Apparently we will have to agree to disagree, because that is literally a lack of development. I mean seriously, what developed? What changed (besides their circumstances/conditions... which isn't development, that is basic story progression)?
As for the end, the ending is not the time to show character development. It is too late by this point unless the movie is a mystery/thriller genre, where revealing something at the end serves a larger purpose to the moive as a whole.
Well, for starters... the way the movie read to me, was that it was what it was. It was not meant to demonstrate character development. It was meant to demonstrate a handful of other things in my opinion though...
* Brotherhood/family commitment or strength
* Prototypical heist
* Revenge/ Avenge
* Cat & Mouse through the 'smart' veteran detective.
* The unfortunate nature of being too late / Regret
Now you CAN display character development through these facets, but it isn't a given because it is dependent upon the character not the story. Take Jeff Bridges character for example. He acts a particular way from the very first moment he is on screen.Then at the end he is the EXACT same. Sure his characters purpose might now serve an avenging cause as demonstrated through his final interactions with Pines character, but his character is the EXACT same even through that process.then his partner dies
As for the 'good ole boy' cliche, I was just using the apologizing as an example. Run down the check list. Pine and Foster serve as the prototypical yang/ying bro duo of a heist flick. Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with that and they both do a fair job of it. However, there is no development or change in them nor between them throughout the film. And that's rather sad.
As for how I would have shown development or at least, what I think would have helped because again, I don't feel that this movie was done with that as an intention.Nonetheless, I think showing or having a real backstory to go along with Pines "she died" statements would have been better. Had we known how the bank did it, particularly if it was deeply dependent on their situation and eventual outcome. Fosters character talks VERY briefly about how he shot dad and that mom never liked him... these are great avenues to use to show how a character grow or change. The movie allows us to assume that the environment that existed between Foster and the dad/mom could be what drove him to crime (hell, HE SHOT AND KILLED THE DAD), but this is never shown and in my opinion therefore falls flat. Pine is the good one, but we never see him care for his mom, see his devotion, see how the banks greed essentially altered his and her condition which led to this, etc...
As for Bridges character... his character is a monotone, old school veteran ranger stereotype and he actually has the perfect moment for character development as we witness the interactions between him and his partner and the blatant foreshadowing that eventually leads to his very sudden and rather unexpected death. But after that scene, Bridges is the same as we was before, only retired.
I understand time passed, but outside of wanting to avenge his partner, his partner dying appeared to have no real impact on his character.
I hope this better explains my position. Again, I thought it was a good movie for what it was. I thought the acting was good. The visuals were nothing special. The story was nothing special, I would argue that it underwhelmed as a whole. And there was no respectable character development. I use the word respectable there, because simply adding a motive/emotion such as revenge or avenge does not equate for an entire movie lacking in this department.
Again, 6/10. But I am more than willing to read your takes on the movie and see how you viewed it. I am perfectly willing to accept a difference of opinion on this one as opposed to the shit shown a.k.a. Bird Box.