.....I wanted Leo to get back with the girl?
shareso you think black people killing their family over greed is realistic? ok
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
As for Blood Diamond, the ending was okay. Leo died doing something unselfish. It would have been cooler for Djimon to pick him up and bring him to the CHOPPER!
_________________________________________________________________________
Got to disagree completely with this. I thought that part of the film was absolutely perfect. The standing ovation for Solomon at the end, however, not so much...
I disagree with both.
As much as I would have loved Danny to survive, his death made a much more provocative resolution to his story. If he'd lived it would have caused the ending to lose impact, and seem more like a conformity to Hollywood rules.
In regards to Solomon's character, why shouldn't he get a standing ovation? Think of any interview or feature that centres on survivors of third world trauma, and you see our media paint them as heroes, because they've been through things most people in the western world couldn't even begin to comprehend. What else can you do but show admiration for someone who's survived something so horrific and alien?
Here my hard hitting ending.
Solomon is betrayed by Danny after the reporter is killed by the R.U.F, causing Danny to again lose his faith in humanity. (Danny is not shot)
Danny sells the diamond, but is arrested or double crossed by the diamond traders.
Then the camera pans out to a American couple looking happy purchasing a diamond.
BOOM!
Terrible ha.
shareBetter still...Djimon's greed has him killed and LEO marries Connelly.
shareI was expecting something far more shocking. Edward Zwick seems to always shy away from gut-wrenching endings in favour of a feel-good cop-out.
But what's the point of tackling such tough issues like African civil wars and western complicity in illegal diamond trafficking if you're just going imply that everything turns out alright in the end. The film should make the audience shocked and angry about these issues, but instead it reassures us that its all okay (and let's face it...it's not).
shareI don't think the movie was reassuring the audience that everything is okay now. As soon as Solomon got up to address the assembly at the end, the movie blacked out and stated that wars are still being funded by the diamond trade, that the Kimberley Process is not foolproof, and that there are still hundreds of thousands of child soldiers across the African continent.
It turned out okay for one man in the story, and the diamond company in the movie began to take some heat, but that's not an implication that the world system is now fixed, or that the millions of other people displaced by war got a happy ending. By the 2 protagonists being able to bring a small amount of hope to a hopeless situation, the movie was making the point that individuals can make a difference for the better (even a seemingly dissipated man like Leo's character), IF they actually stand up and do what is right.
If people don't believe that a difference can be made, many of them will tend to give up and do nothing themselves. And if the main characters completely failed and achieved nothing (assuming the rest of the story and plot remain the same), that's exactly the kind of message that general audiences (and let's face it, this movie was marketed to a general audience, not a niche demographic) would get from the movie : that no good can come from fighting for "lost causes."
You're talking about the audience being inspired by the characters. That seeing the characters on screen "stand up on do what is right" will make audience members follow suit.
My feeling is that audiences have seen the "fight for what's right" message a thousand times in movies and it has zero impact. I'd rather see a tough, bleak reality that makes people react. Look at Michael Moore's films. Although he uses humor, he still shows grim realities and he always gets a strong reaction.
The public is already angry about an issue when Moore makes a movie about it, and therefore the emotions and focus and controversy are already there to begin with. And all of his topics are part of the consciousness of Americans every day (American gun control, American foreign policy, American health care, American economics).
You're looking for a movie more along the lines of "Syriana," but again, that is about oil and war and corruption in American/Middle East dealings (current topics that concern many Americans, which is why the movie works). On the other hand, there's a great bleak and heart-breaking documentary called "Life and Debt" about Jamaica's CURRENT crushing poverty, loss of jobs, and general suffering under the globalized economy and Western exploitation, but nobody in the US gives a damn about that movie. You can portray a situation as bleak as you want, but people won't even watch it (let alone connect to it) if they're not interested in the subject beforehand. Similarly, even though Blood Diamond's subject only happened in the last decade, most of the Western public are not conscious of Sierra Leone.
Therefore, Blood Diamond is made very Hollywood-style, in order to connect to a modern and wide audience in a way they can understand. And it worked. When Blood Diamond first came out, it woke up lots of people who had no idea that there was a Sierra Leone civil war (many had not even heard of Sierra Leone), and that all these horrible things happen. There was also renewed interest in what customers could do not to be a part of an economy fueled by war and exploitation, because the topic came up in almost every promotional aspect of the movie.
Anybody who liked the movie did not go "It was awesome because the good guys won!" Rather, they said "It was awesome because it opened my eyes." For the general moviegoing public, this was very much a tough movie that ALSO appealed to them. Like the reviews said, people walk away from this movie not remembering the image of a smiling Djimon Hounsou, but with the image of 10-year-old killers and children missing their arms and legs.
I agree that you need to use Hollywood style to attract an audience. I'm not suggesting Blood Diamond needed to be a doco. (nobody would go to a doco. about Sierra Leone). But, I think once you attract an audience by having an action film with Leonardo DiCaprio, you can then push things a bit harder. If, as you say, people remember the 10-year-old killers missing arms and legs, why bother with the feel-good ending?
Also, I'm not sure Syriana DID work. I found it fascinating but I also felt it lacked a genuine impact. I felt VERY removed from the events being portrayed. It played too much to the espionage element and not enough to the real-world impact for my taste.
But, I think once you attract an audience by having an action film with Leonardo DiCaprio, you can then push things a bit harder. If, as you say, people remember the 10-year-old killers missing arms and legs, why bother with the feel-good ending?
"One of these questions was: are the surviving child soldiers of Sierra Leone worth trying to save?.....a climax where Solomon fails to wake up his son would just answer the question with a big fat NO."
You're probably right about this aspect. I guess I'd rather see a film where the question is: "How do we stop this happening in the first place?" Then seeing more tragic consequences would work better.
Agreed.
sharedissolute dog
very well written synopsis and interpretation of the film and also its ending. I completely agree with you! Although would a bleak ending been more realistic...sure. But is it also possible that even when things are terrible in all ends, that good things can happen? For sure. If Dia killed Solomon, would've been more realistic, yup...but isnt it possible, that after all the manipulation...that someone at a moment can open their eyes to see what they had (hence a loving father), although not common, but possible.
We all know that tht Africa is in all kinds of *beep* and us western countries just pity them for a few seconds and go on living our "comfortable" lives. This movie, through Hollywood tactics, can bring awareness to the issue. Most likely, a lot people will be moved and go on with their life. But essentally, my message in this, is that ANYTHING is possible, even in the most unlikely of circumstances.
On an ending note, D-Dog, another point i thought you hit spot on, was if there was a bleak ending, the movie wouldve need to be completely changed! Touche D-Dog, great read and points!
[deleted]
The ending was too Hollywood for me...good Archer croaked but the sat-phone thing and the standing ovation in London at the end spoilt what was otherwise an outstanding movie. Kudos to Leo on the accent, good job.
shareI liked the ending but i feel the movie should had ended to shot were airplane flew on the dawning sky. Now the part after that was a bit useless, and washed some stronger feelings away.
The best multiplayer internet football (soccer) game: [ulr]
http://soccer.kiekko.tk/
[/url]
I wouldn't change a thing about the ending. It was a happy and sad at the same time - not an easy thing to pull off. I thank the filmmakers for resisting the temptatoin to make the ending too happy, which would somehow be too typical Hollywood.
Besides, I caught myself shedding tears when the jet landed in London, so the ending apparently worked for me!
I am also with you Zred about the ending. Wouldn't change a thing since as you stated, it was happy and sad at the same time.
Never been a big Leo fan, but this movie, now viewed at least half a dozen times,
does it for me. His best effort up there with "The Departed". His acting, his accent which according to many people here, that are from South Africa, was absolutely spot-on! (I've worked with some South Africans and his accent was familiar to my "ear")His see-saw BROmance with Solomon, his attraction to "the reporter" and his betrayal at the end at the hands of his former Commander were wonderfully portrayed. Must admit even the music gets to me, every time. Still get tears and a throat choke at certain parts in the movie..."Dia, Dia what are you doing, Dia!?!" When Leo is talking to Jennifer on the sat phone at the end and says "I'm where I'm supposed to be...with that shot of him grabbing his native red dirt and mixing it with his trickling blood. A most unselfish death.
After all this is a movie, right?! It supposed to transport you there and you are supposed feel something, heh?! This does it for me.
Thanks for reading my .02!
:>>
Ciao for now.
I think the very end was a bit pointless, it should have ended on them locking up the diamond. Really resonated with me, that after all that all they did was lock it away to keep up demand.
shareLol it's funny to see a bunch of amateurs offering 'better endings' than the original itself; all ill say is... there's a reason why you lot aren't directing movies. nuff said.
shareI loved the ending.
shareThe ending was generally okay, of course it remains a HOLLYWOOD movie so yeah, a happy ending and a feel-good feeling (eventhough Danny died) in contrast too a very realistic violent movie, was to be expected...
For me personal, not that Danny died was frustrating, but the WAY he died....the shot wound doesn't seem that fatal - especially not if he would have taken care of it right away instead of ignoring it, but still, he should have reached for the top thanks to the adrenaline...
Ironic too, that he used his first aid knowledge when the other guy, Benjamin, got shot in the car and lived thanks to Danny, while Danny ignored his own injuries, partly due been blinded by the diamond (like he was for anything else, including the hot Maddy)....
----------------------------------------------
"Luke, I am your mother!" "Nooooooo!" (Star Wars)
who knows if this is even worth ranking at all. aren't people tired of watching movies that constantly keep whining about the troubles of african people and the world war era jewish people. I am not saying that things that happened in the past and the ones which are happening now were/are not real. but does every other living human being on this planet is living an absolutely trouble free fulfilling life? do all the other people have absolutely nothing to worry about in their life? people watch movies for entertainment, so that during those 100 or so minutes they could forget their troubles and try to have some recreation. why would people want to sob and cry about the troubles of others when they have plenty of their own, where do they get that kind of time and energy to forget about all the troubles of themselves and their families and start worrying about someone whom they do not even know and would never even know ever. w t f
shareSo they should only make mindless happy feel good movies and never touch on any other subject? No one should care about anyone unless they know them? This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.
shareThey couldn't have ended this movie any better, I thought if Danny made it then it just wouldn't seem right. The ending also tied in with what Colonel Coetzee said about the soil is red from the blood that has been spilled and you see Danny clench it in his hands at the end- perfect ending.
share