I dont like the way the movie ended.
Why did jack let the duke go after all this? Did he think he doesn't have enough time to make it to a police station? I dont get it, all of a sudden jack became soft and gave up on the money?
shareWhy did jack let the duke go after all this? Did he think he doesn't have enough time to make it to a police station? I dont get it, all of a sudden jack became soft and gave up on the money?
shareI think it’s Jack’s victory over Serrano restoring his self-respect—in the end, he realized that this was worth much more than the money. I believe this is why, after the Duke thanks him, he says, “No, John, thank you.” As an aside to this, Jack had also had enough of Eddie Moscone’s scummy double-crossing of him. By the movie’s end, he’s earned respect for the Duke, and cannot stomach turning him in to save a lowlife like Moscone.
shareNo offense but you didn't get the movie. He did the best thing! He got him back before midnight, was going to walk away, the Duke gave him the money after he let him go! and he got "in the neighborhood of 300,000, which is 3x as much as what he was promised by the scum bag.
sharehe got "in the neighborhood of 300,000, which is 3x as much as what he was promised by the scum bag.
Of course he didn't, he let him go to prove he didn't do things "just for the fu***ng money" as Duke has said earlier, it was a personal victory for Jack!
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
Of course he didn't, he let him go to prove he didn't do things "just for the fu***ng money" as Duke has said earlier, it was a personal victory for Jack!
He wanted to just get the Duke back to LA before midnight as sort of a promise to himself, then he would let him go. He says that to the Duke just after he releases him.
shareOP, fist, I think he let him go because he was sick of the life and dealing with the scum that he had to deal with and also the fact that he finally got Serrano (like the other post said). But I also think that even though Serrano had been arrested, if the Duke had gone to jail he probably would have been killed anyway by Serrano's people. Jack knew that and could not live with it because I think he kinda of liked the Duke after all they had been through. That's my take anyway!
------------------------------
"Is this moron no. 1? Put moron no. 2 on the phone."
He let him go because he started to like him, and didn't get the "pay off" until he walked away, so it wasn't a bribe. I loved the ending. He proved to himself that he could do it- and he let the duke go because he liked him, and he wanted out of that crappy biz.
shareI liked how it ended with Walsh letting the Duke go but I wonder, where was the Duke going to go after that? Given his previous actions, wouldn't he want to appear as a witness against Serrano and put him away forever? They made it seem like he was going to go into hiding again.
shareWell the Duke still obviously had money saved from what he stole from Serrano. He likely will get back to NYC, grab his wife and probably leave the country. At least with Serrano in custody, he has a head start which is all he really needed. Serrano's people couldn't find him before.
share
Seriously , no offence to the OP but youe watched the film and come on here and said something like that ?
Like , seriously ??
You missed the entire point of the whole film man
--------------------
" No Ace. Just You "
The reason Jack let him go was the fact that in the end he respected him and also he helped him get the heroin dealer that cost him his marriage in Chicago and wasted years without seeing his daughter. Didn't you get that?
shareThe entire reason that Jack let the Duke go is fully explained when they were riding on the train together into Arizona.
The Duke will be killed in prison so he can't testify against Serrano. If Jack takes the Duke to jail then he's helping Serrano kill the Duke. By letting the Duke go, Jack gets revenge on EVERYBODY: he screws over Mosconi, he screws over Serrano, and he screws over Moseley.
Promise me, no matter how hopeless things get, keep on trying, OK? Keep coming chin-up, OK?
[deleted]
Did you even watch this film with your eyes open? Honestly, some people you wouldn't get the point of a story if it was knocked into their heads with a huge mallett.
shareYeah, a typical pat, phoney Hollywood happy ending with De Niro becoming pals with that swindling as-hole, letting the dude go and all that... and, of course, getting rich in the process. Quite disappointing, the way things worked out in this crowd pleaser.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Guess everyone has a different opinion on how it should end, and maybe there was a couple different ways to go, but the way they did it seems the best. You say typical? Not sure too many people would've guessed this ending. Yeah maybe some would have guessed Jack would have let him go, but not HOW he did.
And you say disappointing? How would you have done it different? What other ways to end the movie? Jack turning him in, and walking away? That would have been disappointing. They set Jack up Jack and John forming some type of connection, that builds through the movie, then he would turn him in? Nope.
I think this movie has stood the test of time due to many reasons. Perfect choices for all the parts. Great writing, comedic mixed with drama. That the film was shot in sequence and on location, including the short scene set in New York. The chemistry between the cast, notably DeNiro and Grodin. And , of course the ending. It made sense and fit with how the story played out.
Simply, they had formed a bond, not necessarily a friendship, and had shared an adventure. Jack did what he wanted, got the Duke back in time. His principles. Like not going on the payroll of Serrano. Ad since he did now have a bond with John, how could he let him go to prison and possibly killed.
Each character, if you think about it, stuck to his own beliefs, right or wrong, and that's how it finished up.
-Walsh, doesn't go the payroll, and lets John go cause he doesn't want him hurt
-The Duke, originally took mob $ to give to,charity, and now gives to Jack for letting him go, no questions asked.
-Eddie, chewed out by Jack, and loses the $450,000 and probably his business
-Serrano, stayed to his character, and had to punch through, getting arrested
....and so on.
We would have probably been surprised if Jack had turned him in, thereby negating everything the movie had been setting up to that point.
And whats wrong with a happy ending, especially in this movie the way you got invested in the characters. It's how they did it, that tied up the movie , perfectly
"They set up Jack and John forming some type of connection".
That´s the problem - they should have foregone them becoming some kinda back slapping buddies in the first place. Not only does it feel awfully calculated for cosy effect to win over the audiences, but it is hard to believe De Niro´s character would warm up to this ultimate nagging pain in the ass in the first place. And this isn´t the only instance where the film is marred by disingenuous use of sentimentalist short cuts - the worst offender being the whole deal in Chicago with De Niro´s goddamn little daughter; I mean, is there a lazier, more cliched and annoyingly cutesy way of manipulating the viewer sympathies, than to wheel out one of these sweet daughter-gals?
Overall, it´s a rather fun little film, has a nice sense of adventure, but nevertheless has Ultra-Mainstream Commercial Product written allover it.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan