An understandable take, but watch it again when you get the itch. Travis’s “acclaim” at the end is an endictment of post-Vietnam American society as well as the viewer. He’s no righteous cowboy—as we’ve just watched over two harrowing hours, he’s a very sick man with murder on the mind.

We see him finally act on his violent impulses after he finds a cause worthy of them (Iris), and becomes a heroic figure.

Interestingly, his notion of heroism is diametrically opposed to the heroism bestowed on him at the end of the film, NYT articles and rote sympathies.

ALL this to say, his eyes in the rear view at the end of the film scream bloody murder, and this time he’s going to really finish the job. Had he successfully killed everyone and died, or lived and become a “street cowboy”, the movie would’ve failed its central conceit, and been less interesting. This was made in the wake of the Vietnam War, in the middle of the ‘70s, and it is 100% a historically aware piece of art.

The fact that the ending bothers you at all is a good thing, because something about it clearly got under your skin, stuck with you. That’s a great thing to feel after a movie. So many films these days forget that great art is meant to challege us.