The original ending was better and made more sense. The whole reason why Dan Evens took the job was because he was poor, poor because of a drought. At the end he shoots his way to the train gets the bad guy on it and he is set for a fat pay cheque, then it starts to rain and it's a massive double win. Great success.
...no 6 pint of beer and 7 bottles, and you know what? I'm not even pissed.
Absolutely.
"It's a hard country, kid."
The ending was better in the original
[deleted]
"..has way more action and is IN COLOR."
Wow, two things that don't contribute to a movie being better.
You'll notice I said "deeper" first, followed by "not to mention has way more action and is IN COLOR."
And, generally speaking, color does make a movie better, which is why 99.99% of movies released are IN COLOR. B&W, by contrast, offers a visually flat experience. Audiences understandably much prefer color and producers know it.
As far as action goes, we're talking about the genre of the Western where action (of the Western style) is a staple. This doesn't mean character development and compelling drama take a back seat. Actually they improve the action and make it more meaningful.
To be honest I can't remember the ending of the original. But I found the end of this version predictable and a little ridiculous. Actually I found the whole film predictable and the only interesting character was Peter Fonda's. Not a bad film just not one worth watching a second time.
shareYes, indeed
shareYou prefer a happy ending. That's ok. I thought both endings worked in the context of their respective movies.
share