Help Me Figure Out This Liberal Movie "The Last Supper"

ME

[Texaggie79]

Has anyone else seen the mid 90's movie The Last Supper with Cameron Diaz?

It is about this group of college liberals who accidentally kill an obnoxious dinner guest. After they get away with it, they decide to take it upon themselves to rid the world of "bad people" by having dinner with them, and basically judging them by their conversation, then giving them poisoned wine if they all decide that they are a "bad person".

They base the idea on the popular question about if you would kill Hitler if you met him before he came to power.

Anyways, there is a character throughout the movie who is on TV that resembles what a liberal sees Rush Limbaugh as. He gets to be the last guest. I wonder if indeed the film makers shaped him from Rush. And I wonder why they allow him to win at the end.

I can see where they are making the message that people can go to far on all sides, but was it just that the Rush like guy might have been a piece of trash, but no one deserves to die?

[NYCVirago]

I wouldn't characterize this as a liberal movie, even though the lead characters are liberal. (But the writers of the movie did steal the "would you kill Hitler early on" idea from Steven King's "The Dead Zone"!) The thing about the Rush Limbaugh type character (and it definitely was based on him) is that they all have the stereotype of how narrow-minded and evil he is, and he turns out to be quite different from their image of him. It's been a while since I saw the movie, but it seemed like the filmmakers wanted the audience to cheer him at the end. The libs in the movie are so sanctimonious and smug and narrow-minded, that it actually was a happy ending to see them all get their comeuppance! ;)

[Texaggie79]

I guess that's what I first thought. It's just that after seeing it again, I wondered if the movie played off that character as someone that had the views he did, simply for ratings.

[El Sordo]

Sounds pretty nauseating.

Seems to fit the usual pattern of the self-annointed playing God.

How were you able to keep your popcorn down?

[Texaggie79]

Well it got pretty disturbing. One of the people was a 17 year old highschool girl fighting her school for having mandatory sex ed. They fought about killing her, but they let her go.

But it made it worth it to see them all die at the end.

[Polonius]

I thought the end was rather ambiguous as well. It's been a long time, but here goes ... they invite the Limbaugh character, who is not what they expect (like the other stereotypes they kill). What left me uncertain, though, was the implication that the talk show host turns the tables on them in the end — the final piece of art would indicate that he switches the wine, which I suppose could represent a kind of retribution for their presumption in thinking they have the right to kill those they think are wrong.

Of course, I haven't seen this movie in a few years. What did you think?

[Zeroisanumber]

Having seen it I don't think that it's a liberal or conservative movie. More a cautionary tale about making judgements on who is good and who is "evil". I hate Bill Clinton, but killing him would make me worse than Bubba. Same thing from the liberal side in "The Last Supper".

[HHFi]

If you want to read what the critics said about it, try this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1071464/

[NYCVirago]

I guess that's what I first thought. It's just that after seeing it again, I wondered if the movie played off that character as someone that had the views he did, simply for ratings.

I can see that interpretation as well, or it could be read as the libs stand for open-mindedness, diversity, etc., and yet they're the most narrow-minded people in the movie, and the Rush character is supposed to be the most narrow-minded of all, but he's not quite the firebreather they thought he was going to be. I don't know what political affiliation the filmmakers are, but if they are liberal, they failed miserably at making a movie to espouse their point of view!

[Southack]

It was a clever movie. It illustrated time and again that liberals were smarter than po-dunk conservatives (by their standards), until they ran up against an intellectual conservative. At that point even they had to admit that they were wrong, but they still wanted to kill the Rush-type character because they disagreed with his ideology and had become completed corrupted by their own successes.

That the liberals were tricked into drinking their own poison was the ideal way to end the movie (and carried the hidden message that liberals can be poisoned by their own views).

Also, the Rush-guy's answer to the "would you kill Hitler before he assumed power" question was brilliant. The Conservative said no, first I'd challenge his ideas and try to get him to see the better way (and he continued to do that with all of his liberal hosts) because my arguments would trounce his on a level playing field.

Hey, Hollywood also produced Red Dawn. Conservative movies do get made in that town (e.g. Firefox, The Green Berets, The Outlaw Josey Wales).

[Texaggie79]

Yeah. I think Ebert put it well:

And the film is stolen at the end by Ron Perlman, as a Rush Limbaugh clone who savors his expensive cigar and talks leisurely circles around his antagonists while seeing right through their plot.

[Twodees]

This is how they hook you, kid. They put some really nice looking women in these movies, and if you're the type who thinks with his little head, before you know it you're a liberal. There may still be time for you to stop watching these movies. Especially beware of any with Shannon Elizabeth in the cast. She's the one who can trap guys who aren't that attracted to JLo's bulbous buttocks.

[CaptSkip]

I loved the movie. Great acting, well shot, good twists and turns.

My simplistic view...the libs decided the "right-wing" is so evil that the group must also become evil through some elitist nature. Death for the conservatives they encounter was the only answer.

Only problem...the "Rush" character at the end was smarter, more devious and "evil", and turned the tables on the group.

I still enjoy this flick despite the blatant politics that portray the lefties as rightious victims trying to be "good little Nazi exterminators".

[UberVernunft]

She's the one who can trap guys who aren't that attracted to JLo's bulbous buttocks.

I think JLo's buttocks are old news now. I heard that she had some kind of reduction surgery.

[HHFi]

J-Lo's made molehills out of mountains?

By the way, on the Rotten Tomatoes website I referenced above, check out the James Berardinelli review. It's very well written.

[Draco]

I have not seen the movie. But I don't need to. I was born in So Calif and have worked film and photo "shoots" earning money for college. I AM ALWAYS SURPRISED that people take Hollywood so seriously and think that the makers of films and TV shows are able to interweave some deep, barely discernable meaning into their "art." I have witnessed the "creative process" as it is called, and have observed some of the "creators." To mistake many (nearly all) of them for "deep thinkers" is a big mistake. The facts: many in Hollywood are extremely unhappy; a few "big name stars" are suicidal, or at least threaten it to their "PAs" (Personal Assistants) during 3:00 a.m. phone calls; many, including the screenwriters, are way way out on drugs. "Art" is not Hollywood. "Money" is Hollywood. There is more intellectual rigor and creativity in the analyses by the casual posters in this thread than in several Hollywood screenwriters combined. As I said, I live here, and I have seen it in person. Just take the stuff for fun. They are not Shakespeare or Einstein. Your typically sixth grader could do just a good a job.

[Twodees]

I hope not. I've always loved those globular gluteus maximi that some women display. Then again, I love the wide seesawing heart shaped ones and the smaller half a peach shaped ones as well. Call me a butt man, I guess. ;-)

[Cian]

I just saw this movie over the weekend. I thought it was hilarious.

He're my take on the end.

Norman Arbuthnot, the right-wing leader, shows the dinner hosts that they have betrayed their own principles by failing to engage in intelligent debate with those they disagree with (the Hitler question). While they're in the kitchen he discovers they are commited liberals (the Mondale book) and are killing right-wingers like himself. Luke (the black guy) meanwhile, says that Arbuthnot is going to be the next Hitler and should be killed. His friends convince him otherwise and they go back to dinner. It looks like Luke was right about him though, as he kills off the guests even though he has already pesuaded them by debate. The end of the movie suggests that Arbuthnot is on his way to becoming the next US (Hitler-like?) president.

A Freeper goes by the name of Norman Arbuthnot. I'll ask him for his interpretation.

[Cian]

I thought you'd like this post. (My comments directly above). What's your interpretation of the movie? Do you read Mark Steyn? He looks and sounds like Arbuthnot.

[Texaggie79]

The end of the movie suggests that Arbuthnot is on his way to becoming the next US (Hitler-like?) president.

That's a new perspective.