Good films/shows, Terrible endings

A fantastic, moral-twisting action film with everything going for it, this film just need to end on the ideal note, and they chose what I felt to be a lazy choice in killing 'the bad guy'. To me, it was all about Jamie's character learning to use his heart and not be a thoughtless punk, so it would have made sense to me (and many friends I spoke to about it) that the right thing came to the law abiding citizen (portrayed by Gerard Butler) to get a more formal type of justice, a worthy positive note. I absolutely didn't care for the heartless lawyer for most of the film, a terrible character which worked incredibly well for the film, and it just felt beyond wrong for an ending that the lawyer got the happy result.

I didn't expect the Citizen to get A-List fame and to be celebrated, but it needed SOMETHING appropriate and not as obvious as killing, like a moment of understanding, a thought on how the justice could be more balanced, an idea that change was made to make close to impossible for people to escape justice for their crimes. Heck, I would have gone with the Citizen getting to give verdicts on criminals who live or die (as bad as it sounds) over what was given to us.

Perhaps this will be THE ending I hated the most from any film, simply because I fell in love with it up until five minutes before the end.

A fantastic film throughout, I loved everything about it. Except the ending, of course. Why? I had no idea the Zodiac killings had no conclusion, and the film is very long for it to only end up inconclusive. Sure, that's life, not everything will have a happy ending, but I feel cheated for actually learning about this crazy, evil serial killer, only to learn that officially, they had no idea who did it nor realistically why.

I honestly would have preferred to learn about this from one of those 45 minute documentaries about serial killers and appreciated the facts more without investing myself into an over two and a half hour film that has nothing definitive to conclude with.

A very interesting journey as the film progresses, it got held back by the love angle which added illogic to something that just about had worthy enough excuses to be what it was - a time-travelling outer-body bombing investigation - when the main character shares his kiss with the special lady, and decides he must defy the film's given parameters to be with her.

No doubt people disliked the film from the beginning, but I can't deny, I was just about okay with it all, but the point when it became about the island as the grand finale let me right down.

They could have added ANYTHING from the point when Superman goes out to the water, a hundred potentially better ways could have happened from here forward, but in the end... it was about the struggle of Superman, the most physically immense superhero who never takes it for granted, the 'boy scout', it was about his struggle of removing a kryptonite island from the sea, throwing it out into space.

I overlooked a LOT (down to the Superman stalking Lois Lane phase) but that was the line where I couldn't accept anymore.

From the get go, I always thought this film should have been split into two. This could have focussed on the Sandman story and closing the Goblin 'trilogy' story-arc, while warming up the elements for the Venom story, and the sequel could deal with Venom (and to some extent, the Lizard story too, if it doesn't feel convoluted).

That aside, the film had many elements that were questionable. I put that down to what looked like a shoe-horned addition of the Venom story. There were unforgivable moments too, like the dancing down the street. The core actors that looked increasingly disinterested with this film and so on. But the point that I simply hated was after everything, the fight led to the rebirth of a friendship with Peter and Harry Osborne, and the eventual soft liberation of Sandman. Fine, it had an aura of understandability to a section of viewers. To me, however, it was a shoddy let up after everything Harry and the Sandman had been embroiled in, and the conclusion was less of an ending to me and more of a "it'll do" situation.

A great pair of films in a trilogy, that ended so poorly and became a let down to most viewers. I simply think the viewers deserved better. Gratefully, a reboot of the franchise happened, and an enjoyable film came from it in the form of The Amazing Spider-Man. Here's hoping the franchise only gets better now.

I would have been content with the film ending on the boy finding what he had looked for the whole film, and maybe a moral-fuelled narration, but instead they prolong a film I found mostly interesting with the questions it posed on humanity with awful positivity... by giving the kid his parents back... 2000 years later... just for one day... thanks to some aliens.

It dragged so unfavourably.

While many would disagree, I personally enjoyed 2003's 'Hulk'. Well, the first half at least. It was a fresh way to deal with the Hulk in the most fascinating way; by looking at the psychology of Dr. Banner, which itself created the Hulk.

Once that was made clear, the film crumbled under the weight of not having anything exciting after that, by effectively being lazy. Fighting an unequal in mutated dogs, a few army people, and his father who takes on the physical qualities of whatever he touches. Thus, it became shockingly disinteresting, rather than interesting and cool.

The great build up will so easily be overlooked after introducing aliens and having the guy give up on saving the inevitably doomed Earth. Perhaps a better chance given to saving the world would help, but I think what would have been more greatly beneficial and would definitely improve it hugely, would be a greater highlight of understanding what's truly important in the world (ie family, relationships between people, appreciating the moments we do have etc) and not squandering those opportunities would have made the difference in turning this film into a reward for watching it. Also, the female lead annoyed the fecal matter out of me, come the later stages of the film.

A swift change in tone that felt like a swift kick to the nads, I really feel disgruntled thinking about how this film started so interestingly and in the end, it became so... lost.

...and speaking of lost, when you follow a TV show for six seasons with over 20 episodes in each, and find every episode leaving more question marks than a Riddler outfit, with very little being answered... it hurts. What hurts more is being told all the answers of these questions will be given in a live 2 hour worldwide broadcast of the series finale, only to find that:
a) They mostly weren't answered, and
b) The explanation of their existence is severely anti-climatic and nonsensical, itself leaving even MORE questions, some hope gets lost.

A curious and fascinating journey, but nothing worthwhile came off it. I genuinely feel I wasted a large chunk of my life.

Following the suspenseful build-up of curious events and strange murders, the resulting end was a huge let-down when you find out that it's just a town of people who manipulate control in what appears to be a century or so back, but who actually lived in a secluded forest reserve in the middle of America in the modern day without telling the villagers.

Just pants, really.

At this point, I'd like to add every M. Night Shyamalan film made after Unbreakable, and has a twist ending (I've not seen his films since The Last Airbender, so in fairness I don't know how their endings fare compared to the rest of the respective films)

Graeme McMillan from the Time sums it up best: "The Bourne Legacy lacks the two things that you expect every movie to have: There isn’t a beginning, and there isn’t an ending." (http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/15/will-the-bourne-identity-usher-in-the-story-less-movie/)

While an issue, I can forgive a lack of a beginning as it's pretty obvious where it's following from to most, but the ending (or lack of) makes me want to punch a duck, get on a boat, sail off into the distance, and...

*end scene*