Rating: 16/20
Plot: A soon-to-be-retired detective breaks in a cocky young detective as a high-concept but psychotic serial killer punishes people for their deadly sins.
This thing's fucking depraved and so devoid of anything resembling hope that I imagine only real sicko could actually be a fan of it. Plus, it's called Se7en with that number in the title, another thing that only those with twisted or damaged souls could appreciate. My feelings are mixed. It's a downer, diving so brazenly into the depths of despair that I'm actually surprised it's so popular. At the same time, it's executed well, artful in its disturbing nature and shameless wallowing in this muddy wretchedness. This seems like the type of movie made in those early days of the Internet for people who would surf the net for celebrity autopsy photos or giggle through Faces of Death IX, but like all artistic triumphs, this is something that sticks in your head and gut for a long time after you've finished the thing and returned it to Carl's Videos. You'll remember that bloated fat man (Bob Mack in his only film role) with his eyes open and a puke bucket under the table that you can almost smell. You'll remember zombie man coughing himself alive, and you'll remember how you jumped a little even though you'd already seen this movie and knew that he was about to cough himself alive. You'll remember Freeman pondering whether he should open that box or not and then his expression when he looks at the contents. And you'll remember Spacey's eyes and wonder how an actor can make his eyes that expressionless.
Part of what makes this memorable is where Fincher places this movie. The first 3/4 of this movie is set in this anonymously decaying city, a bleak place with perpetual rain. It's all creaky fences and half-assed graffiti. When the characters are in their apartments, the outside sounds--cars, crying babies, unintelligible yawping, sirens--penetrate the walls. I watched this movie with headphones, and these outside sounds seemed to surround me and were almost overwhelming, really painting this world of complete chaos. The environments these characters find themselves in are bleak, almost in suffocating ways. There are barely windows in this movie that aren't cracked or broken, dust hangs in the air, walls are peeling and splintered. It is not a happy world at all, visually very far from the "fine place" described by Hemingway at the quote at the end of the movie. And that rain! Are there any scenes that take place in the city where it's not raining?
The performances are great from top to bottom. Brad Pitt plays a hotshot so well that you'd almost think he was some kind of hotshot in real life. He probably touches his hair too much in this movie, and there are a few times when he probably could have used a second take, but he creates this character, as one-dimensional as the character really is, very well. The climactic "What's in the box?" scene may go down as his most powerful moment in his film career. Freeman is great playing the same character he always plays, a guy who can never ever lose his proverbial shit. I don't think I've ever seen a young and stupid and loud Morgan Freeman in a movie. Does such a movie exist? His opening line--"Look at all that passion on the wall."--almost tells you everything you need to know about his character. Not just the words--the delivery. He's tired and has stopped pretending. The early scenes in the movie have Freeman's character asking questions that people either don't want to hear or don't understand. And he sleeps to a clicking metronome. (Side note: I think movies are automatically better with metronomes. Surely I can't be the only person who finds metronomes sexy.) The clash between Pitt's idealism and Freeman's apathy works largely because of the acting. Paltrow is fine, mostly in the background. She's got a pretty head which is all that really matters in this movie. A lot of her scenes, probably because the mystery and the cat-and-mouse games in the rest of the movie are more interesting, seem like a waste of my time. I also liked R. Lee Ermey (Sarge in the Toy Stories) as the police captain or sergeant or whatever he is. His answering of a telephone with a grumpy "This isn't even my desk!" is one of the very few moments of comedy in this thing. The other would be Spacey's line about a dead dog which is a terrific bit of black comedy although knowing what you know about what's about to happen in that scene, it would almost seem appropriate if Spacey's character looked at the camera and apologized for the line. Spacey is Malkovichian in the role, and though he's only in a small chunk of the movie, he takes advantage of every word he gets to create his character. Oh, and shane-movies favorite Mark Boone Junior is in this playing "Greasy FBI Man." He's perfect at playing a character who doesn't seem to want to be in the movie he's in. And I don't know who plays the guy scraping Somerset's name off the door, but that guy shines in a 4 1/2 second role. He just nails that scene, nearly steals the whole movie as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, I can't find his name.
Quick question: (And I'm sorry for spoilers, but this is the Oprah Movie Club, and you were already supposed to have watched this.) What do you think of the whole library card thing? Is it my imagination or is that a little lame? Chaucer, Dante, Milton, Shakespeare. It's not like these aren't difficult texts to acquire. The killer had books in his apartment. If he's going to go to the trouble of having his freakin' fingerprints removed, it doesn't seem like he would be so careless with a library card.
From the squelchy NIN remix over ominous credits featuring meticulous crazy person activity to the shocking conclusion, this is a movie that your stomach will never forget. It's not pleasant, but neither is the world sometimes.
This is currently the 22nd top-rated movie on imdb.com. I know there's absolutely nothing scientific about those ratings, but for a movie this pessimistic or bleak, that seems so high.
9 comments:
Every movie doesn't have to be peaches and rainbows to be successful or good, sometimes a bad story can be awesome, and this one fits the bill. You pretty much nailed it on your review, everything about this movie is great, including just how awful the situation is. It is a great story with some good twists, and I have watched it repeatedly. Great acting and scenery as well.
Ahh, thanks for visiting! You're right about not needing peaches and rainbows. I think most of my favorite movies are kind of bummers.
I've only seen this twice but remembered it really well. I'm impressed that it remained so chilling and tense even though I knew exactly what was going to happen. I'm also impressed that I knew what was going to happen because I don't have a very good memory.
Gonna watch it tonight - looking forward to it. Once I have fulfilled my obligation to Oprah, I would like to nominate Wake in Fright as the next pick. Back with more soon...
Just finished the movie. It definitely creeps up on you - I was making fun of the cliches in the first half, but biting my nails in the second even though I'd already seen before. It's consistent, it's atmospheric, and the finale is hard to shake. Is there anything in the same vein that came before? I wonder how many awful episodes of CSI and straight-to-video thrillers this thing has spawned.
Good point about the soundtrack, Shane. One of the creepiest things about this movie, apart from sociopathic sadism, is just how shitty the world is in general. Were things really that bad in 1995?
I found the six-days-to-retirement thing ridiculous, and Brad Pitt's loose cannon thing over the top, but the library card didn't bother me. I think because it was explained as a secret FBI tracking program that flagged suspicious histories, rather than just sifting through everyone who ever checked out Inferno. That would make for a lot of Humanities undergraduates with some explaining to do. I thought the lending history was an interesting, paranoid way to get on top of the killer without having him make a stupid mistake. I also loved that it led to that room full of notebooks, and the fact that the excerpt Morgan Freeman read was genuinely crazy. There's plenty of movies where crazies paper the walls with weird signs and computations, but in this case they could back it up with choice material.
Speaking of the killer, I'm usually lukewarm about Kevin Spacey but that was a great performance. His dialogue in the back of the cruiser is pretty heavy. It really makes the story come across as a coherent statement, rather than a bunch of hokum with good set and sound design. And the final situation is potent stuff.
When I was twelve my dad was a movie reviewer, and I got to the theatre with him whether the movie was restricted or not. Like you said, Shane, I remembered a lot about this movie - especially the gluttony guy and the finale, but also some random drizzly shots. It makes an impression. Thanks for making me watch it again. Sorry for the delay - as you know, in the Canadian calendar March is 34 days long.
No, I didn't have a problem with the library check-out thing. After all, it gave them an excuse to have Boone Junior do something. My issue was whether the murderer, a guy who took the pains the remove his own fingerprints and who has more than enough reasons to be reclusive, would slip up like that.
Spacey's character tells Freeman and Pitt during the car ride that he changed his plans for the last two murders--envy and wrath. That's interesting to me. He's a pretty honest serial killer, so I really have no reason to think he's lying. He had such meticulous plans for the other five deadly sins, so there's a part of me that wonders what his original plans for envy and wrath were. Did he always intend to involve himself like that?
I like what you said about the notebooks. It was pretty good "crazy guy" writin', wasn't it? You're right--in other movies, you get weird stuff hanging on the walls or similar pictures that show the criminal has some sort of obsession. The guy's writings did help create this character who we weren't even allowed to meet yet. That was a TON of notebooks though.
Did this come before or after that rush of CSI and Law and Order stuff? Nevermind--I just looked it up. Law and Order started in '90. I've seen the beginning of some of those shows (not sure which ones) and there's some pretty shocking imagery for television. Did Se7en open a door for NBC to throw some gross-out stuff into the mainstream? CSI...looks like that came around in 2000.
This was a notable version of the genre started with the Silence of the Lambs. Serial killers who are smarter than anyone else in the movie. High level functioning genius's who are always a step ahead of everyone. I liked aspects of this movie, and it really does have a memorable visual element. I especially like the bold decision to put Gwyneth Paltrows head in a box. The movie itself left me either disgusted or cold. The only character I liked was Morgan Freeman....Pitts character is a bit of a doofus, Paltrows is whiny and seemingly has zero life outside of worrying or complaining. Spacey is great in the killer role, but its, by necessity, one note.
Its a flawed film, and I am not one of those people that seeks it out to see if I can glean something new from it, but its also a movie where I can see why it appeals to other people. Not my cup of tea, but its quality is evident its extremely innovative and takes some big chances. A 14 for me. (Which if we used a one to ten system, would be a SEVEN.)
Pitt's character isn't very likable.
Let's make a list of criminal "masterminds" who aren't very smart at all!
Dr. Evil?
Didn't really buy Tom Hanks' mastermind in the Ladykillers. But I never really buy what he's selling.
I would agree with most everything you said except for lauding Pitt's acting at the end. For me it is the film's only flaw. I respect and was affected by the darkness and atmosphere, and thought Spacey and Freeman were perfect in their roles. An 18.
Post a Comment