Yup. Samuel L. Jackson did not like the ending to Lincoln. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, Steven Zeitchik talks about how some of the year's most anticipated films peter out at the end. His opening gambit consists of the seasoned and cranky (and quite true, in my opinion) words of none other than Mr. Nick Fury.
Here's a taste of Jackson's wise bile:
I have no idea what Spielberg was trying to do.
OK, OK. To be fair, let me put that into context. He prefaces that with some very specific things about the ending; things that might ruin it for you if you haven't seen the movie. Basically, hover over our spoiler mask below at your own risk.
"I don't understand why it didn't just end when Lincoln is walking down the hall and the butler gives him his hat. Why did I need to see him dying on the bed? I have no idea what Spielberg was trying to do. I didn't need the assassination at all. Unless he's going to show Lincoln getting his brains blown out. And even then, why am I watching it? The movie had a better ending 10 minutes before."
It wasn't so bad, now was it? Actually, pretty constructive, if you ask me. I found myself nodding along. Some people might think that he has no business giving critiques on movie-making, but he has worked with the best in the business. He can't be that clueless.
Check out Zeitchik's piece for yourself. It's really worth a read, and takes a closer look at the jam-packed ending to Jackson's latest, the -directed Southern-fried spaghetti western, Django Unchained. Like he says, Jackson has "firsthand knowledge of the squishy ending".
Did you see Lincoln or Django and what did you think of the ending? Is Sam Jackson full of crap, or right on? Let us know in the comments.