Terrific at first, but something's not right... (SPOILER)

Rating: 7/10 (6 August 2000)

I finally saw this again on cable this week. When I first saw this in theatres, I of course was totally blown away. It was stunningly acted, beautifully shot, and, for the subject matter, very restrained, objective, and nonexploitive (the score was a little overbearing, though). All these aspects remain in my second viewing, but the ending seems to negate everything that precedes it. Throughout the film the story is Derek's hatred and his subsequent enlightenment and how Daniel is headed down the same destructive path. We're led to believe that Daniel, by being made to write about his brother, will realize the error of his ways and change his outlook while he's still young and impressionable to do so.

So if this is the point of the story, why do the filmmakers have Daniel murdered in his high school bathroom by some kid that got in his face? Obviously, since he's dead, everything that he just learned the night before means absolutely nothing. Are the filmmakers saying that it was already too late to help Daniel? Why give more pain to Derek and his family in Daniel's brutal, practically random slaying? Derek's already learned what he needed to. Or did the filmmakers just want one more final shocker to tidy up the movie. Why not have him live, and the audience walk out hoping, praying, that he becomes a better man? (Same problem in American Beauty.)

(And what are the odds that a high school bathroom would be completely empty right before class starts? Just wonderin'...)
I am in no way trashing this film. We can add another 90's Oscar theft to the list [Morgan Freeman, Julianne Moore, Tom Cruise, Martin Scorsese, PT Anderson (I could go on), and now Mr. Norton]. And it's always great to see Beverly D'Angelo. But when I discovered American History X in IMDb's top 100, I had to speak up.
7/10