I knew it was only 93 minutes Well the version I watched clocked in at 96 minutes but anyway, yeah so that wasn't surprising to me
Didn't find the ending too odd, it was obvious that eventually they would get caught, I suppose that they got caught with a smile was a bit odd maybe but it made sense. The movie was more of a coming of age buddy flick anyways than a outlaw on the run get free or die trying type of film.
Anyway it was a nice way to end the film the way they did.
Death to mainstream cinema!

Nice observation!

I think the ending was ambiguous enough to theorize that the sheriff may have had thoughts like Big Sam - he smiles and puts his gun up, and it has been made clear that he is out of his jurisdiction. He left the group, is alone, and made his point to himself that he would find them. He doesn't call out to the others, so just maybe, he's going back to being a lawyer

I think some are missing a point or two about the ending. The film is clearly more preoccupied with the growth of their characters than whether or not they escape. It is about being forced to look a man in the eye and judging him for who he really is.
Yeah, they are criminals, they are re-captured, and
maybe
the code had something to do with that, but Cullen was apprehended of his own free will. It is a major sacrifice, an ultimate gesture of trust and friendship, and that trust could not be tested without their recapture. The closing shot shows the two men huddling together as if those chains were still attached, and it is very bold.

I wanted them to make the train, but realistically even if they had they wouldn't have escaped. Tony Curtis was badly hurt and wouldn't have got much further, and Sidney Poitier wasn't about to leave him. The sheriff would have wired ahead and the train would have been held up and that would have been that. And I bet both men knew that-that there was no way they could ever escape at that point.
The thing is, it makes a difference, spiritually speaking, that Sidney jumped. If he hadn't, if he had done the selfish thing and stayed on the train, he would have been caught anyway and he would have regretted abandoning his friend. Sometimes the only victory possible is the one you have over yourself. Both men triumphed over their own hatred of the other's race, but when Sidney jumped, that put the seal on their friendship. It showed that he would never go back to what he was before.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

That scene where Curtis is reaching for Sidney's hand was very well filmed. it was very poignant. when they both tumbled out of the train down the hill I felt soo sad. I literally went "Awwe!" I wanted them both to escape so bad.
~I love the rhythm it is my methoood!~

it seems all the posts are in agreement with one another i saw the movie for the first time today .. i was surprised by the ending i thought it was headed toward one of them surviving due to the action(s) of the other i also did not think their opinion of one another would change so dramatically
" Three can keep a secret, if two are dead "

Well, what was the point of remaining on the train if BOTH of them couldn't hop it? If Poiter had left Curtis behind, those who were hot on their trail would have found Curtis right away (the way they were both found in the actual end) and they'd immediately figure out that Poiter had hopped the train; he wouldn't get very far after that. They'd signal ahead to the train's next stop and it would be all over for Portier, who might even have got himself killed at that point.
Besides, the ending makes a great statement by suggesting it's possible for a racist ignoramus (Curtis) to wise up, mend his ways and earn the respect and friendship of his former adversary (Poiter, of the maltreated portion of Jim Crow society.)
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sigACKKK!!!
TOO LATE!!!

This message has been deleted.

I think it was just that initially the 2 hated eachother but in the end they were cuddled up and got caught and truly cared for one another, basically a message saying that it's hard to be racist if you truly get to know someone of another race.
Also they had had their fun on the outside for a while and now it was back to reality.
They freed themselves of the mental chains if you will.
Death to mainstream cinema!

I like it but I don't understand it. I missed the start, did I have to see it all? Does it just mean that they don't care about being caught?
"Of course it's me, who were you expecting?"

This message has been deleted.

The ending was moreover well executed above anything else, and was the best part of the film. What a satisfying last shot really leaves the film kind of hanging with you. Like a previous poster stated, they really don't really end films like that anymore.

This message has been deleted.

I loved the ending..I was like "awwwww" lol.

Watching a lot of movies doesn't improve anyone's spelling. I wondered what "supprising" was - so I guess I'm not surprised. I love these boards anyway.

I didn't think the ending was suprising at all. The whole movie was building up to an ending like this. The bond between the two of them was growing throughout the movie. The ending was good but not suprising.
Now if Joker would have ran off with that woman and child and Poitier got caught/killed OR if Poitier's character would have stayed on the train and left Joker behind to get caught, OR if after all the bonding they end up getting each other killed because of their hatred then these would have been more suprising plot twists. They would have been more of a suprise if not more satisfying.

May I throw into the ending mix those featured in "The Bridge On The River Kwai" and The Third Man" for their similar surprise value. I agree it is a great climax to "The Defiant Ones" as others have implied here. Good subject, I watched again today on British TV. Frank

This message has been deleted.

Yes. That last burst of submission and joy was incredible.

My mother went to the theater to see this movie when it first came outshe lived in Peekskill, which is upstate NY, which had a large black community for the times for upstate. When Tony Curtis was running to catch the train, and Poiter already on it, the black audience was screaming, "don't jump off, don't do it!" and when he did leap off to stay with Curtis, the entire audience (the black portion that is) booed and hissed! My mother sympathized with their reaction, but she and my dad felt more than a little conspicious leaving the theatre!

Exactly. It wasn't surprising to me at all.
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

I know they were considered "Bad guys" because of the fact they were arrested for crimes they committed, Tony's being that he committed robbery and Sidney for assault & Battery. However their character development in the film shows they werent really bad guys for they grew to care about one another and helped each other as time went on. IT really showed underneath they werent so bad. Of course Sidney's character only committed the assault because he took the gun away from the man who was trying to take his land away from him I believe it was. He had wife and child but of course being a black man he was not treated right during that time. So in reality he was probably not a bad guy and had circumstances been differnet he would not have beat up a man. It seems his character if he did get away would be more justified for getting away had the conclusion came to that but of course it would not have seemed right if one had escaped and the other had not.

For those here old enough to remember the fifties, the ending isn't so surprising. It was part of the Hollywood Code that you never made a film in which the "bad guys" got off scot free. So, even from the beginning, it was obligatory that escaped cons either be killed or captured by the end of the film. Nevertheless, it would have been interesting to see what they would do with it if it had been made after the Code was put to rest. Then again - I doubt that a better ending would have ensued.