The Game (1997)

[philamental]

*Not sure if spoiler warnings are required in this forum but I will be discussing spoilers here*

I last saw 'The Game' during it's theatrical release which I guess was back in 1997. I had enjoyed Alien 3 despite it's flaws, and Se7en had blown me away (remaining my favourite film to this day) so I was really excited about getting to see Fincher's next effort and while the reviews weren't spectacular, they were solid enough to keep my excitement level entact. I certainly wasn't expecting Se7en 2 (2e7en?? ) but what I did watch that night proved to be a crushing disappointment. Why? Well for me after reading the synopsis and watching the trailer, it seemed that the most obvious thing was the events of the film would all be just a game. (Hardly surprising given the title) I was therefore intrigued to see what more the movie would offer and what direction the story would eventually take as it couldn't be that simple. So I watched it, continuing as each scene passed that to think it's still most likely all just a game but there had to be more to it until ... yeah ... it was all just a game ... Everything else solid about the film just dissolved for me personally at that point and to this day I haven't re-watched it due to that first negative experience.

So fast forward to the present ... A number of things have changed in the last year which allows me the time and freedom to watch films more regularly than any time in the past. One of the things I'm doing with this opportunity is re-watching critically appreciated films that I didn't enjoy the first time I saw them. Some have proven better second time around, some have been just as bad, however I have avoided offering The Game the same second chance thus far and that is why I'm posting here.

I'm fairly sure I have a bit of a mental block on this film and while I'm not a Fincher Fanboy or anything, I feel he's entertained me enough that I should be willing to give The Game another shot. So what I'm doing is seeking all opinions on this film in the hope I might read a viewpoint that gives me an incentive to check it out. I'm not necessarily looking to debate the film's merits or flaws (by all means do that amongst yourselves if you'd like as it would make for interesting reading) but for those who rate it what are your reasons for doing so, and how would you counter my criticism that the film's ending was too telegraphed? Anybody who disliked it, feel free to convince me to spend my time watching something else, although that won't be too difficult a task in my current mindset.

I may sit back and let the discussion take place without responding or I might stay involved, but my intent is to see what you all say here over the next week or so before making a final decision on whether to try it again.

[disconnected]

Remember the scene where Michael Douglas goes into the bathroom, and some guy's trapped in the stall, asking for toilet paper, his hand flapping in the space between the partition and the floor? I think the idea of the scene was to show the main character's lack of empathy, the fact he could have easily lend the guy a hand, but wasn't even kind or selfless enough to do that.

Then you have bit at the end, where Douglas discovers the building where all the actors from "the game" work. He walks into the cafeteria and he sees just about everybody who's made an appearance in his life up until that point -- the woman he fell in love with, the guy who was driving the taxi, and then, as the the camera sweeps across, right at the end of the table, a toilet stall, the guy's hand flapping underneath, he's still asking for toilet paper -- yep, he was an actor too.

[philamental]

So I did go back and rewatch this. I still don't 'get it'. I felt exactly the same as previous in that largely the film suffers from the Occam's Razor principle where the most obvious explanation is true which removes most of the tension. This served for the majority of the film until the scenarios in the game become so far fetched you would finally begin to question how 'they' could control situations to that extent so maybe it's not a game after all. The reality is of course they couldn't control those situations so in the end the reveal of 'the game' is really insulting to the viewer.

There are just far too many forced coincidences with weak or no explanation. When Douglas' character was abandoned without money in Mexico, how could they have possibly known he would not get attacked, injured or killed? How did they know he would show up at the climax and shoot his brother? How did they know he would jump and where exactly to put the giant inflatable cushion thing? If they knew he would jump (he did fill out a detailed questionnaire so of course they now knew exactly how his mind would work in every possible future scenario!), how come they knew he wouldn't have attempted to kill himself earlier? Oh and that scene where he was chased by a military attack squad which we were told later were using blanks? Blanks don't cause any damage (as seen in Die Hard 2) yet here they shot the shit out of the place. Are we supposed to believe they planted squibs as part of the game? Come on! It's simply a dreadful plot, and I just can't tolerate the lengths they had to go to in order to try and deceive the viewer so they could reveal a surprise at the end.

Alien cubed is twice the film this is. That's how much I hate this film!

[philamental]

Remember the scene where Michael Douglas goes into the bathroom, and some guy's trapped in the stall, asking for toilet paper, -- yep, he was an actor too.

I meant to look out for this but forgot and I missed it. I might rewatch that one scene just to see it but I doubt I'll want to revisit the entire thing ever again

[MacSwell]

Definitely too contrived. I remember one point where they crash into a river and he has to save himself - he easily could've died there. Then I remember thinking at the end, "What would happen if he'd jumped off the other side of the building?".

[philamental]

Definitely too contrived. I remember one point where they crash into a river and he has to save himself - he easily could've died there.

Again 'they' attempted to 'explain' this at the end saying there were divers on standby for that part, but that's just laughable. What if the divers didn't react quickly enough? What if they saved his life but he had stopped breathing so long he had brain damage? Also if you think about the lengths of training and preparation Hollywood stunt crews need to go to in order to safely shoot a single scene like that, yet these guys just stick a few divers in with an untrained and unprepared middle aged civilian and that's ok. Ridiculous. Also how could a company get insurance for their business that involves risking their clients lives left right and centre? It's just preposterous.

I know some people will say, "hey it's just a movie and if you just go along for the ride it's fun", and I understand that to a degree. However I think with the combination of Fincher, Douglas, Penn, 'The Game' deserves to be critiqued differently than say a Statham low budget action thriller where you expect there to be glaring plot holes. The game was a big budget psychological thriller and personally I expected far better from the names involved.