I disagree. The denouement is classic liberalism in action, involving sacrifice (at two or three levels) of the protagonist's self-interest and that of his blood relations, in favor of strangers some of whom don't even speak the language.
It's Moulin Rouge meets The Shootist meets Omega Man. But it's liberal. Eastwood's non-PC demeanor is window dressing, eye candy for the rubes, a step-right-up-and-grab-you-a-big-steaming-hunk-of-liberal-virtue invitation to conservatives to give over and recognize the moral au-thor-i-tye! [</Cartman>] of the liberal message. Clint is America, and his neighbors are Darfur, look at it that way.
If I can I will add one. It has elements of The Wild Bunch. A guy who’s time has passed and feels like he is out of place doing the only thing he thinks he can to change the situation..
I disagree, strongly.
You seem to think that conservatism inherently consists of putting self and family interest above all other issues.
At least for Christian conservatives, the denouement is as conservative as it can get.
Christ himself said, "Greater love hath no man than he who sacrifices his life for his friends."
I reject the notion that doing so is a liberal thing. You don't see liberals sacrificing themselves, they just run around demanding that others do so.
Christ sacrificed himself to save the entire world, rather than promoting the self-interest of himself and his blood relations. Was he a liberal?