MovieChat Forums > The Last Supper (1996) Discussion > Pearlman's character was as bad as the g...

Pearlman's character was as bad as the grad students.


It seems pretty clear that Pearlman, at least in his mind, had determined that the grad students were the killers and had poison in the flask.

If pearlman had been a "good" person he would have left the house and called police. Instead pearlman decides to turn the tables and kill the grad students. 1st degree intentional murder.

So it wasn't just a case of just desserts, it was a case that Pearlman was jusr as extreme as the grad students were.

reply


Pearlman was the hero. If they werent killers, then they would have been fine drinking their own wine. He merely turned their intolerance and hatred against them (figuratively and literally) and they ended up destroying themselves as hatred usually does. Shame though, he likely would have converted them to the right side had they lived.

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

reply

If a person kills a SERIAL killer or group of serial killers when the person doing so had no violent criminal record beforehand there is no way any jury will convict them of anything. Benefit of the doubt would be ENTIRELY in the favor of that person.

If some other serial killer like the Zodiac Killer or the Boston Strangler got killed by another person who themselves had no violent criminal record it would be impossible for that person to be tried much less convicted of murder. Self defense would just be assumed.

Not only that but once all the dead bodies were dug up in the back yard he would be hailed as a HERO which I am sure helped his career.

They all deserved to die. They were no better than isis. Yes their victims were all A$$hole$ but we do NOT live in a world where you can kill or even physically harm someone just because you do not agree with their ideologies. A person should be able to be a member of the KKK, the Nazi movement and NAMBLA (as long as they have not actually committed a sex crime) and evolution denier etc AT THE SAME TIME and on top of that be able to walk down the street in full Nazi uniform with no fear of a physical assault and I mean not even a slap in the face.

Those people all deserved to die and barring that they deserved life in prison and I mean butt rape prison.

reply

I thought the end was open to interpretation and mine was that he did not kill them literally but vanquished them through his argument and the painting was a representation of this. They were wrong and he was right. They lost and he won.

reply

To me that was the deliberate point.

They met "Hitler" -- a man with the power to change the world for ill. Now, he was smart and able to convince them of their wrongs, but the essential core is:

1. They were wrong.
2. Perlman was wrong.

Everyone loses (including humanity). It's a gorgeous, bleak ending.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

reply

I hope you never serve on a jury.

Perlman could only have made a guess based on a few clues. He had no way of knowing the wine was actually poisoned and if anything it was a test that the students failed.

If my life is in danger because these losers are serial killers, I’m saved. If they’re innocent, no harm done.

The film never really makes it clear how far the roommates home is from civilization but:

1) it’s in Iowa, not exactly Brooklyn
2) based on a celebrity asking random people where to find decent food and accepting a dinner invitation tells you a lot about how secluded the area is
3) it’s pouring raining, making escape hazardous
4) we don’t even know if Perlman has his own rental car or if the guys drove him from the airport

One can surmise that escape from the house of a bunch of serial killers is not so easy as it sounds. Hello! It’s five against one and they’ve already killed a dozen people including a sheriff. He doesn’t know it but they even have a gun. You know, from the sheriff they killed?

reply