MovieChat Forums > The Last Seduction (1994) Discussion > Does every male in this movie have an IQ...

Does every male in this movie have an IQ below 50?

posted 19 years ago by ZweiBlumen
62 replies | jump to latest

Because that's the way it seemed to me, having just seen this. Not since watching "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" have the limits of credibility been stretched to such an extent, and at least that one was a comedy.

Basically, the lead (Fiorentino) is some kind of genius-level criminal mastermind, while every male character she interacts with is a complete and utter moron. Starting from her own husband (convinced by her to go into the drug business, she ruins his career and finances, and at the end he actually wants to get back with her?) Then there's the black detective, who risks his job and his pay doing something incredibly stupid and inappropriate, why? Because she taunted him into it? These are supposed to be mature, free-thinking adults? Give me a break. The other 'detective' hired to watch her from the street isn't much better; his intelligence level and overall demeanor would be a much better fit on a gentle ruminant than a human being.

But the crowning glory of oblivious, slack-jawed boobery has to be that mouth-breathing country boy she calls a boyfriend. He is so pathetically naive and needy that he follows her around like a lost puppy, who will keep trotting alongside you whining plainitively even after you've kicked it. He has no backbone, no self-control and no ability to think about his situation or the long-term consequences of his actions. He is so terminally stupid that I'm surprised he didn't die halfway through the movie from forgetting to breathe.

I know that this is how the characters were designed, but come on, give me a break. There is only so much suspension of disbelief I can take, and Bridget Gregory's story about her antics together with the nearly unimaginable stupidity and gullibility of everyone around her not only crosses that line, it polevaults over it.

I am so tired of male characters in movies and TV shows being portrayed as nothing but gullible, needy, sex-starved idiots who'll do anything a woman asks, and all women being smart, sassy and able to manipulate men any way they want.

It's too bad, because otherwise I rather enjoyed the actors' performances.

[–] 666Night999 19 years ago

Yes, the men are dumb, and that is why she wins!

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] ajmal-m 18 years ago

speaking as a hetrosexual man thats apsolutely correct. on certain ocassions we are indeed led by the wrong head with devestating results.

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

yep.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] frodo_boggins143 19 years ago

yeah, thats true, gener4ally in all noir movies, the heroine wud b smarter than male, but not THAT smart.....the male wud b entranced by her n get killed or something, but finally wud end up getting the female in trouble too

but rite from the first scene wen i knew that this is a homage to noirish movies, i knew she was gonna get away with it....because the males acted too DUMB

even in basic instinct, mike doug did something to verify his doubts abt the lady...but here, the guy just acts like her sissy....

the point is to prove that she was powerful.....point was made once, thats enough, but the movie kept on stressing the point.........finally, its the same story of:

bad guy cheats em all, cheats even in the end and gets away with it.....

maybe it looked fresh wen it was released, but it looks dated now......the IMDB ranking on 7.2 is well deserved (deserves nothing more)

[–] Snatcherboy 19 years ago

Frodo_boggins143, your overuse of abbrievations is highly irritating.

[–] quinnp 16 years ago

Hear, Hear!

"Text Speak" is replacing smoking as the new most irritating social habit.

Good arguments and strong points, for me, go flying right out the window as soon as someone replies to a post in that disgusting, moronic manner.

And yes, the low IQ plot device is the whole point of the movie and your man's abbreviated response only cements the fact!

[–] Newangles 19 years ago

I would estimate it to be something like this:

Wendy Kroy = IQ 115
Clay = IQ 105 (he was a bit confused though)
Mike = IQ 60
Cookie-eating detective = IQ 60
Phone-tracing detective = IQ 100 (in the car he dropped to 70)
Film Producers = IQ 130
Intended audience average = IQ 40

[–] wrlj2 19 years ago

Maybe Wendy's IQ wasn't that high, or maybe the writer's or my IQ are deficient. Did Wendy forget about the most incriminating evidence against her, her letter to Mike ostensibly from his "wife" which motivated him to join the murder plot? Was that the missing evidence that Mike thought of in the last scene at the jail? Or did the writer forget about it, or intentionally leave it hanging out there to confound viewers like me? Or did I miss some scene in which she destroyed it? If the police had that letter as evidence, it would exonerate and release poor old Mike from prison and undo the incorrigible Wendy. So help me out here, who goofed up? Wendy? The writer? Or me?

[–] 666Night999 19 years ago

Well, the last scene shows Bridget burning the name tag "CAHILL". This is the last bit of evidence that would link her to the plot.

As for the letter from the 'wife', she wrote it in her(the 'wife's) handwriting, and it would be hard to prove who wrote it. I know handwriting copying cannot be 100% legit, so if they got a true expert maybe they could prove that the real 'wife' didn't write it, but I don't think this would prove a link to murder. It was just a fake love letter saying the 'wife' was coming back into town and "I love you's". For all they know, it's just a prank, and I don't think Mike would want to resurrect that relationship again, (even if it means staying in jail!!!)

So the letter, I don't think it was dealt with after Mike's reading of it, but how would they prove it was linked to Bridget, or evidence in murder?

p.s. Mike was probably so freaked out by the letter and his ex-'wife' coming back that he probably threw it away or destroyed it.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] wrlj2 19 years ago

Most police agencies have at their disposal handwriting experts (called Questioned Document Examiners in court) who can with some proficiency identify forged or copied hand writing. Under certain circumstances courts will allow them to express an expert opinion as to the identity of the forger. This type of evidence would have circumstantially supported Mike's version that he was a reluctant participant acting at the instigation of Wendy, and at least partially rebutted Wendy's claim of no involvement or total innocence. But I think you have a good point in that it might not have been enough to exonerate Mike or support a prosecution of Wendy. Also, I overlooked the fact that Mike probably never knew that the letter was a forgery so it would not have been the evidence he was thinking of in the jail scene, and thus he would never have tipped his lawyer and the police to it, even if he had kept it. I guess my efforts to preserve the chance for a little justice in this plot have proved futile. Alas, dumb guy pays, bad girl walks. Thanks for your help.

[–] 666Night999 19 years ago

Also, since this is a film noir, I think it's more about style and "the bad girl getting away with it" rather than analyzing every piece of evidence or trying to find a flaw in the logic of the storyline.

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] DruzeTito 18 years ago

"I am so tired of male characters in movies and TV shows being portrayed as nothing but gullible, needy, sex-starved idiots who'll do anything a woman asks, and all women being smart, sassy and able to manipulate men any way they want. "

Nice post, but you forgot to add in the word "white" before "male characters."

Hollywood and the media is blatantly anti-white male and I don't understand how 8 out of 10 people miss this.

God forbid a black male is portrayed as stupid!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bjourner 18 years ago

"God forbid a black male is portrayed as stupid!!"

Are you kidding me? Did you even WATCH this film?
If you did, did you forget about the private detective that Clay hires to find Bridget? He winds up tracking her down. He's in the car with her on the way to finally retrieve the money and he is stupid enough to let himself get manipulated and eventually KILLED by Bridget. Just because she made a somewhat sexual pitch and dare to him. The manipulation is based and executed on the fact that HE IS black.

How did you miss that finer point?

There are also a million movies out there starring various white men in which they are portrayed in the finest of ways and plenty of films with black men who are portrayed as evil, rotton, stupid criminals.

Go out and rent a few, you'll see what I mean.
You do sound a little insecure. Grow up.

[–] DruzeTito 18 years ago

id like you to name some because i havent seen any.

[–] tmo1909 18 years ago

The missing evidence was Wendy's fingerprints on the doorbell label. She burns it at the end of the film... The letter probably wouldn't be something Mike would bring up because all his "friends" would know he had married a man. So would all his future prison "friends".........

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Newangles 16 years ago

Now it was many months ago, but I think I was refering to the Wechsler scale, with a standard deviation of 15.

The average IQ of a population should be around 100, but some say that it can differ from one country to another. In a book called "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" (Lynn/Vanhanen) average IQ goes from 107 (Hong Kong) down to 59 (Guinnea). Now that's a pretty wide span, I'd say.

Something called the WAIS-III scale says that 130 and above is "Very superior", 120-129 is "Superior", 110-119 is "High average", 90-109 is "Average", 80-89 is "Low average", 70-79 is "Borderline" and 69 and below is "Extremely silly". No, sorry... that last one should read "Extremely low". I am not sure which deviation this scale is based on, though.

Best regards,
Newangles

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beautifulwhippingboy 18 years ago

The lawyer Wendy phones up, played by JT Walsh, doesn't seem so stupid.

"Still a lawyer, Frank?" she asks.
"Still a self-serving bitch?" he replies.

He's the only male character who can see through her.Pity the never meet in the movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] podracer96 18 years ago

When I saw this movie, I thought the reason the guys were putty in the hands of Linda Fiorentino's character was because she was beautiful, sexy, confident, smart, bitchy, seductive, and pretty much everything a guy fantasizes about in an attractive woman. Maybe all those male characters are smart, but she comes into the room and their IQ drops 50+ points.

That's why we all praise Linda Fiorentino for her portrayal. She plays an anti-hero. Her character is a manipulative, beautiful, intelligent woman who knows how to get what she wants. Personally, I don't think Fiorentino ever got a better role. The Last Seduction is her best work. She's not as brilliant in any other movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

did you catch the detail that she and the lawyer may have had a sexual relationship? I thought there was a lot of depth and unspoken insinuating when the lawyer says "are my lips moving too fast for you?" and she replies, "not fast enough, as I recall." Wasn't this a subtle hint to cunnilingus? Or was it obvious to everyone else?

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 666Night999 18 years ago

I guess you'd use your tongue more, but I always interpreted that remark as some kind of sexual past. Maybe not. I know the lawyer says, "now, now" after that. There's just something mysterious about her remark of, "not fast enough, as I recall". What does that mean in the context of their conversation?

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bjourner 18 years ago

It was EXTREMELY obvious to me Night, LOL!!!
I noticed that fact immediately as I was watching the film.
She's been around. And she takes what she wants and needs at any given moment.
And just as obviously she wasn't too impressed with his oral skills.
But he must have been a great lawyer!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mgtbltp 10 years ago

did you catch the detail that she and the lawyer may have had a sexual relationship? I thought there was a lot of depth and unspoken insinuating when the lawyer says "are my lips moving too fast for you?" and she replies, "not fast enough, as I recall." Wasn't this a subtle hint to cunnilingus? Or was it obvious to everyone else?

Yes obvious

[–] mgtbltp 10 years ago

When I saw this movie, I thought the reason the guys were putty in the hands of Linda Fiorentino's character was because she was beautiful, sexy, confident, smart, bitchy, seductive, and pretty much everything a guy fantasizes about in an attractive woman. Maybe all those male characters are smart, but she comes into the room and their IQ drops 50+ points.

That's why we all praise Linda Fiorentino for her portrayal. She plays an anti-hero. Her character is a manipulative, beautiful, intelligent woman who knows how to get what she wants. Personally, I don't think Fiorentino ever got a better role. The Last Seduction is her best work. She's not as brilliant in any other movie.

^ this nails it, Linda Fiorentino is The Femme Fatale in this, perhaps the ultimate one.

[–] Fenris Fil 18 years ago

Has to be said Mike is perhaps the dumbest muppet I have ever seen in a motion picture. The rest aren't much smarter but Mike really breaks the boundaries. I mean Forrest Gump and/or the rain man could tell they were being set up in the same circumstances. This of course gives you the added problem that he is so mind numbingly thick you have absoloutly no sympathy for him and actually kinda feel he deserves to be screwed over for being so dumb. Yet we are meant to believe he's a competant claims adjuster?

I'd also like to say that having the protagonist smoke a lot doesn't justify the film as a modern noir. I didn't see anything in this film to make me think of it like that. Sure there are a lot of shallow references to Double Indemnity (a film that is a million light years from this pile of crud) and the whole femme fatale thing, but even that doesn't come across right because she doesn't do anything but act like a totally transparent bitch the whole film, making it even dumber that all the men seem to be falling over themselves to do what she wants.

Actually the film would have been more believable if she had had them run around in Gimp outfits or something.

I wouldn't call her any kind of genius though. I mean the Wendy Kroy thing was a bit dumb and as I said she is pretty transparent the whole time. She needed to be around complete morons to get anywhere.

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mgtbltp 10 years ago

Has to be said Mike is perhaps the dumbest muppet I have ever seen in a motion picture. The rest aren't much smarter but Mike really breaks the boundaries. I mean Forrest Gump and/or the rain man could tell they were being set up in the same circumstances. This of course gives you the added problem that he is so mind numbingly thick you have absoloutly no sympathy for him and actually kinda feel he deserves to be screwed over for being so dumb. Yet we are meant to believe he's a competant claims adjuster?

I'd also like to say that having the protagonist smoke a lot doesn't justify the film as a modern noir. I didn't see anything in this film to make me think of it like that. Sure there are a lot of shallow references to Double Indemnity (a film that is a million light years from this pile of crud) and the whole femme fatale thing, but even that doesn't come across right because she doesn't do anything but act like a totally transparent bitch the whole film, making it even dumber that all the men seem to be falling over themselves to do what she wants.

Actually the film would have been more believable if she had had them run around in Gimp outfits or something.

I wouldn't call her any kind of genius though. I mean the Wendy Kroy thing was a bit dumb and as I said she is pretty transparent the whole time. She needed to be around complete morons to get anywhere.

sounds like you've never met your femme fatale.

[–] hawkstr12 18 years ago

Perhaps you're just a bit too accustomed with phallocentric heterosexuality and the portrayal of "fallen women" in film, which is probably why you're uncomfortable with the sight of an overly dominant female character.