First off I just want to say that I was actually kind of unimpressed with this movie because I thought it had potential but didn't meet my expectations. I know everyone else thought it was pretty good but as a whole i didn't like it that much. I think it was all the different twists that Fincher kept throwing into the movie which i thought started to take away from the movie especially at the end. I think that the final scene of the movie is typical of Fincher because from what I've seen from him in others movies like fight club, he likes having the plot twists. Personally though, i think the last scene was too over the top and ridiculous and the plot twists actually detracted from the movie. I know when we were watching the movie we were all actually laughing when we found out he didn't commit suicide and they expected him to jump off the building at that exact spot because there had been so many plot twists that we were expecting another one. While I'm all for a good plot twist, having 7 or 8 in the last twenty minutes is just overkill. Plus, having so many surprising turns actually created a bunch of holes in the story and situations where we as an audience are inclined to think "that would never happen" like how he just happens to play perfectly into their plan and shoot his brother with through a campaign bottle and then jump off a building through breakaway glass into the center of a large x on a pad that breaks his fall. Overall I was just unimpressed with Fincher on this one.
Kyle, I see what you are trying to say, and I can agree for the most part that Fincher crosses the boundaries of realism to create a fairy tale plot with so many twists and turns that I began to get nauseous by the end of the movie. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The fact is that most of the holes that you described can be solved, if you bare with me for just a second, by the psychology test at the beginning of the movie when he first decides to take part in the game. He complains about how long the testing is and how painstakingly slow the process has been as it basically drained his entire day, and through this we can deduce that the psychological testing was incredibly thorough, allowing them to figure out the way the man thinks. That is what the movie wants us to believe, and is the justification for them being able to predict that he shot his brother at that point, and that he would try to kill himself right after that. Also, they did have people on the rooftops watching him, so if he were to stray to the wrong side of the building for his leap of faith, they probably would have redirected him to a different ledge. Personally, I thought the twists were exciting and rather enjoyable, as my mind was blown completely out of whack at the end of the movie when we find out it was a game all along. Fincher is just playing with us, the audience, and uses 31 flavors of deceit to disguise the true reality of the movie in the end. Finally, although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, you have a point, the 80 plot twists over the course of 2 minutes would make even M. Night Shyamalan jealous, and got to be comedic and expected by the end of the movie. I enjoyed it, and am looking forward to seven.
Jordan, its not that I think it was a bad movie, in fact quite the contrary I think it was a pretty good movie, its just that i was unimpressed with more the plot than anything. I think Fincher did an excellent job directing the movie as a whole but the plot twists just brought me out of the movie and made it not quite what it could have been. The Game just didn't live up to my expectations after seeing some of Fincher's other work. Also i guess i didn't really think about the psych test that they gave him. That would help explain a lot of what happened but still you can't tell me that its not far fetched to say that a test could tell you exactly how someone would react to every situation. The whole thing just seemed to play out way to perfectly like how when you thought that maybe they might have screwed up at the end they actually knew that he would take that gun from his house and shoot him through the champagne bottle at that exact time and jump off of that exact spot at that and it was all part of the plan. Damn you David Fincher. Although I too am looking forward to watching Seven because though I've seen it already, that was a while ago and i am eager to watch it again. Hopefully not way too eager.
I think Fincher did a great job with this movie. Yes, it is a little over the top with all the constant twists, but overall the presentation of the film worked. I also agree with Kyle that the final scene of the movie was just too much. Douglas's character could've jumped off of any part of that building. Nobody would've have been able to stop him because they were to busying weeping over his brother. One part of the movie that confuses me is when "burglars", actually CRS, vandalize his house. What function did this serve in the movie? I mean there is the obvious to give him the note to remind him of his father's suicide, but there are endless ways they could have thought of better than trashing his house. Tommy D
I agree with French Toast. The film as a whole was quite exciting, and entirely entertaining. In this particular film, Fincher breaks away from the cold, nightmarish worlds that he creates in films like s7ven and fight club. This film has many similarities however, it shows the deterioration of a seemingly sane man's mind. Instead of creating a false identity however, this man is thrown into a false world much like that which could be described by Hunter S. Thompson as an acid frenzy. This man takes a journey through a familiar world, and faces many ridiculous obstacles. The fact that he did not actually die though truly upset me. I thought it was all leading up to a huge misunderstanding that would ultimately cause him to face the demise of his father before him. In my opinion, Michael Douglas plays an important role as an autuer, his style of acting drew me in to the story itself, and had me eating out of its hand the entire time. Just as I thought I had things figured out, an exciting new twist confused the hell out of me. In the case of this film in particular, I feel that Fincher was the "author" of this film. His most recognizable cinematic style was simply not present other than in terms of the delivery of dialogue. The subtle off hand remarks made by characters did effectively remind me of Tyler Durdan's form of speech. However I feel that had it not been for Michael Douglas who did an amazing job playing the protagonist, this film would not be in any regard a typical fincher classic. His performance brought to mind the cinematic styles that fincher strives to create in his other films, but as a whole Fincher was truly behind the scenes on this one. I did enjoy the film however, and I would definitely like to revise it. ~Pablo Ramirez
Although i wholly agree with the argument that some of the plot twists are a bit excessive, i really don’t think it took as much away from the movie anywhere near as much as kyle thinks. although the ending scene was a little over the top, i t was completely expected, by me at least, for the entire thing to be part of his “game.” The good guy wins in virtually every movie ever made, and therefor we could assume all along that he wasn't really in any danger. If you attempt to poke holes in virtually any movie you will find tons even Star Wars, honestly even the best movies of all time has some flaws so how can you expect to have a movie without holes. In todays culture movies are primarily a form of entertainment rather than an art form (wether you like it or not its true) and for directors to be successful they must sacrifice some artwork to make the big bucks that is fine with the general public. Overall this was a very entertaining movie and as long as you don't over examine the movie it was a lot of fun to watch. Stop poking holes kyle.
Stop poking holes kyle indeed Mr. Massey. I couldn't agree more, the fact is that with the extensive psych test that took the entire day for him, they are going to know a lot about what the man thinks and what the man does, and not only that, but they've also got a bunch of inside men, such as his brother, ex-wife, and lawyer, all of whom seem to know him fairly well and can help to relay the whereabouts and the movements of him. Also, at all times they had someone waiting to save him, so they probably had nets or something like that on the other sides of the building, but just never showed them, and if you think about it, hypothetically speaking of course, if you were to kill yourself you would probably be feeling miserable, and we all know that misery likes company, and the best way to spread your misery would be to jump down into a ballroom which we can assume is being used, where you ruin hundreds of peoples nights by making them witness a suicide. Pretty traumatic stuff that could make a person miserable, and we are never shown the other sides of the building. If you really want to, you can poke holes in the movie even though they can be filled with previous information that we have learned and a little reading between the lines. Fincher has created an excellent movie here, one that is as good for it's acting, as funkwell douglasson talked about, as it is for the mind-blowing twists that Fincher seems to love to add to his movies oh so much. I enjoyed thoroughly, and don't over analyze the movie to find every pin-point detail that might or might not be their. Don't be that guy, you're better than him.
I agree with Jordan, don't be that guy Kyle. The movie was great, and the plot twists are daivd fincher's style. I also noticed alot of dark, low lit scenes which may be another style of Fincher's. I am going to have to disagree with Jordan. You are taking a lot of liberties with filling the holes that kyle is poking. As an audience we shouldn't have to fill multiple holes ourselves, but the movie should fill those holes for us. The twists, creating more and more holes, take away from the over greatness of the movie and bring it down to only a good movie. I hope that in the next movie we watch, Fincher won't be too eager with the twists.
Although i agree with French Toast's assessment of the twists being to much i disagree with his reasoning. At this point basically every story has been told a million different ways and i think Fincher's millions of twists is just his way of trying to create a "new" story. If he was successful or not has to be left up to the viewer but i personally think it was. Also most of the holes that were poked really didn't distract from the movie unless you WANTED to be distracted. If you allowed yourself to be immersed into fincher's excellent movie, the twists simply kept you guessing and made for a thoroughly enjoyable film. Is it a film to rival some of the all time bests? does a restaurant like olive garden claim to be 5-star? Of course not but if you allow yourself to enjoy it you will have a fabulous experience. what I'm trying to say is that if you try to take a film and make it something that it isn't you will obviously find flaws but instead enjoy it for what is. A very entertaining movie.
Just so you know Jordan, I'm very unimpressed that i beat you yet again after you challenged me and i waited till after 9. Anyways, I really like Seven a lot. I'd seen it before but i had forgotten about a lot of the events that had happened in the middle of the movie and had been to young to understand a lot of what was going on. After seeing some of his other work this is clearly a Fincher film. The final scene going into the credits is what gives it away. Going along with a typical Fincher film there has to be a plot twist that you kind of saw coming but at the same time weren't entirely sure it would happen. Having Brad Pitt's wife's head show up was pretty obvious once the moment came close but you weren't quite sure. Don't get me wrong i loved that scene but pretty much everyone at our viewing called that part. What really surprised me is that Kevin Spacey's character, the bad guy, ended up winning. The acting job done by Pitt while contemplating his decision wasn't exactly Oscar worthy but it was really surprising to see him shoot Spacey and have the bad guy have his way. Bravo Fincher, bravo. Though i think we all know that what was really in that package was deceit, 31 different flavors of it. Also i think this film was done a lot better because while there are a fair amount of plot twists and surprises, you don't get beat over the head with it like what happened in The Game. The credits in this movie also reminded me of those in Fight club which we will be watching next and I'm excited for.
i agree with almost everything that kyle said. This was a very very solid movie that Fincher made and i am definitely starting to see his distinctive style come to life. He is very skeptical about human kind and has Machiavellian ends justify the means attitude about modern society. this is evident in both the main character, played by brad pitt, and the "John Doe", played by kevin spacey. Doe's final goal is to improve society and although his methods are obviously a bit sadistic, Fincher definitely shows he believes that the ends justify the means. Through brad pitt he paints a picture of why society is broken and needs to be fixed. Pitt is a headstrong and overconfident detective who just moved to the city. He continually rushes in while his experienced partner tries to get through to him to slow down. Possibly my favorite part of this movie was that although it was without a doubt it was cheesy at times, it wasn't the typical cookie cutter plot like 99.9% of hollywood movies. i was actually somewhat surprised when pitt shot spacey because i was expecting a gooey stupid revelational ending. This is why i love Fincher, although Se7en wasn't that great of a movie it is refreshing to have a director who will step out of the frame that hollywood has constructed.
I agree with Fincher breaking barriers with his movies. The "hollywood ending" that is typical of blockbuster movies really bugs me. Also, this movie has the audience torn at the end. Spacey clearly deserved his death, but I almost didn't want Brad Pitt to kill him. Fincher combined with Spacey did a great job at developing the characters and in the audience I could really see what has going on in their minds. This also showed through in The Game with Michael Douglas. Also, the twistyness of this movie was toned down a little and I like that. There was just enough to keep me on edge but he wasn't to eager and put in to many twists. My question is that I know Brad Pitt represents the overconfident youth, but what does Morgan Freeman represent? Tommy D
In response to French Toast's question i think Morgan Freeman embodies a couple of roles here. First and the most obvious is the mentor, similar to those in a Kurosawa film like "Stray Dog." Freeman's character helps guide Pitt, like Massey said, through experience helping him contain his head strong nature by being the calm, cool, and collect one even in situations like the final car ride where Pitt is clearly rattled. Secondly i think that Freeman's character functions as the observer, almost like part of the audience yet can interact with the story. He sees both sides unfolding as he understands, but doesn't agree with, what John Doe is doing while also understanding Pitt's character and his troubles unlike Pitts character who gets too caught up in the moment and in the end loses it.
Just a quick thing, isn't Morgan Freeman also the narrator? which would only continue to support Kyle's assertion of him being an observer. Anyways, I found this movie to stray a bit from the Fincher ways more than you guys have cared to admit. I felt like the first hour of this movie is completely different from the typical Fincher movie, in that the focus wasn't on mind games with the protagonist, or what the protagonist is going through in an effort to characterize him and than change that original characterization to something totally different, but was much more of a mystery film noir-y type of feel to it. The whole point of that hour was to solve the mystery, and only once they started to get hot on the trail of Spacey did the movie turn Fincher-y, but besides that I liked it a lot, but not more than the game. It was a lot more morbid than the game, and is basically setting up for fight club perfectly when you mix the morbidity of se7en, and the psychological mind games of the game. Overall, the ending seemed almost cliche to me, until Brad Pitt shot Spacey, and French Toast said it perfectly, at one point you want Spacey to die for being a twisted psychopath who kills for pleasure, and yet you don't want Brad Pitt and his lusciously seductive bod to give in to the mind games and blow spacey to smithereens.
I agree with many of the things bade has said in his last post, i especially enjoyed his comment on how the two films added up to create Fight Club. I do have to disagree with his evaluation of the first hour being non David Fincher-y. Although the first hour was very much like a film noir as Jordan said, most psychological thrillers start as a typical movie, take fight club or shutter island, in fight club it doesn't get "loopy" per say until they make soap and Tyler Durden burns the narrator. In shutter island the same is true when it doesn't get good for a long time in the movie. another example is the Shinning which many consider to be one of the better thrillers of time and that also doesn't heat up until the second half of the movie. To put it in the words of Zander Fried, a friend of ours and please excuse my french, "Shutter Island was a mind fuck". For a good psychological thriller need to be set up with an average Joe and in a normal situation and to best accomplish this you need a long time to establish the characters so that you can notice their change as they go from normal to psychotic.
I completely agree with greg. I feel that the first hour of Se7en was setting the audience up for the next hour of the movie. With alot of thrillers, like greg mentioned The Shining, the movie doesn't get exciting till the end. But the most important part of the movie is the beginning. It draws the audience into another world, and without great direction and performance, the audience won't get into the movie and the ending will have no effect. I feel like that kind of happened a little to me with The Game, but in Se7en I was throughly engrossed in the movie and loved the ending. I can completely see Morgan as the narrator, and actually can't see how I missed that before. I can see where Jordan is coming from with the "non fincher" feel for the beginning of the movie, but I think the more subtle things are fincher. I personally have found fincher to use alot of props as symbols. Morgan Freeman was shown in the beginning falling asleep to a metronome. Then, after a couple of the murders he smashes the metronome showing his development from an orderly/clam detective to a passionate/involved detective. Tommy D
Well French Toast and Massey, I suppose you're right in that the beginning of the film is being used to set up the Fincher ending that we have all come to know and love, but the point that I'm making, is that the movie started out as seeming to me to be a kind of horror movie/ saw movie, where a bunch of people are being killed, and eventually these people are going to get involved and probably be killed as well. That was a bit annoying for me, and detracted from the movie a bit, I liked the game better than se7en as hard as that is to believe, but I still thoroughly enjoyed se7en. Both have been incredibly enthralling and I can't wait to watch fight club for the second time and realize how obvious the twist is. Supposedly the second time you watch it is nearly as good as the first time, because you catch on to the clues and the various hints that Fincher gives us. As for the symbolism thing French Toast, it seems kind of like a stretch, I feel like it was just him realizing how monotonous his life had been up to that point, and in that sense he is breaking through, but his character isn't changing, but that's just my opinion.
Ah Fight Club. The Fincher classic. The reason we knew who he was. I've seen this movie four or five times now and its still amazing. After watching the other two movies, especially Se7en, its not hard to tell that this is a Fincher film. Not surprisingly made last of the films that we watched, Fight Club was for sure my favorite of the three and in my opinion done the best. One thing that Fincher seems to do in all of his movies is make you think and I believe that this one does it the best out of all of them. The scene where Ed Norton's character looks back at how he had only imagined Brad Pitt's character demonstrates this the best. Leave it to Fincher to have the plot twists where everything you thought you knew isn't true but unlike The Game, i think he covered his basis much better here. I think the everything being in his head is a much better excuse for an unrealistic event than a psychology test that predicted absolutely everything. As a whole my favorite Fincher film.
Kyle for once i have to agree with basically everything you have to say about this film. This is the only Fincher film i had seen before this project and i think the reason that our group decided to do Fincher for this project in the first place. Fight club is one of my favorite movie of all time and i think it strikes a perfect balance between comedy and mind bender. Like the other two films he views the world in a very pessimistic way but between better development of his characters along with a more believable storyline (although still ridiculous) i think he pulls this off significantly more convincingly. Like the other films it takes place in a the seedy underbelly of a modern city. A common theme in Fincher's works is the hero becoming more natural. in FC this was in the form of Pitt's character trying to remove the pansy-ness of the modern world. this is also evident when the rich man in the game was forced into a violence filled environment that many would call "crude" but Fincher obviously believes is the superior state of living. the same is true of the cop in seven who starts off wanting to live in the city to get away from the "uncivilized" country foke but soon reverts to animal instincts and kills over his rage
I completely agree with both Kyle and Greg. Fight Club is the epitome of David Fincher. The first trait of Fincher's that we all noted was the plot twists. Almost painful in The Game, only a few small twists in Se7en, and one of the most notorious twists of all time in Fight Club. I will also have to agree with Greg, and change it around a bit. Fincher's movies commonly comment on the corrupt city life. The main character isn't necessarily corrupt or corporate like in The Game, but more like the setting of Fight Club where Brad Pitt is attacking the corrupt credit card companies to bring everyone back to zero. Tommy Dolan
This was the second time that I have seen fight club, which many would argue is the most optimal viewing of the movie. Having seen it before, I knew the typical Fincher twist was coming and I knew how to search for the twist which is something that I couldn't do in the previous two movies which made it even more exciting, because you get to see the intricate design that Fincher uses to give the viewer enough information to find out the truth behind the movie, while still leading them to conclusions that aren't true because they have only been assumed rather than established. This made the movie that much more enjoyable for me, as I knew that Brad Pitt was a mere figment of Ed Norton's imagination, and the signs of this are all blatantly obvious the second time around, so I say props go to you David Fincher, for thoroughly deceiving pretty much anyone who watches your movies, and making them feel like idiots for not catching your 31 flavors of deceit. I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, and I think it can be described very well as a Fincheresque movie, as it shows his relatively melancholy views on human nature and as always contains a huge twist at the end that is, in the words of another student who shall remain anonymous, a mind-fuck.
A point that Jordan brought up but that i think needs some expanding on is ho the 2nd time is the best viewing of this movie. By now i have seen this movie a half dozen times or so but i still vividly remember my "first time". i was thoroughly confused for the entire movie and was really underwhelmed until the very end when i was like "well that was kinda cool". point being that i had no idea what just happened. then a month later or so i watched it again and i was hooked. the intricate and subtle details that fincher includes are brutally obvious once you know the ending. you feel completely idiotic for not figuring out the twist earlier and to some it up, its f**king AMAZING. i feel as if fincher almost expected this movie to be watched a second time. what this makes me think is that i really should watch the other two movies again... or maybe that is just what fincher wants so he can take more of my money...DAMN YOU DAVID FINCHER
Along with Jordan and Greg, this wasn't my first viewing of Fight Club. just like Greg, I remember not being to impressed with the film the first time I watched it. The twist at the end reminded me a little of M. Night Shamalamanaa. Then, sometime later, I rewatched the greatness that is Fight Club and David Fincher. He has his tell tale traits, the dark look upon the city life, and his love for twists. The twist is so obvious, yet so hidden at the same time. My favorite example of this is when Edward Norton is talking to Brad Pitt in the kitchen. Brad says "promise you won't talk about me to anyone." and he makes him promise three times. This, during the first viewing, seems a little odd and out of place. But nothing out of the norm. The second time it's a slap in the face. Damn you David Fincher... Tommy Dolan
Couldn't agree with you more Nolan. This movie is the culmination of greatness in movie making for David Fincher, one could say that it's his Mona Lisa. He uses the epic twistiness of the game combined with the grim view of life in seven to create this masterpiece of grim looking society bent upon following the social structure that it has established while taking this structure down with a masterfully placed twist. Fincher knows what he is doing, but unlike Nolan and Massey, I thought that Fight Club was an excellent movie when I saw it for the first time. The movie kept me confused for quite a bit, but my mind was blown when I found out that Brad Pitt was a figment of Norton's imagination as I tried to piece together what little information I could to make sense of the movie. The mental brainfart that I had at the end of Fight Club is one that I will remember for some time, and I know that David Fincher and his twists is one of the greatest directors of all time, but as always; Damn you David Fincher!
I have to agree with Jordan on this one. Personally i really liked fight club the first time i saw it because my mind was blown at the end of it. Unlike V for Vendetta which i liked a lot more the second time because the movie made much more sense, Fight Club just had such a twist crazy ending that i thought it was too awesome the first time to get any better the second time i saw it. Like when i saw V for Vendetta the second time, Fight club also made much more sense upon a second viewing but there's just nothing like the first time. The best Fincher film but i also agree with Jordan. Damn you David Fincher!
I disagree with Kyle and Jordan, the very first time I viewed Fight Club I was about eight or nine years old. I was too young to understand the plot and what happened at the end of the film. After revisiting the film, I can safely say that it was excellent. The cinematic style in my opinion was very similar to that of S7ven. There is a somewhat depressing feel to the film, mixed in are hilarious peices of dialouge that not only keep the audience entertained, but keep true to the way that Fincher directs his films. For myself, I noticed things about the film that I was unable to appreciate about the film during my first viewing. This time instead of focussing on the fight scenes and the progression of Edward Norton's insanity, I found myslef trying to better understand the philosophical mind behind Tyler Durdan, as well as the subtle life lessons that are presented in the film. I did appreciate the way that Fincher's directing brought forth in my opinion Brad Pitt's most breakthrough role, he did the whole pretty boy thing, but at the same time the gritty realism of a person similar to his character shows that he has more variety under his belt than previously conceived by most. Overall I enjoyed this viewing of the film the most of any time that I have seen it. I can only imagine what the world would look like after the buildings explode.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
27 comments:
First off I just want to say that I was actually kind of unimpressed with this movie because I thought it had potential but didn't meet my expectations. I know everyone else thought it was pretty good but as a whole i didn't like it that much. I think it was all the different twists that Fincher kept throwing into the movie which i thought started to take away from the movie especially at the end. I think that the final scene of the movie is typical of Fincher because from what I've seen from him in others movies like fight club, he likes having the plot twists. Personally though, i think the last scene was too over the top and ridiculous and the plot twists actually detracted from the movie. I know when we were watching the movie we were all actually laughing when we found out he didn't commit suicide and they expected him to jump off the building at that exact spot because there had been so many plot twists that we were expecting another one. While I'm all for a good plot twist, having 7 or 8 in the last twenty minutes is just overkill. Plus, having so many surprising turns actually created a bunch of holes in the story and situations where we as an audience are inclined to think "that would never happen" like how he just happens to play perfectly into their plan and shoot his brother with through a campaign bottle and then jump off a building through breakaway glass into the center of a large x on a pad that breaks his fall. Overall I was just unimpressed with Fincher on this one.
Kyle, I see what you are trying to say, and I can agree for the most part that Fincher crosses the boundaries of realism to create a fairy tale plot with so many twists and turns that I began to get nauseous by the end of the movie. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The fact is that most of the holes that you described can be solved, if you bare with me for just a second, by the psychology test at the beginning of the movie when he first decides to take part in the game. He complains about how long the testing is and how painstakingly slow the process has been as it basically drained his entire day, and through this we can deduce that the psychological testing was incredibly thorough, allowing them to figure out the way the man thinks. That is what the movie wants us to believe, and is the justification for them being able to predict that he shot his brother at that point, and that he would try to kill himself right after that. Also, they did have people on the rooftops watching him, so if he were to stray to the wrong side of the building for his leap of faith, they probably would have redirected him to a different ledge. Personally, I thought the twists were exciting and rather enjoyable, as my mind was blown completely out of whack at the end of the movie when we find out it was a game all along. Fincher is just playing with us, the audience, and uses 31 flavors of deceit to disguise the true reality of the movie in the end. Finally, although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, you have a point, the 80 plot twists over the course of 2 minutes would make even M. Night Shyamalan jealous, and got to be comedic and expected by the end of the movie. I enjoyed it, and am looking forward to seven.
Jordan, its not that I think it was a bad movie, in fact quite the contrary I think it was a pretty good movie, its just that i was unimpressed with more the plot than anything. I think Fincher did an excellent job directing the movie as a whole but the plot twists just brought me out of the movie and made it not quite what it could have been. The Game just didn't live up to my expectations after seeing some of Fincher's other work. Also i guess i didn't really think about the psych test that they gave him. That would help explain a lot of what happened but still you can't tell me that its not far fetched to say that a test could tell you exactly how someone would react to every situation. The whole thing just seemed to play out way to perfectly like how when you thought that maybe they might have screwed up at the end they actually knew that he would take that gun from his house and shoot him through the champagne bottle at that exact time and jump off of that exact spot at that and it was all part of the plan. Damn you David Fincher. Although I too am looking forward to watching Seven because though I've seen it already, that was a while ago and i am eager to watch it again. Hopefully not way too eager.
I think Fincher did a great job with this movie. Yes, it is a little over the top with all the constant twists, but overall the presentation of the film worked. I also agree with Kyle that the final scene of the movie was just too much. Douglas's character could've jumped off of any part of that building. Nobody would've have been able to stop him because they were to busying weeping over his brother. One part of the movie that confuses me is when "burglars", actually CRS, vandalize his house. What function did this serve in the movie? I mean there is the obvious to give him the note to remind him of his father's suicide, but there are endless ways they could have thought of better than trashing his house.
Tommy D
I agree with French Toast. The film as a whole was quite exciting, and entirely entertaining. In this particular film, Fincher breaks away from the cold, nightmarish worlds that he creates in films like s7ven and fight club. This film has many similarities however, it shows the deterioration of a seemingly sane man's mind. Instead of creating a false identity however, this man is thrown into a false world much like that which could be described by Hunter S. Thompson as an acid frenzy. This man takes a journey through a familiar world, and faces many ridiculous obstacles. The fact that he did not actually die though truly upset me. I thought it was all leading up to a huge misunderstanding that would ultimately cause him to face the demise of his father before him. In my opinion, Michael Douglas plays an important role as an autuer, his style of acting drew me in to the story itself, and had me eating out of its hand the entire time. Just as I thought I had things figured out, an exciting new twist confused the hell out of me. In the case of this film in particular, I feel that Fincher was the "author" of this film. His most recognizable cinematic style was simply not present other than in terms of the delivery of dialogue. The subtle off hand remarks made by characters did effectively remind me of Tyler Durdan's form of speech. However I feel that had it not been for Michael Douglas who did an amazing job playing the protagonist, this film would not be in any regard a typical fincher classic. His performance brought to mind the cinematic styles that fincher strives to create in his other films, but as a whole Fincher was truly behind the scenes on this one. I did enjoy the film however, and I would definitely like to revise it.
~Pablo Ramirez
Although i wholly agree with the argument that some of the plot twists are a bit excessive, i really don’t think it took as much away from the movie anywhere near as much as kyle thinks. although the ending scene was a little over the top, i t was completely expected, by me at least, for the entire thing to be part of his “game.” The good guy wins in virtually every movie ever made, and therefor we could assume all along that he wasn't really in any danger. If you attempt to poke holes in virtually any movie you will find tons even Star Wars, honestly even the best movies of all time has some flaws so how can you expect to have a movie without holes. In todays culture movies are primarily a form of entertainment rather than an art form (wether you like it or not its true) and for directors to be successful they must sacrifice some artwork to make the big bucks that is fine with the general public. Overall this was a very entertaining movie and as long as you don't over examine the movie it was a lot of fun to watch. Stop poking holes kyle.
Greg Massey
Stop poking holes kyle indeed Mr. Massey. I couldn't agree more, the fact is that with the extensive psych test that took the entire day for him, they are going to know a lot about what the man thinks and what the man does, and not only that, but they've also got a bunch of inside men, such as his brother, ex-wife, and lawyer, all of whom seem to know him fairly well and can help to relay the whereabouts and the movements of him. Also, at all times they had someone waiting to save him, so they probably had nets or something like that on the other sides of the building, but just never showed them, and if you think about it, hypothetically speaking of course, if you were to kill yourself you would probably be feeling miserable, and we all know that misery likes company, and the best way to spread your misery would be to jump down into a ballroom which we can assume is being used, where you ruin hundreds of peoples nights by making them witness a suicide. Pretty traumatic stuff that could make a person miserable, and we are never shown the other sides of the building. If you really want to, you can poke holes in the movie even though they can be filled with previous information that we have learned and a little reading between the lines. Fincher has created an excellent movie here, one that is as good for it's acting, as funkwell douglasson talked about, as it is for the mind-blowing twists that Fincher seems to love to add to his movies oh so much. I enjoyed thoroughly, and don't over analyze the movie to find every pin-point detail that might or might not be their. Don't be that guy, you're better than him.
I agree with Jordan, don't be that guy Kyle. The movie was great, and the plot twists are daivd fincher's style. I also noticed alot of dark, low lit scenes which may be another style of Fincher's. I am going to have to disagree with Jordan. You are taking a lot of liberties with filling the holes that kyle is poking. As an audience we shouldn't have to fill multiple holes ourselves, but the movie should fill those holes for us. The twists, creating more and more holes, take away from the over greatness of the movie and bring it down to only a good movie. I hope that in the next movie we watch, Fincher won't be too eager with the twists.
Although i agree with French Toast's assessment of the twists being to much i disagree with his reasoning. At this point basically every story has been told a million different ways and i think Fincher's millions of twists is just his way of trying to create a "new" story. If he was successful or not has to be left up to the viewer but i personally think it was. Also most of the holes that were poked really didn't distract from the movie unless you WANTED to be distracted. If you allowed yourself to be immersed into fincher's excellent movie, the twists simply kept you guessing and made for a thoroughly enjoyable film. Is it a film to rival some of the all time bests? does a restaurant like olive garden claim to be 5-star? Of course not but if you allow yourself to enjoy it you will have a fabulous experience. what I'm trying to say is that if you try to take a film and make it something that it isn't you will obviously find flaws but instead enjoy it for what is. A very entertaining movie.
Just so you know Jordan, I'm very unimpressed that i beat you yet again after you challenged me and i waited till after 9. Anyways, I really like Seven a lot. I'd seen it before but i had forgotten about a lot of the events that had happened in the middle of the movie and had been to young to understand a lot of what was going on. After seeing some of his other work this is clearly a Fincher film. The final scene going into the credits is what gives it away. Going along with a typical Fincher film there has to be a plot twist that you kind of saw coming but at the same time weren't entirely sure it would happen. Having Brad Pitt's wife's head show up was pretty obvious once the moment came close but you weren't quite sure. Don't get me wrong i loved that scene but pretty much everyone at our viewing called that part. What really surprised me is that Kevin Spacey's character, the bad guy, ended up winning. The acting job done by Pitt while contemplating his decision wasn't exactly Oscar worthy but it was really surprising to see him shoot Spacey and have the bad guy have his way. Bravo Fincher, bravo. Though i think we all know that what was really in that package was deceit, 31 different flavors of it. Also i think this film was done a lot better because while there are a fair amount of plot twists and surprises, you don't get beat over the head with it like what happened in The Game. The credits in this movie also reminded me of those in Fight club which we will be watching next and I'm excited for.
i agree with almost everything that kyle said. This was a very very solid movie that Fincher made and i am definitely starting to see his distinctive style come to life. He is very skeptical about human kind and has Machiavellian ends justify the means attitude about modern society. this is evident in both the main character, played by brad pitt, and the "John Doe", played by kevin spacey. Doe's final goal is to improve society and although his methods are obviously a bit sadistic, Fincher definitely shows he believes that the ends justify the means. Through brad pitt he paints a picture of why society is broken and needs to be fixed. Pitt is a headstrong and overconfident detective who just moved to the city. He continually rushes in while his experienced partner tries to get through to him to slow down. Possibly my favorite part of this movie was that although it was without a doubt it was cheesy at times, it wasn't the typical cookie cutter plot like 99.9% of hollywood movies. i was actually somewhat surprised when pitt shot spacey because i was expecting a gooey stupid revelational ending. This is why i love Fincher, although Se7en wasn't that great of a movie it is refreshing to have a director who will step out of the frame that hollywood has constructed.
I agree with Fincher breaking barriers with his movies. The "hollywood ending" that is typical of blockbuster movies really bugs me. Also, this movie has the audience torn at the end. Spacey clearly deserved his death, but I almost didn't want Brad Pitt to kill him. Fincher combined with Spacey did a great job at developing the characters and in the audience I could really see what has going on in their minds. This also showed through in The Game with Michael Douglas. Also, the twistyness of this movie was toned down a little and I like that. There was just enough to keep me on edge but he wasn't to eager and put in to many twists. My question is that I know Brad Pitt represents the overconfident youth, but what does Morgan Freeman represent?
Tommy D
In response to French Toast's question i think Morgan Freeman embodies a couple of roles here. First and the most obvious is the mentor, similar to those in a Kurosawa film like "Stray Dog." Freeman's character helps guide Pitt, like Massey said, through experience helping him contain his head strong nature by being the calm, cool, and collect one even in situations like the final car ride where Pitt is clearly rattled. Secondly i think that Freeman's character functions as the observer, almost like part of the audience yet can interact with the story. He sees both sides unfolding as he understands, but doesn't agree with, what John Doe is doing while also understanding Pitt's character and his troubles unlike Pitts character who gets too caught up in the moment and in the end loses it.
Just a quick thing, isn't Morgan Freeman also the narrator? which would only continue to support Kyle's assertion of him being an observer. Anyways, I found this movie to stray a bit from the Fincher ways more than you guys have cared to admit. I felt like the first hour of this movie is completely different from the typical Fincher movie, in that the focus wasn't on mind games with the protagonist, or what the protagonist is going through in an effort to characterize him and than change that original characterization to something totally different, but was much more of a mystery film noir-y type of feel to it. The whole point of that hour was to solve the mystery, and only once they started to get hot on the trail of Spacey did the movie turn Fincher-y, but besides that I liked it a lot, but not more than the game. It was a lot more morbid than the game, and is basically setting up for fight club perfectly when you mix the morbidity of se7en, and the psychological mind games of the game. Overall, the ending seemed almost cliche to me, until Brad Pitt shot Spacey, and French Toast said it perfectly, at one point you want Spacey to die for being a twisted psychopath who kills for pleasure, and yet you don't want Brad Pitt and his lusciously seductive bod to give in to the mind games and blow spacey to smithereens.
I agree with many of the things bade has said in his last post, i especially enjoyed his comment on how the two films added up to create Fight Club. I do have to disagree with his evaluation of the first hour being non David Fincher-y. Although the first hour was very much like a film noir as Jordan said, most psychological thrillers start as a typical movie, take fight club or shutter island, in fight club it doesn't get "loopy" per say until they make soap and Tyler Durden burns the narrator. In shutter island the same is true when it doesn't get good for a long time in the movie. another example is the Shinning which many consider to be one of the better thrillers of time and that also doesn't heat up until the second half of the movie. To put it in the words of Zander Fried, a friend of ours and please excuse my french, "Shutter Island was a mind fuck". For a good psychological thriller need to be set up with an average Joe and in a normal situation and to best accomplish this you need a long time to establish the characters so that you can notice their change as they go from normal to psychotic.
I completely agree with greg. I feel that the first hour of Se7en was setting the audience up for the next hour of the movie. With alot of thrillers, like greg mentioned The Shining, the movie doesn't get exciting till the end. But the most important part of the movie is the beginning. It draws the audience into another world, and without great direction and performance, the audience won't get into the movie and the ending will have no effect. I feel like that kind of happened a little to me with The Game, but in Se7en I was throughly engrossed in the movie and loved the ending. I can completely see Morgan as the narrator, and actually can't see how I missed that before. I can see where Jordan is coming from with the "non fincher" feel for the beginning of the movie, but I think the more subtle things are fincher. I personally have found fincher to use alot of props as symbols. Morgan Freeman was shown in the beginning falling asleep to a metronome. Then, after a couple of the murders he smashes the metronome showing his development from an orderly/clam detective to a passionate/involved detective.
Tommy D
Well French Toast and Massey, I suppose you're right in that the beginning of the film is being used to set up the Fincher ending that we have all come to know and love, but the point that I'm making, is that the movie started out as seeming to me to be a kind of horror movie/ saw movie, where a bunch of people are being killed, and eventually these people are going to get involved and probably be killed as well. That was a bit annoying for me, and detracted from the movie a bit, I liked the game better than se7en as hard as that is to believe, but I still thoroughly enjoyed se7en. Both have been incredibly enthralling and I can't wait to watch fight club for the second time and realize how obvious the twist is. Supposedly the second time you watch it is nearly as good as the first time, because you catch on to the clues and the various hints that Fincher gives us. As for the symbolism thing French Toast, it seems kind of like a stretch, I feel like it was just him realizing how monotonous his life had been up to that point, and in that sense he is breaking through, but his character isn't changing, but that's just my opinion.
Ah Fight Club. The Fincher classic. The reason we knew who he was. I've seen this movie four or five times now and its still amazing. After watching the other two movies, especially Se7en, its not hard to tell that this is a Fincher film. Not surprisingly made last of the films that we watched, Fight Club was for sure my favorite of the three and in my opinion done the best. One thing that Fincher seems to do in all of his movies is make you think and I believe that this one does it the best out of all of them. The scene where Ed Norton's character looks back at how he had only imagined Brad Pitt's character demonstrates this the best. Leave it to Fincher to have the plot twists where everything you thought you knew isn't true but unlike The Game, i think he covered his basis much better here. I think the everything being in his head is a much better excuse for an unrealistic event than a psychology test that predicted absolutely everything. As a whole my favorite Fincher film.
Kyle for once i have to agree with basically everything you have to say about this film. This is the only Fincher film i had seen before this project and i think the reason that our group decided to do Fincher for this project in the first place. Fight club is one of my favorite movie of all time and i think it strikes a perfect balance between comedy and mind bender. Like the other two films he views the world in a very pessimistic way but between better development of his characters along with a more believable storyline (although still ridiculous) i think he pulls this off significantly more convincingly. Like the other films it takes place in a the seedy underbelly of a modern city. A common theme in Fincher's works is the hero becoming more natural. in FC this was in the form of Pitt's character trying to remove the pansy-ness of the modern world. this is also evident when the rich man in the game was forced into a violence filled environment that many would call "crude" but Fincher obviously believes is the superior state of living. the same is true of the cop in seven who starts off wanting to live in the city to get away from the "uncivilized" country foke but soon reverts to animal instincts and kills over his rage
Greg Massey
I completely agree with both Kyle and Greg. Fight Club is the epitome of David Fincher. The first trait of Fincher's that we all noted was the plot twists. Almost painful in The Game, only a few small twists in Se7en, and one of the most notorious twists of all time in Fight Club. I will also have to agree with Greg, and change it around a bit. Fincher's movies commonly comment on the corrupt city life. The main character isn't necessarily corrupt or corporate like in The Game, but more like the setting of Fight Club where Brad Pitt is attacking the corrupt credit card companies to bring everyone back to zero.
Tommy Dolan
This was the second time that I have seen fight club, which many would argue is the most optimal viewing of the movie. Having seen it before, I knew the typical Fincher twist was coming and I knew how to search for the twist which is something that I couldn't do in the previous two movies which made it even more exciting, because you get to see the intricate design that Fincher uses to give the viewer enough information to find out the truth behind the movie, while still leading them to conclusions that aren't true because they have only been assumed rather than established. This made the movie that much more enjoyable for me, as I knew that Brad Pitt was a mere figment of Ed Norton's imagination, and the signs of this are all blatantly obvious the second time around, so I say props go to you David Fincher, for thoroughly deceiving pretty much anyone who watches your movies, and making them feel like idiots for not catching your 31 flavors of deceit. I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, and I think it can be described very well as a Fincheresque movie, as it shows his relatively melancholy views on human nature and as always contains a huge twist at the end that is, in the words of another student who shall remain anonymous, a mind-fuck.
A point that Jordan brought up but that i think needs some expanding on is ho the 2nd time is the best viewing of this movie. By now i have seen this movie a half dozen times or so but i still vividly remember my "first time". i was thoroughly confused for the entire movie and was really underwhelmed until the very end when i was like "well that was kinda cool". point being that i had no idea what just happened. then a month later or so i watched it again and i was hooked. the intricate and subtle details that fincher includes are brutally obvious once you know the ending. you feel completely idiotic for not figuring out the twist earlier and to some it up, its f**king AMAZING. i feel as if fincher almost expected this movie to be watched a second time. what this makes me think is that i really should watch the other two movies again... or maybe that is just what fincher wants so he can take more of my money...DAMN YOU DAVID FINCHER
Along with Jordan and Greg, this wasn't my first viewing of Fight Club. just like Greg, I remember not being to impressed with the film the first time I watched it. The twist at the end reminded me a little of M. Night Shamalamanaa. Then, sometime later, I rewatched the greatness that is Fight Club and David Fincher. He has his tell tale traits, the dark look upon the city life, and his love for twists. The twist is so obvious, yet so hidden at the same time. My favorite example of this is when Edward Norton is talking to Brad Pitt in the kitchen. Brad says "promise you won't talk about me to anyone." and he makes him promise three times. This, during the first viewing, seems a little odd and out of place. But nothing out of the norm. The second time it's a slap in the face. Damn you David Fincher...
Tommy Dolan
Couldn't agree with you more Nolan. This movie is the culmination of greatness in movie making for David Fincher, one could say that it's his Mona Lisa. He uses the epic twistiness of the game combined with the grim view of life in seven to create this masterpiece of grim looking society bent upon following the social structure that it has established while taking this structure down with a masterfully placed twist. Fincher knows what he is doing, but unlike Nolan and Massey, I thought that Fight Club was an excellent movie when I saw it for the first time. The movie kept me confused for quite a bit, but my mind was blown when I found out that Brad Pitt was a figment of Norton's imagination as I tried to piece together what little information I could to make sense of the movie. The mental brainfart that I had at the end of Fight Club is one that I will remember for some time, and I know that David Fincher and his twists is one of the greatest directors of all time, but as always; Damn you David Fincher!
I have to agree with Jordan on this one. Personally i really liked fight club the first time i saw it because my mind was blown at the end of it. Unlike V for Vendetta which i liked a lot more the second time because the movie made much more sense, Fight Club just had such a twist crazy ending that i thought it was too awesome the first time to get any better the second time i saw it. Like when i saw V for Vendetta the second time, Fight club also made much more sense upon a second viewing but there's just nothing like the first time. The best Fincher film but i also agree with Jordan. Damn you David Fincher!
I disagree with Kyle and Jordan, the very first time I viewed Fight Club I was about eight or nine years old. I was too young to understand the plot and what happened at the end of the film. After revisiting the film, I can safely say that it was excellent. The cinematic style in my opinion was very similar to that of S7ven. There is a somewhat depressing feel to the film, mixed in are hilarious peices of dialouge that not only keep the audience entertained, but keep true to the way that Fincher directs his films. For myself, I noticed things about the film that I was unable to appreciate about the film during my first viewing. This time instead of focussing on the fight scenes and the progression of Edward Norton's insanity, I found myslef trying to better understand the philosophical mind behind Tyler Durdan, as well as the subtle life lessons that are presented in the film. I did appreciate the way that Fincher's directing brought forth in my opinion Brad Pitt's most breakthrough role, he did the whole pretty boy thing, but at the same time the gritty realism of a person similar to his character shows that he has more variety under his belt than previously conceived by most. Overall I enjoyed this viewing of the film the most of any time that I have seen it. I can only imagine what the world would look like after the buildings explode.
Post a Comment