SEVEN
Like a punch in the solar plexus, but you like it
This movie isn't as deep as you've probably heard. One's appreciation of it is not going to be considerably heightened by studying Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost and certainly not The Canterbury Tales. No, what makes Seven such a great movie is that it's probably the single creepiest police procedural ever made; nasty, oppressive and gruesome (at least in terms of what it suggests) in the extreme, it's like watching pure hopelessness and despair put on film.
Morgan Freeman stars as New York homicide detective William Sommerset, seven days from retirement and still saddled with a new partner, David Mills (Brad Pitt). Their first (well, second) case together involves a morbidly obese man found dead with his face in a plate of canned spaghetti. Their next, a hotshot lawyer with a big chunk of his love handles cut off and the word "GREED" scrawled in blood on his carpet. Some unnamed maniac-slash-evil-mastermind (exactly which he is doesn't really matter), called John Doe later in the film, is preaching his gospel to the cops, to the world; and with five more deadly sins to hack and slash his way through, he's probably going to be heard.
I remember when Alien3 came out, several people I knew blamed their disappointment not on the real problem with the film (the story) but with David Fincher, who was at the time a first-time movie director. Such a direction to point a finger in seems ridiculous these days, Fincher accumulating an enormous amount of critical and fan respect in a rather short time. Seven is Fincher at his best - it doesn't feel like a two-hour rock video like so many movies from his MTV-spawned kin. This is an expertly, confidently crafted film with enough atmosphere to terraform the moon.
Freeman is excellent, as always, showing for the zillionth time that he can carry most movies on his voice alone. His is a quiet, understated character with a quiet, understated life, and the script avoids all those "cop with seven days to retirement" clichés. Pitt is also quite good as the cocky newcomer who actually asked to be transferred to this new, ugly district; he gets a number of funny lines but never feels like comic relief. One thing I'll say about Pitt - he may be a hunky, annoying heartthrob, but he's always willing to try his best to erode that image (note the cheesy mustache and chin whiskers). Then mostly unknown, Gwyneth Paltrow also shows up, sympathetic and warm as Mills' wife. (how she tries to bridge the personality gap between the two partners is so sweet, you'll want to reach into the screen and give her a hug) Extra points must also be given for casting R. Lee Ermey as somebody other than the same cranky drill sergeant he always plays, for once. (and try to see if you can spot David Arquette's brother - looks just like him, but it ain't him)
Even though the killer is by design without identity, for some reason the fact that he's played by Kevin Spacey was to some degree kept a secret. He only shows up with about half an hour to go in the movie. It's a really terrific performance; Doe is a nut, once seen bouncing up and down with childlike enthusiasm for what's to come, but he's a nut with a plan, with purpose. Spacey put out two really great performances in 1995 (the other being in Swimming With Sharks) - ironic that he won his Oscar for a third film which was only noteworthy for reigning in Gabriel Byrne's usual scenery-chewing.
This movie is unpleasant and ugly and brutal, only pausing to inject brightness into things with Paltrow and the occasional funny line. It's one of the most disturbing movies you're likely to see, and it's not for the squeamish, faint-hearted or people who kept saying "I can't look!" during The Silence Of The Lambs. And yet, it's also a lot of fun. The police procedural aspect moves along at a good clip, and it's always fun to watch a well-made one clomp along as one clue leads to another. Likewise, there's a sick sort of thrill in speculating just what form the next murder will take. How would YOU kill somebody with lust? Pride? Envy? It's amazing how a movie could so expertly come across as so disturbing and yet enjoyable, without seeming watered-down.
There are also two moments in the film which are so excruciatingly suspenseful that one is almost tempted to look away from the screen, much like that one scene in The Haunting. One involves the arrival of a truck; the viewer is given no clue as to what it's doing there, and that's why it's so frightening - it could be ANYTHING. Possibilities will bounce back and forth in one's mind, and it's only later that one realizes that all of those possibilities (except the one that actually comes to pass) would have been pretty cheesy if they were actually delivered on.
The other moment involves the fact that our villain has a gun. We've seen a lot of movies with a lot of villains toting a lot of guns; but no movie has, quite as successfully as this one, created sheer terror by showing the villain with the gun and making the viewer realize the power it gives him. (it very much evokes the famous shot in Alien3 where the creature puts its face right up to Ripley's and you know she's at its complete mercy) As filmgoers, we've become really desensitized to the kind of danger - and dangerous power - they represent, because while lots of villains have guns, they'll never actually hit the hero anywhere other than in the shoulder. This is a movie that splendidly lets us forget that. The only other movie I can think of which really pulled this off well was Unlawful Entry, which wasn't really that special a movie otherwise because this is the only thing about the movie I remember.
I only have three real problems with Seven; one is the ending, when John Doe's plan reaches its ultimate destination. I appreciate that Walker's script leaves this open to multiple interpretations regarding the final two sins, sinners, and victims. But the thing is, none of those interpretations are entirely satisfactory. The method Doe employed previously - that is, the sinner being killed with the sin they're guilty of (it might not be entirely the case with the Lust murder, but it's easy to imagine a guy like Doe thinking it is) - just does not apply here. One person's sin kills a person guilty of a different sin, if any. Maybe - just maybe - one can interpret regret as envy, and then it kind of makes sense (although it goes against what Doe explicitly states). But that seems like pushing it a little too much for me.
The second problem is some inconsequential plot problems. One is in the obtaining of a sketch of Doe. We're told that there's a receipt in the bag for all that spaghetti that Doe bought - there you go, the first murder, and already you'd think you'd have people working at that store who would remember some guy coming in a buying all those cans. It's not something you'd forget. Not that the sketch ever does anybody any good when it finally gets made, so that's not a big deal. Likewise, how would Doe know the exact length of time it would take the cops not only to find the prints he left for them, but to find a match on their computers? It could have taken them days to find the prints - and up to three more to find the match. Again, this doesn't actually affect anything; for them to find a certain somebody on the one-year anniversary of (deleted for spoiler content) is poetic, I guess, but doesn't really affect anything. And while this is more of an aesthetic thing than a plot problem, there's a remix of Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" here (I really, really, really, REALLY fucking hate that song), but at least the remix is unrecognizable.
The third problem is the mechanics behind the one murder, which reveal a length of planning behind the whole "murder sermon" which makes the ending even more unlikely. Having set this up for a very long time, what if Doe found nothing enviable in the investigating policemen? I suppose that any two guys with a stable career and a pension could be considered lucky enough to be enviable, but that also seems like pushing it, especially considering just what was found worthy of envy.
But these are minor flaws in a spectacularly unsettling movie. I was enormously pleased to see the movie go on to rake in a huge amount of cash, even though I know that the film's box-office take had as much to do with hunky Brad Pitt (then, a sure-fire box-office draw) as with how good the whole thing is. I was worried for a while that it might spawn a sequel - what would you call a sequel to Seven? Eight? Seven 2? Seven Again? Thankfully, this has not come to pass and I don't think it's ever going to (phew!).
Fun note: the MTV Movie Awards a few years ago had a hilarious segment where they remade the climactic scene from this movie, with William Shatner in all three roles. (one role played as James Kirk, another played as T. J. Hooker, another as'I don't really remember) (I think part of the joke was that the delivery all came out the same anyway) (but I don't really remember) (I was drunk) Wish I'd taped it.