Conference bookie::movies

> has anyone seen or read anything on "The Seduction"

	Well you've obviously have seen something yourself, or you
	wouldn't of known about this movie.  Why don't you elaborate
	on what you've seen/read ......

    Is this the one with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore?
    
    Marilyn

    Nope, that's "Disclosure".
    
    
    kim

    Seduction stars Linda Fiorentino and if I'm not mistaken is directed by
    John Dahl. Globe had a good review about it but it won't last in the
    theaters.
      Premise is this; man/woman (huband/wife ?) in drug deal. Husband not
    kind to woman, slaps woman, woman is strong willed. Desides to keep the 
    $700,000 from drug deal and...
    
      From there it is supposed to be a very well done move, suspenseful
    and the like.
    
      It will probably be on video in January/February.
    
    Scott

	This one also came out first on HBO and only received mediocre
	reviews by TV critics.  Movie critics on the other hand love
	it, and so they moved it from cable to threatrical release.

    I believe the full title is "The Last Seduction."  This is by the same
    guy who did "Red Rock West" which went the same route.  Very noirish,
    with an extremely strong female protagonist.

    
    hey guys thanks, that's what I've heard:
    
    Linda F. is suppose to be good, & Bill Pullman plays the husband.
    I had no idea it was on HBO, not mainstream which is what I like.
    an actress playing a sexy, adult role....I definitely will see it!
    my kind of movie. 

RE: -.1

>    an actress playing a sexy, adult role....I definitely will see it!
 
You probably want to know what you're getting into first.  This film
is about a femme fatale. A dragon lady.  The meanest who ever worked a
direct-sale phone bank or drove a Chevy Blazer. If you liked Pulp Fiction, 
and your favorite character in Melrose Place is Kimberly, then this
film has promise.  I found it rough.

Brian

  I rented The Last Seduction over the weekend. This movie suffers from a
problem that film critic Jeffery Lyons pointed out in another film years ago
which is that the film has no characters that you care about. 

  Linda Fiorentino does a pretty good job of playing an attractive loser that
suffers from what I call "Captain Kirk syndrome". Like the old Star Trek hero,
she succeeds mostly because all of her adversaries are so incredibly stupid or
predictable that just about any hair brain scheme she concocts can't miss. 

  Case in point, not to give away the gripping plot, at one point she escapes
from a private detective watching her from a car in front of her house by
baking him some cookies then slipping a board with nails under his wheel while
giving him the snack. And that's one of the less obvious "traps". 

  Bill Pullman plays the part of an abusive loser who lives off minor drug
deals and her boyfriend, yup another loser, is also played well but so what? By
the middle of the film you wish they would all drive off the road minus the
airbags. Oops careful, least I give away another "clever" scheme pulled off by
our heroine. 

  Anyway, while the movie is well acted the characters are so unlikeable that
there's nothing to make you want to keep watching the film. If you ever
encountered these people in real life you'd probably start running and not stop
until they were long gone from sight. There's not one with which you would want
to spend 2 hours which makes it difficult to watching them as their story oozes
out of your TV. 

  Needless to say, I was not seduced. 

  ** out of 5,
  George 

>  I rented The Last Seduction over the weekend. This movie suffers from a

I saw this too, and I thought it was GREAT!

/scott

>   I rented The Last Seduction over the weekend. This movie suffers from a
> problem that film critic Jeffery Lyons pointed out in another film years ago
> which is that the film has no characters that you care about. 

	I recently rented this film also.  I totally disagree with your
	use of the word "suffers".  I say it's one of the films strong
	points.  Instead of the movie falling prey to Hollywoodisms
	that you have to have a "good guy" to cheer for, and a Hollywood
	"good ending", the movie was stronger than if you had a character
	to cheer for (ie. care about).

	Linda's character was great.  A really smart and evil person.
	I certainly wouldn't want to get in her way!

    re: .9
    
    I don't really mind the part about the film having no characters you
    care about, in fact I hadn't really noticed it until you pointed it
    out.
    
    I do agree though about her adversaries being too stupid.  I found it
    very tiring to try to imagine anyone as naive as her main victim and I
    think it is unlikely that she would happen on a group of men who are
    all extraordinarily gullible when it suits her needs.
    
    The acting was ok but the script was just to weak for me.
    
    John

RE               <<< Note 701.11 by NETRIX::michaud "Hugh Grant" >>>

>	I recently rented this film also.  I totally disagree with your
>	use of the word "suffers".  I say it's one of the films strong
>	points.  Instead of the movie falling prey to Hollywoodisms
>	that you have to have a "good guy" to cheer for, and a Hollywood
>	"good ending", the movie was stronger than if you had a character
>	to cheer for (ie. care about).

  I don't think anyone is making this claim. You can have likable bad guys.
Darth Vader comes to mind. The Sheriff in Costner's Robin Hood. Sharon Stone's
character in Basic Instinct. Real slime every one but interesting and likable
slime who gave the heroes a real run for their money.

  This woman had no redeeming characteristics at all. Just a 3rd rate con
artist going around praying on the stupidest collection of dolts ever gathered
under one script.

>	Linda's character was great.  A really smart and evil person.
>	I certainly wouldn't want to get in her way!

  You wouldn't have to. Just duck when she points up, points down, says
"nah-ah-ah-ah-ah" and turns around and unlike Larry, Curly, or Shep you won't
get hit in the head by the plank. 

  George

> You can have likable bad guys.

	You are still stuck in Hollywoodism mode.  "Why" do you have to
	have a likable character?

> This woman had no redeeming characteristics at all.

	Which is exactly why this film was great!  There really are people
	like that!  Maybe you are turned off (subconciously) because she's
	a woman vs.  a man playing such a character?

> Just a 3rd rate con artist ....

	3rd rate?!  She wasn't 3rd rate, she was 1st class!  She wasn't
	stupid!

> ... praying on the stupidest collection of dolts ever gathered
> under one script.

	The only stupid character was the one who took out his penis
	for her!  Her husband was pretty smart himself, but she was
	smarter.

	Siskel & Ebert even said that men will have a tough time with this
	because of the role reversal's here (compared to Hollywood style
	films where men are the real stars and the women are dumb).

	To re-iterate, anyone looking for a feel good movie with a happy
	ending where the hero saves the day will be disappointed.  Those
	looking for a film that breaks out of Hollywood's standard plot
	styles will not be disappointed.

RE              <<< Note 701.14 by NETRIX::michaud "Jimi Hendrix" >>>

>	Siskel & Ebert even said that men will have a tough time with this
>	because of the role reversal's here (compared to Hollywood style
>	films where men are the real stars and the women are dumb).

  Well that might be a point to make about Basic Instinct which had a powerful
cunning, ruthless, and intelligent woman adversary but that's not the problem
here. 

>	The only stupid character was the one who took out his [naughty bits]
>	for her!  Her husband was pretty smart himself, but she was
>	smarter.

  At least two guys did that at one point or another. It actually became
somewhat of a theme. As for the Husband, he was such a loser he couldn't make a
living as a doctor and then he slapped his con-artist wife to get her pissed
off while leaving the cash where she could easily walk off with it. And that's
"pretty smart"? 

  Forest Gump looked like a rocket scientists compared to these chumps.

>	To re-iterate, anyone looking for a feel good movie with a happy
>	ending where the hero saves the day will be disappointed.  Those
>	looking for a film that breaks out of Hollywood's standard plot
>	styles will not be disappointed.

  I'm all for movies that break out of the standard plot styles as long as
they take up a new style that's worth seeing. But spending 2 hours watching
a 3rd rate con-artist duping ultra stupid people is not my idea of a positive
change.

  To add to the criticism, you never really understand what motivates the
heroin. Who is she and why did she become as ruthless? What drives her to
find simpleton's that can be so easily duped? We never find out.

  The irony of the movie is that the boyfriend was supposedly attracted to her
because she represented the "big city" and "life in the fast lane" but despite
being a Street Wise NYC lady she seemed to avoid the cultural and intellectual
depth that a big city offers while seeking out small time losers and misfits
that were easy to abuse.

  Perhaps if they had explored this it might have been worth while but they
couldn't even admit she was aspiring to be giant among losers never mind
delving into why.

  George

    re: the previous
    
    I wouldn't classify her husband as pretty smart although I grant that
    at least he was within the norm.
    
    I am also not too sure that she was all that brilliant.  All of her
    plans were based on her victims being stupid.  On the one hand she
    wasn't able to recognise stupidity at first sight (when her main prop
    appeared in the bar) but still she tried some fairly basic cons which
    presupposed extreme naivete.
    
    Neither was she particularly strong emotionally or far-sighted. Take,
    for example the scenes where her friend wanted to go play hockey.  If
    the film was supposed to portray her as cool and calculating then I
    have trouble with that part.  The whole thing started from what
    appeared to me to be an impulsive action on her part (triggered of
    course by the slap in the face)
    
    I would have described her as unscrupulous, capricious and very, very
    lucky.  The last is the only one I have trouble with.
    
    John
    

>a 3rd rate con-artist duping ultra stupid people is not my idea of a positive
>change.


Isn't this how con-artists work?  They don't look for the people who are
going to catch them out but manipulate gullible ones.  These types of
people exist.

Thought it was excellent movie and enjoyed the ending.  I tend to hate 
the endings where the good guy always wins.  Eg. The Rob Roy ending
could be spotted half-way thru which spoilt an otherwise excellent movie for
me.

John

    Any movie Jeffrey Lyons doesn't like starts out with extra points in my
    book. And I can understand why this particular hack/junior moralist had
    trouble with the film, as it strays from his 'art should be a tool of
    the state' mentality. 
    
    I enjoyed this film for the exact reason others have chosed to criticize 
    it: the lack of moral center, the lack of a "likeable" bad guy, the lack 
    of good triumphing over the forces of evil. We get that spoon-fed to us 
    constantly. It was a pleasure to see a smart, stylish film aimed at 
    adults with a good script and little of the usual Hollywood compost. 
    
    And for the record -- as long as the comparison is being made -- I 
    thought "Basic Instinct" was one of the worst, most moronic pieces of
    bloated trash I've ever seen.

    A better comparison would be to Body Heat - a far superior film
    (although I liked this).

RE                     <<< Note 701.18 by OBSESS::BEAUPRE >>>

>    Any movie Jeffrey Lyons doesn't like starts out with extra points in my
>    book. And I can understand why this particular hack/junior moralist had
>    trouble with the film, as it strays from his 'art should be a tool of
>    the state' mentality. 
    
  No one ever said Jeffrey Lyons did or didn't like the film.

  George

    You know, you're right. Sheesh. He is a real doink, though . . .

    Jeffrey Lyons was brought up in .9!
    
    I saw this over the weekend too, and thought it was very well written.
    I don't think that the female lead preyed upon the stupid. I think she
    preyed upon the fact that people (even very intelligent people) don't
    expect another human to have zilch morally!
    
    Kevin C

RE                      <<< Note 701.22 by GEC013::CLARK >>>

>    Jeffrey Lyons was brought up in .9!

  That was .9 not .9 factorial and I never said he liked the film as someone
suggested a few notes ago. 
    
  George

Actually this film does use standard Hollywood type plotting, it's just a pure
example of film noir which is seldom seen much anymore. This films is squarly
in that tradition and borrows heavily from a number of classics, such as
_Double Indemnity_ (at one point Fiorintino even refers to herself as Mrs Neff,
Barbara Stanwycks character in _Double Indemnity_). John Dahl's previous film
_Red Rock West_ was also a film noir but not as pure and example as this one.

The femme fatale, gullible tool/victim, dark world view, and lack of redeeming
characters are are standard film noir devices. I did miss the b&w camera work
and lighting from the classic film noirs though.


Randy

> Actually this film does use standard Hollywood type plotting, it's just a pure
> example of film noir which is seldom seen much anymore.

	This appears to be an oxymoron.  If this type of plot is seldom
	seen anymore, it can hardly be called "standard" .....

    What is "film noir"?

>    What is "film noir"?

See topic 194.

-- Nina

    All I could think of (even during the film) was WHAT A COMPLETE BITCH.
    
    I sat for a  short while after the movie ended thinking that I had just
    been had.The whole thing was totally unlike anything I had seen before
    in that I kept expecting the usual run of the mill conclusion.
    
    What a great movie        *****/*****
    
    
    
    
    Colin.

  A couple people have mentioned how new and refreshing this all was but I kept
having the feeling I've seen a much better version before. Then I remembered,
"Body Heat" with William Hurt and Cathlien Turner. Same thing, smart sexy lady
takes advantage of obsessed dim witted men. Only that one was much better.
Then of course "Double Indemnity" was probably the classic. 

  I'd say that if you want to see something of this genre, go with Body heat or
Double Indemnity but if you want something a little more explicit and up to
date this movie may be for you. 

  George 

  ... Oh yeah, "Post man always rings twice". Either version.

  George

	I'd have to disagree with "Body Heat" being the same thing, or
	even better.  They are similiar, yet very different.  The
	Last Seduction in any case is much better ....