Conference bookie::movies

    Wrath and gluttony.

    Excellent thriller... Just got home from seeing this movie and it is
    one of the best of this genre that I have ever seen. It was a squirm in
    your seat, tense kind of movie and I would offer one piece of advise -
    don't eat before seeing it and skip the popcorn!  Freeman and Pitt are
    both very good, and at first I was afraid this was going to be a kind
    of "Lethal Weapon" copycat but my fears went unfounded. Although I
    really enjoy Lethal Weapon(s), this film was in no way a formula
    picture (if you know what I mean)- I doubt very much that it would lead
    to a sequel. I think a lot more could have been done with Gwyneth
    Paltrow's part - her acting was good, but it is a very minor role and I
    would have thought a bit more would have been done to show the
    chemistry and love between her and her husband. I hope I don't have bad
    dreams tonight (like I did after seeing Silence of the Lambs). Oh yeah,
    Kevin Spacey plays the killer and he is very eerie.

    
    
    943.2 > Oh yeah, Kevin Spacey plays the killer and he is very eerie.<
    
        Thank you very much and for those of you who have not seen
    'Citizen Kane' yet Rosebud is.......
    
    
    
    *SPOILER*
    
      
    
    ............just a stupid ol' sled!!!!!

    after you see the movie, you'll realize that I haven't given anything
    away that should have been behind a spoiler.  However, if someone can
    tell me how to edit a note after it's already been entered, or if one
    of the mods can do it, please go ahead and take that part of my reply
    out!

              
    .3
    
    Naming the actor who plays the killer is indeed, not a spoiler (there's
    a ruckus of the same sort going on in rec.arts.current-movies).  In
    this particular movie (which is *tense*), knowing who plays the
    killer is no more of a revealation than knowing Brad Pitt plays one 
    of the cops.
    
    Just trying soothe fears of spoilerdom.
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    
    kim

    

    If you're at all squeamish, do not see this movie.  Very graphic, very
    gross, very troubling.  I slept, but only because I'm into a new hobby
    (tropical fishkeeping) which has me distracted enough that I only
    dreamed of fish.
    
    I went to this movie on the strength of Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman's
    participation.  Not worth it.
    
    I'll not rate this movie, but I can't recommend it unless you liked
    Silence of the Lambs and can handle really gross imagery and a movie
    with no hope in it.
    
    Yuck.
    
    Karen.

    
    -1
    
    sounds great to me! sorta like the 6 o'oclock news every night
    these days. nah the news is worse..cause it's real.
    
    other reviews I have read use such words as ..repulsive, shocking
    ..but thought it was very well done.
    
    The guy that directed Alien  3 directed this one.
    Dave
    

    re .7 (director "Alien3" did this one)
    
    
    Yep, and it showed. Very dark, fairly relentless in it's "there's
    nothing good anywhere", and music video title/credit sequence. :)
    (David Fincher, the director, used to do music videos, I believe).
    
    It's not at all a cheerful movie.  It's not at all a pleasant movie. 
    It's sometimes hard to watch (the darkness of the film doesn't help).
    As someone said on the net, "My friends and I kept wishing someone
    would turn on a lamp".  The chemistry between the two detectives
    (Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) doesn't quite click, although it can be
    forgiven since only 7 or 8 days of film-time passed.  The ending is a
    little unsatisfactory (for me anyway), but believable.  I think the
    pace should have been quicker -- as a suspense film, it should have
    been tighter.
    
    But, it was a good movie.  Brad Pitt turns in his best performance to
    date. The villian is genuinely creepy and loathsome and you truly 
    want to see him ground under the heel of someone like a cockroach. 
    
    It's gross and unnerving and depressing and nothing I'd bounce back
    into the theaters to see again real soon, but I would recommend it.  Do
    leave the kids at home.
    
    
    *** out of ****
    
    kim 

    
    I have only heard good reviews on this, & want to see it all the 
    more!   Thanks movie fans!
    
    
    
    
    Bob
    P.S After I see Showgirls.
    
    
    
    

    Two thumbs down from these movie-goers.
    
    It has the "disturbing" part of "Silence of the Lambs" right,
    but it doesn't give you a villian that you can watch and 
    maybe understand and/or appreciate.  It's not well-written
    enough to justify that level of gruesome.  So you get to
    watch Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman do a good job with what
    they have, but the movie doesn't give the viewer enough to
    warrant watching *that*.
    
    I'm a big fan of "Alien" and "Silence ...", but this film
    is not in that league at all.  
    
    Maybe ** out of ***** 
    

Wasn't seeing the result of the villain's actions enough? Do you
actually have to see the person in the act to understand what a
psycho/sicko this person would have to be?  

    RE: 943.11
    
    > Wasn't seeing the result of the villain's actions enough?
    
    I guess my point wasn't clear.  I don't want to see *more*
    gruesome, I want to understand why I've sat through what
    I've *already* seen.  Hannibal Lector was a character you
    could discuss and appreciate, while being repelled by what
    he had done, and what was happening with the killler in
    "Silence ...".  He's a good character;  Clarisse was a good
    character.  The actual killer in that movie was incidental.
    The killer in "Seven" is also practically incidental -- and
    there was no other villain of stature to justify or explore
    with the audience what was going on.  Compare Hannibal's
    cryptic, "First we covet ..." remarks to anything that might
    explain the actions of the killer in "Seven".  Not nearly
    the tension, the chase, the involvement.
    
    Still a low rating for "Seven".  And even lower when you
    compare it to a better film.  Just my opinion, of course.
    
    
    <spoiler warning>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I also appreciated that in "Silence..." that the victims
    were not people that you know and are involved with.  It's 
    Lector and the current crazy that are getting your attention.
    With "Seven", the mayhem involves the principals you've met.
    While any given movie can deal with this any way it wants to,
    I didn't think that THOSE victims added any dimension to the
    killer or the movie, particularly.  Just added to the gruesome
    nature of the movie;  felt more like a cheap-thrill than an
    integral part of the message.  IMHO, as always.
    

    
    
    David Fincher the director, sure likes the dark and depressing.
    First with Alien III (which most ALien fans dislike) and now this
    film.
    
    I thought it was well done. Actually enjoyed th film (if thats
    the word for it "enjoy") since there is little if no joy in this
    movie.
    
    At the end the matinee audience walked out looking a bit shocked.
    I think it had something to do with that ending. Although one 
    could figure it might end up that way. Fincher confirme one's
    fear that it would end it that way.
    
    Dave
    

    re:12
    I love cheap thrills! Besides it's hard to top Silence or the all
    time classic "PSYCHO" no one really could/can/will!
    
    
    Bob

    This is a good film if you don't stop to think about it.  Interesting
    chemistry between Morgan Freeman and the Pitt.
    
    But, someone please tell me how they got from NYC to the Black Hills of
    Dakota (or wherever it was) in such a short amount of time.  I've never
    seen landscape like that anywhere in NY state.

    They weren't "supposed" to be in NYC.  It was some nameless,
    Gotham-like, ultra-depressing city (which happened to look like parts
    of NYC to me, too).  If you remember the City Limits sign, with it's
    population of n Million, it didn't have a name on it either.  This was
    deliberate.  (of course, they had to actually film the city somewhere,
    your guess is as good as mine).  Nobody ever mentions where they are,
    geographically, in the film.
    
    
    So, the reason they could hop from pseudo-NYC to
    pseudo-looked-like-California to me was because, in the movie, whatever
    rainy, depressing city they were in was only an hour away from the
    sunny desert and all the analogies one can draw from that. :)
    
    Helpfully yours,
    
    kim

    thanks for straightening that out for me.  I have to admit that I had a
    hard time paying attention to a lot of this film.  My little mind was
    just a-wandering all over the place at times.  I think it had to do
    with the slowness of some scenes and some of the disjointedness this
    film had.  Jury's still out, I think.

    For myself, and several friends that went to see it, it was a pretty
    damn-near-perfect example of this genre. Enjoyed it even more then
    Silence (although it's a real line-ball).
    
    I'm not sure if "getting to know" the killer could improve on the
    result - I think part of what was chilling about him is the fact we
    understand so little of him. Certainly a creepy character!
    
    I can certainly understand why some will not recommend it tho ... 

I saw this movie a few weeks ago and all i can say is that i wish i didn't 
waste my money to sit through 2 uncomfortable hours of gore! There are enough 
sickos in the world without Hollywood shoving them in our face and calling it 
entertainment. I am amazed at how many folks like this kind of 
movie-makes me kind of wonder about them... This kind of flick has no 
redeeming social value and is best left unmade. Two thumbs down and no 
stars without question.

/james

spoiler:

Well, at least the bad guy got it in the end for a change.

    
    
    I saw this film over the weekend and I thought it was very well done.
    The theme and content are guesome but the violence wasn't shown being 
    done so it is left more to the viewer's own thoughts and imagination.
    I feel , though the killer was a serious sicko, that the film didn't
    go overboard on violence. I walked out of Natural Born Killers because 
    the violence was brutal and un-necessary. I didn't feel that way in this 
    case because the audience wasn't shown the violence. You look at each crime
    through the eyes of a police investigator.
    
    spoiler warning
    
    
    
    there doesn't need to be any understanding to the reasoning behind
    the killer's actions. The fact is that there is no logic. The guy 
    is a saddist and a wacko.
    
    
    Chris
    :)
      

    
    I know this is not everybody's opinion, but that's the great thing
    about movies, I thought SE7EN was one of the most powerfull and
    engrossing pieces of film making I've ever seen.
    I haven't been able to get some of the scenes and images out of my head
    sinse I saw it.
    Parts of it made me feel sick,and some made me jump, but surely that's
    what film making is all about.
    
    Fincher did an excellent job, as he did with Alien 3. Only this time
    he had some good material to work with. Alien 3 was f..... from day one
    because Fox just wanted to make $$$$ out of it. This time Fincher made
    the film his way and I think he has made a classic.
    
    ten out of ten from me.........
    
    Vince... 

    Finally "Seven" arrive in Switzerland. It was the first time I saw so
    much people going to the theater !! I already saw it 2 times and I
    can say that it's a great movie. Actors play very well and the
    scenario is really good and I really appreciate in that kind of movie
    that you must wait until some minutes before the end to know exactly
    what happend. 
    
    As David Fincher says in an interview it's not a Hollywood Happy end !
    
    I don't know the word in english but I try - ("generic" maybe) - was
    excellent and a lot of people told me that they would like to go back
    to see Seven only for the "generic". It's really crazy because all the
    stuff about Seven that we can found, (CD, books, pictures...),
    everything has been sold just a few days after the movie came.
       
    Flo 

    
    I doubt that "generic" is the word you're looking for. Try again.
    
    I thought seven was very well done as a movie, but it was the final
    straw that convinced us that we really don't like that genre (is that
    the word you're looking for?) of movie and won't go see one again.
    
    I'm sure someone with a dictionary can do a better job of defining
    those two words that I can...
    

    "genre" - a group, or a related class of something. Action, Adventure,
    Romance, Mystery, these are broad definitions. Narrowed down, you might
    consider a "genre" to be something like "action comedy", consisting of
    movies like "Beverly Hills Cop" and "Stakeout". Then there's the
    Quentin Tarantino/Oliver Stone category of "blood-drenched thrillfests"
    like "Natural Born Killers" and "Pulp Fiction".
    
    "generic" - something that is not unique, blends in with the pack, and
    is completely un-memorable. All of the "Police Academy" sequels come
    to mind ...
    
    Geoff 

    I sorta wish I hadn't found this string because the images from this
    film are flooding back - especially how it made my date almost sick to
    her stomach.  I thought it was a well done piece of film (and I
    normally don't think in those terms when watching these things), but I
    too found it disturbing in parts.  
    
    
    
    spoiler:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I'm glad they didn't go into too much details on the later sins as they
    did on the first couple - couldn't have handled that!  I'm also glad
    they did have one or two smiling moments during the film - mucho
    reliefo.  

    The word "generic" is not in the dictionnary english/french but I will
    try to explain waht is a "generic" for me. The movie begin with Morgan
    Freeman and after about 5 minutes we got the "generic" casting, actors'
    names, etc,... this special moment was great and it was the first time
    I saw something like that. 
    
    Reactions in Geneva are very different but there is a lot of people who 
    really like this movie but found that some suspens was missing !
    For my part I really think that the movie is a really good story and I
    found that David Fincher was really clever to not write the name of the
    murder at the beginning of the movie.  
    
    Flo
    
    The problem we have in Europe is that sometimes we have really stupid
    journalist who say before you watch the movie, of course, be carefull
    during this moment you will be very surprise ! so that when the special
    moment arrive you don't have the surprise. I hate these people. I
    remember one time about a movie (I don't want to give the name of the
    movie in case of some people doesnt see it) they say "oh the murder is
    the black man !... Great isn't it ? For my part If I know the ending of
    a movie I don't want to go to see it. 

    I saw this movie for the second time in Cancun last week (English with
    Spanish subtitles).  Everytime they referred to "John Doe", the
    subtitle read "Juan Perez" which I guess is the Spanish equivalent.

    In each country when the Police found someone with no name no address,
    no possibility to find something about that person they  called the 
    man - John Doe -  and the woman -  Jane Doe - until they find something
    more about the person and this for USA/Canada/UK. It sounds like an
    anonymous name.
    
    Probably in Spanish they called him Juan Perez, who knows ?
    
    In french country I have no idea how they call him/her. 
    
    Flo

    
    I have never gone to see a movie or rented a movie I didn't already
    know I'd enjoy - I know my taste.  My taste very often, and I was in a
    mood lastnight for a gory police tale w/alot of suspences.
    
    Well, this movie is not it!  This movie was the 1st movie I have
    rented that I did not like at all.
    
    The movie was SLOW, BORING and too predictable!  I guess the killer the
    second I saw him on the stairs.  The writers didn't give us any other
    charters to choose from, the whole thing was just stupid from start to
    finnish.
    
    If you did not see this yet - DON'T!  and I am a Brad Pitt nut, but
    this movie wasn't even worth renting for him. :-(
    
    Lkp

    I'd have to disagree with the previous reply, respectively of course!
    
    	True it is predictable...but good acting on everyones part,
    especially Kevin Spacey (Psycho) in the back of the squad car. I was
    so impressed with it, I saw it twice on the big screen.
    
    	I find many people go into theaters, expecting to see a movie
    better than the last one they've seen. If so we may have well stopped
    making movies after the release of "It's a Wonderful Life", or "Star
    Wars", or the best in most recent "Braveheart". If a movie has
    entertained me, it's OK in my books.  If your not to critical about
    flicks, go ahead and rent this one.
    
    	H.A.G.O.,
    
    		 J

	Well I caught this one of video last night.  Very well done movie.
	While the subject matter itself was gruesome, the film handled it
	very well.

	I only have a couple of gripes which are spoiler warnings which
	I'll hide behind the following form-feed ....


	The ending seemed out of character with the rest of the film.
	First off Freeman's character opened the package, which could
	have very likely been a bomb.  Then when he did, all he told
	the other cops via his "wire" was that "Jon Doe has the upper
	hand" (why, only reason is to aid the suspense artifically).
	And he (Freeman's character) acted like a complete idiot when
	he started running back to Pitt's character, given Freeman's
	character had only been level headed up to this point.  And
	why didn't he get in the path of Pitt and the suspect?  Instead
	Freeman's words and actions only aided the suspects plot.
	But seeing it was less than the last 5 minutes of the film it's
	easy to pretend they filmed a more realistic ending and let the
	rest of the film stand on it's own.

	Also it seemed out of character for this killer to pose as a
	newspaper photographer, and having him do so did nothing for
	the plot so why did they not cut the two small scenes having
	to do with that?

	I also found it out of character for this killer who was portrayed
	as someone relatively smart, to of obtained a library card with
	his real address (keep in mind about his lack of fingerprints,
	and his bank account only going back 5 years).

	But overall, this was a well written mystery/script.  Less plot
	holes than any Star Trek series episode :-)

    
    I liked it, too.  The plot was a cool concept.
    
    ...spoiler....
    
    I wish it would have shown her head in the box.  I was really hoping,
    but they let me down. Still good though.
    -ss

    Liked the style - hated the movie overall.
    
    The main reason was that I couldn't relate or sympathize with any of
    the characters and as a result didn't really care what happened to any
    of them.
    
    Showing some of the terror of one of the murders (rather than just the
    end result) might have helped - this wouldn't have had to be
    gratuatous.
    
    My guess is that the director felt the same way - hence the over long
    scene in the coffee house.
    
    The most sickening thing was the monologue at the end - oh please !