100 Scariest Movie Moments: #44 The Game

The most truly shocking moment of The Game comes near the beginning, when Nicholas “Nicky” Van Orton (Michael Douglas) sits down to watch the news and hears a story about a Republican attempting to force small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees being blocked by Democrats... my, my the 90s were a different time.

I like this movie, but I don’t understand the people who believe it’s a masterpiece. The movie is fun, but it’s so unrealistic that I have trouble becoming immersed in it. The idea that it’s possible to subject numerous human beings to this type of “Game,” and not face numerous criminal charges and lawsuits is just outright silly.

The premise of the movie is that Nicky is a control freak whose father committed suicide on his 48^th birthday. Nicky’s 48^th birthday is coming up, and there’s an unspoken concern among his friends and family that he might follow in his father’s footsteps. He’s divorced, not well liked, and doesn’t really seem to have much fun.

So in light of this, Nicky’s brother Conrad (Sean Penn), gives him a “Game” for his birthday. Theoretically, this Game will serve to make his life “interesting,” but he can’t be told what it will consist of. Reluctantly, he agrees to undergo the initial screening for it.

The Game itself consists of an escalating series of events that begin as apparently random accidents, such as his briefcase failing to open, and eventually turn into an apparent conspiracy to destroy him. He nearly drowns in a cab and is left for dead in Mexico. Throughout the film he’s being followed and given conflicting information from various sources about where the Game ends and the real world begins. You pretty much have to accept that every single person in this entire film is in on the Game except him.

Early in the film, Nicky encounters a waitress named Christine (Deborah Kara Unger), who appears to have been caught in the crossfire between him and the Game's controllers. It’s eventually revealed that she’s a member of the organization, although as the movie goes on, her ranking in the organization keeps getting upgraded as the conspiracy grows. She initially seems to have been a one-time hire, then a low-level con artist. By the end, she seems to be one of the main orchestrators of the Game.

He eventually determines that the company running the Game, Consumer Recreation Services (CRS) is attempting to seize his assets and those of his company. How this works, and how they wouldn’t all be immediately arrested for such blatant theft, I don’t pretend to understand.

The problem with this film is really hammered home by the ending… It really was all a Game. It’s contrived enough that are CRS able to predict Nicky’s actions with such certainty that they can have an airbag waiting when he attempts to jump to his death. However, they can also be sure that he’ll be completely satisfied now that they’ve drugged, assaulted, and robbed him (...oh, but they’re going to give back the stuff they took, naturally...), and thus he won’t sue them.

I really think this movie would have worked better as an Indie film. It would have been far scarier to see a smaller conspiracy attempting to destroy a man’s life and take everything he owns. As it is though, I don’t for one second believe that such a company could ever do or get away with this sort of thing, or for that matter, even exist. And without that engagement, the movie never really scares me.

That said, the movie is worth seeing, but not as a horror movie. Instead, it’s a roller coaster. You’re more likely to find yourself laughing than screaming, but a good laugh is still worth the time.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #59 Fatal Attraction

The first thing I have to mention regarding Fatal Attraction is that it's dated. Dan (Michael Douglas) is rooted in 80s machismo that really doesn't ring true in the 21^st century. When Alex (Glenn Close) repeatedly calls him a “faggot,” modern viewers don't feel sympathy for him. Rather, we laugh at her for being incredibly juvenile. I'd say that within a generation or two it'll be just downright bizarre, like insulting someone by calling them a “Fan of Musicals.” It just won't register anymore how in the Hell that was ever even supposed to have been an insult. So yeah, a dated movie that's destined to become even more dated.

The plot of the film is that Dan has an affair with Alex, and Alex wants a more serious relationship with him. Next, Alex becomes stalkery, and we find out she's pregnant. Then, Alex becomes violent not just towards Dan, but towards his family, kidnapping and then returning his daughter (Ellen Hamilton Latzen), killing the family's pet rabbit, and eventually attacking both him and his wife (Anne Archer).

I feel like this isn't a bad movie, and it's certainly impactful, but I also feel like the weakest aspect of the film is its focus on Dan and Alex. Fundamentally, Dan brought this on himself. The movie was obviously intended to convey an 80’s pro-family message against adultery by showing the extra-marital partner as dangerous. However, in doing this, the movie tends to portray Dan's wife, Beth, primarily as just being one aspect of his life that is under attack. As the innocent victim, I think she would have been the more engaging protagonist, as her family was under assault due to the actions of her husband and through no fault of her own.

Alex and Dan as characters are also both weakened by the fact that, quite frankly, they deserve each other. They're drama-whores. Either of them could have ended the entire mess much earlier by telling Beth what happened. Alex could have used it as a means of attacking Dan, or Dan could have used it to take away Alex's power, claiming responsibility for his child, saving or ending his marriage as his wife decided, and being free to report Alex to the police as a stalker. Instead, they'd rather just glower at each other from across the room. This interpretation certainly isn't helped by the fact that Dan is willing to attack the woman carrying his child without fear of harming the baby, which makes you wonder why they bothered with the plot point if it would ultimately have no significance to his motivation. Why do we want either of these people as a protagonist?

Most of these weaknesses, however, come out later in the film. The earlier scenes between Dan and Alex, in which they hook up, fight, reconcile and fight some more, are far more interesting. I think this is most likely because the movie was an expansion of a short film, with the pregnancy added on to keep the story going. This shows, with the film feeling almost like two movies. The first, an interesting film about two people having an affair, presented without judgment for the audience to draw their own conclusion. The second, a fairly generic stalker-flick that just happens to have a woman stalking a man.

If there's a single scene I need to comment on by itself, it's the kidnapping scene. Alex picks up Dan's daughter Ellen from school and takes her to an amusement park where they get ice cream and go on a roller coaster. At the end, Beth is a wreck searching for Ellen and Ellen is returned unharmed. She seems to have had the double-motive of wanting to bond with the girl she would make her step-daughter, while also wanting to intimidate Dan and Beth. I have mixed feelings about this scene. On the one hand, yes it is terrifying. Even having already seen it previously and knowing how it ends, I feel uncomfortable watching it. On the other hand though, the fact that she never actually harms Ellen makes it feel like filler. You can just feel the filmmakers chickening out of offing a kid.

This movie isn't really the classic everyone makes it out to be, but it's certainly not bad either. At it's worst it feels like what Pacific Heights would have been if it was made by people who actually cared.