Pearlman's character was as bad as the grad students. - The Last Supper (1996) Discussion

[–] grobmaster 12 years ago

We really don't know if he did kill them or not, and if he did then a lawyer will argue self defense as they were going to kill him

reply

[–] movie_nazi 12 years ago

We really don't know if he did kill them or not, and if he did then a lawyer will argue self defense as they were going to kill him

I think the painting shown at the end pretty much indicates that he did indeed kill them.

My vote history link:http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5504773

reply

[–] sawyertom 12 years ago

They had it coming. Besides it was self-defense.

reply

[–] movie_nazi 12 years ago

They had it coming. Besides it was self-defense.

They may indeed "had it coming" but self-defense is preposterous. He could have easily left and called the cops.

My vote history link:http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5504773

reply

[–] gupta-anuj 12 years ago

Considering all the murders the group had done, could Peralman bet on getting out of the house alive?

I think he played a fair game, wherein if the group were indeed poisoning people then they die by their own poison. If not, all of them would have ended the day with a good dinner conversation.

reply

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

They left him alone at the table for a good amount of time. He could have easily gotten out the door and left.

reply

[–] changedname 12 years ago

"They may indeed "had it coming" but self-defense is preposterous. He could have easily left and called the cops."

Actually your post is preposterous, it was five against one. He didn't know at that time that they had decided not to murder him behind the door. If they had voted the other way then the only way for him to get out alive would be to poison them.

Also, Pearlman didn't know that it could easily be proved either. And what if some of them said they had nothing to do with it, etc. It could get turn into a very long and nasty case where some of them would likely get off with a light sentence. The way Pearlman did it ended it all neatly.

reply

[–] movie_nazi 11 years ago

Actually your post is preposterous, it was five against one. He didn't know at that time that they had decided not to murder him behind the door. If they had voted the other way then the only way for him to get out alive would be to poison them.

Also, Pearlman didn't know that it could easily be proved either. And what if some of them said they had nothing to do with it, etc. It could get turn into a very long and nasty case where some of them would likely get off with a light sentence. The way Pearlman did it ended it all neatly.

Watch the movie again. Pearlman pieces it together while they are in the back arguing. He could have easily ran out the door. If he had the time to fill everyone's wine glass with the poisoned wine don't you think he had enough to run out the door? You actually think a defense a ttorney could build a case while the PA pieces together the scenario of Pearlman filling up 5 glasses of wine with poison? In most states you cannot even shoot an armed intruder in the back if he is fleeing! So how well would a "I knew they were going to poison me so I poisoned them first" story would stand in a court of law?

reply

[–] averagejoeman2013 10 years ago

If its 5 to one and the proof is found of the other bodies, no jury in the world would (or should) convict him.

"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."

reply

[–] dialixii 10 years ago

I agree. If a person comes to a social gathering and slowly learns they are trying to kill him, anyone would react. They presented themselves as calm cold killers. They were detached from reality and morals. Not only would I be scared, but I would be outraged. I would want the revenge of knowing these bastards wouldn't escape the legal system in some way or form. Besides, if he was wrong, they would only be a little more drunk. They chose to trust him same as their victims trusted them.

reply

[–] jk7275 10 years ago

Who painted the painting? It could have been done by the one who was an artist when he was sitting on death row

reply

[–] huginn12 10 years ago

I think the painting shown at the end pretty much indicates that he did indeed kill them.

Who painted the painting? my theory is the one grad student that was a painter did it when sitting in jail or possibly death row

reply

[–] Ainull_seepage 12 years ago

He didn't kill them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SidPwuG78

Confound your lousy toll.. TROLL!

reply

[–] Mister_Anderson 12 years ago

I could easily give a more serious response, but suffice it to say that that would be a case no district attorney would ever prosecute.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

reply

[–] ravi-shankar-kgr 12 years ago

I feel he did not kill. As all movie ends they end with a suspicion

http://teashoptalks.blogspot.com/
http://filmbulb.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] santsa70 11 years ago

I think it's worth noting that Perlman's character could only suspect they killed others. If he served them wine and he was wrong about them, then no harm no foul. If his suspicions were right, then they'd get what they deserved.

reply

[–] sinceimetjc 10 years ago

That is true. He didn't put poison in the bottle. He only speculated that there was poison in the bottle. If he had served them up their own wine, and they died, they died because they put the poison there. It was kind of test to see if they were trying to kill him.

reply

[–] averagejoeman2013 10 years ago

I liked the way the movie sort of really made one contemplate a variety of points. The extremists on BOTH sides can be devoid of humanity when they close their minds. We see that the graduates thought they were "purifying" the world of undesirables which consisted of clergy and other innocent individuals. In a way, they became as bad (or worse) than the monsters they thought themselves superior to in every way.

Pearlman's character was able to use their own logic against them but maintained his own principles and it not only exposed their hypocrisy, but showed how limited their thoughts and how abrasive their attitudes had become. Kind of ironic that by the time they evolved to understand his position, they were neatly eliminated (in a way) by the steps taken in their hatred.

As to what others had said, it was entirely justifiable and he'd likely be given a medal for his efforts.

"Freedom and morality do not go hand in hand. In fact, they are usually devoid of one another."

reply

[–] zachanscom 10 years ago

i think the clear intention of the film was to demonstrate that the real threat, the real "bad guy" was hard to spot.

i would say the grad students were worse because of the mass murders, but also because they were morons.

but pearlmen certainly isn't a saint. and him going on to become president after killing them is a terrific black comedy ending. and it is hinted at that his views are actually more depraved than he let on by his actions.

despite the simple premise, the film's actually rather hard to read and ambiguous as to the true motivation of different characters.

reply

[–] blacknyellowsquid 8 years ago

but pearlmen certainly isn't a saint. and him going on to become president after killing them is a terrific black comedy ending. and it is hinted at that his views are actually more depraved than he let on by his actions.

Bingo. I'm surprised no one else is getting it. as it turned out, Perlman's character really WAS super dangerous and just used his friendly charm and humor and whatnot to manipulate people....the masses and the dinner party. He was too smart. He outsmarted the liberal dinner people. But at the end of the day, he really IS the one that probably should have been killed/stopped.

As for the rest of the film, yes, definitely, the dinner party guests were hypocritical and not good people, either. They took it way too far to think they were empowered to start murdering anyone who disagreed with their views. As if it was for "good" when really they were justifying wanton murder fueled by their hatred, some even enjoying it. Yes, becoming just as bad or worse than those they claimed to hate.

reply

[–] vilafire (607) 3 years ago

I think it’s too ambiguous to say that about the Rush Limbaugh character and your take seems close to Luke’s before his epiphany. Perhaps the filmmaker intended to say that Perlman was Hitler after all and that Luke would have been justified in murdering his friends to kill him, but I doubt it. Either way its reception kind of proves the contemporary reviews correct—that the message is muddled.

Regardless, the voiceover doesn’t reveal he becomes President. He only remarks that he basically already is. The hellish painting kind of paints the voiceover as ominous as opposed to a blowhard making money fooling the masses, but either would fit with the film’s black comedy.

This movie is mostly about freedom of speech and it’s funny how that has become an even more pressing and controversial issue today. As this movie shows, some “liberals” were against freedom of speech in the 90s (the first toxic PC decade) as they are today. Morons abound. But to watch this film and not see it as a reminder about the importance of the first amendment is idiotic.

reply

[–] michaelward15 10 years ago

I'm not saying Pearlman's character was a good guy. but I don't think killing a bunch of serial killers is as bad as being a serial killer. The grad students killed several people and most of them just for disagreeing with them.

reply