MovieChat Forums > Se7en (1995) Discussion > Great movie but...

Great movie but...

posted 8 years ago by sabin1289
11 replies | jump to latest

Seven has a lot going for it, great cinematography, wicked plot, good cast, but it would have made it a better movie in my opinion if John Doe didn't have to resort to killing an innocent person in order to complete his "masterpiece".
His fierce defense in the car when he gets accused by Mills of killing innocents falls really flat considering he did kill someone who was innocent.

Beside, I don't think Mills demonstrate such a huge uncontrollable anger throughout the movie that he would deserve to be punished for it. Actually I imagine tons of people far more subjected to uncontrollable anger than him. That's also another downside in this movie.

John Doe shows little consistency in his choice of sinners and also his ways of torturing/killing them. Being a "sloth" sinner results in such harsher punishment than being a "pride" sinner that it makes the "masterpiece" utterly lack cohesion and just seems very random.

So it's a great movie no doubt about that, but the "mind" of the killer as depicted in the movie is far from as great as they would like us to believe, in my opinion.

[–] leo-hork-na 8 years ago

I believe John Doe's insane and his motives were just a pretext to kill people and do wicked *beep*

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Tracy was a victim of Doe's sin of envy. He killed her because he didn't want Mills to have her. That was his sin and therefore he needed to be punished. As a punisher of sinners he didn't kill anyone he considered "innocent". That's what he and Mills were referring to.

Mills certainly displays more anger than Somerset, how bad or some of the other sinners really? I think Doe was annoyed by the aggression Mills showed him personally. Doe was foced to change his plans because they found his apartment. He probably had another victim in mind, but thought Mills being the sinner would be more poetic.

Verbal mentions the sloth sinner was also a pederast. But it's more about the punishment reflecting their sin than the severity of the punishment.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

But I would say the real inconsistency is making Mills the "Wrath" victim. All the other victims were examples of extreme sinfulness - you can't imagine anyone more glutinous, greedy, lazy, or vain than the victims of those murders. Lust could be debated; it might be argued there are actually two victims there. Doe murders a woman so her husband can't have her - the most extreme crime one can commit out of envy. But David isn't particularly angry or vengeful - Doe just selects him because he pushed him on the stairs and insulted him. And he was provoked in the worst possible way - you give anyone a loaded gun, then tell them you cut their wife's head off and sent it in a box through the post, and they'll probably pull the trigger.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

But I would say the real inconsistency is making Mills the "Wrath" victim.

That's not an inconsistency, that's exactly what wrath is, "uncontrolled feelings of anger, rage, and even hatred, often revealing itself in the wish to seek vengeance". You can say it's understandable, but killing someone because of extreme anger is a sin, it would actually be the most extreme example of wrath.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

Good point, but I still don't feel Mills "deserved" to be the last victim when I look at the other victims. They were all basically people who were passively sinful and had dedicated their lives to extreme indulgence (in their respective sin). But Doe chooses David as their moral equal simply based on the fact he pushed him on the stairs and told him to go ***k himself. That doesn't make him nearly as corrupt as they are, or as Doe himself, who must have indulged and nurtured his envy if it can impel him to murder someone he doesn't even know who lives a "normal life". Mills on the other hand was given the best of all possible reasons to execute Doe. Why commit 6 murders where the victims are either unsympathetic or despicable ("only in a world this sh**** could you say these were innocent people and keep a straight face") but for the final one use someone he must have known everyone would sympathise with his reasons?

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

The reason Mills might not have been the most suitable victim is because Doe had to change his plans after being discovered. Apparently he had to drop whatever victim he did have in mind and decided Mills would be good enough. He just needed someone who would kill him out of wrath.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

And it could also be argued that if he really believed in he deserved to be a victim himself, he should have worked it out so that he would be certain to receive all the humiliation and torture he subjected the other victims to. Would have been more consistent than the clean bullet to the head Mills delivered him. But I guess he wasn't too keen on that idea.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

Well he could commit the lust and pride murders after they found him .. but I suppose finding suitable victims was a more simple matter in those cases. It does leave you wondering what he would have done had they not tracked him down. I guess what I'm saying is Andrew Kevin Walker didn't necessarily need to take the story in that particular direction? I do wonder if Doe's dilemma - of what to do for the final murders - to some extent mirrors Walker's problem as a screenwriter (lets not forget he is Doe in a sense, he's the one making this stuff up) struggling with the question of how to avoid predictability, how to end the series of 7 without being too conventional (ie hinging it all on the question of will they or won't t they catch him before he finishes?).

[–] chasing_dogmas 8 years ago

it would have made it a better movie in my opinion if John Doe didn't have to resort to killing an innocent person in order to complete his "masterpiece".
His fierce defense in the car when he gets accused by Mills of killing innocents falls really flat considering he did kill someone who was innocent.

Well that's kind of the point. He actually was nothing more than a psychopath. Mills was right about him.

[–] The_Superbit 8 years ago

I would say there are three possibilities.

1. He was crazy
When you’re insane, all your acts probably won’t make sense. Therefore he didn’t follow the rules totally.

2. The rules (sins) are impossible to get right
They are rules from a fairytale (religion).

“Lust” is a good example. Back in the days (and in conservative families today) it was a sin to have sex before marriage, to masturbate, even to just think a sexual thought. Today people (mostly) think differently.

Another example. When is “pride” a sin? Is it okay to use makeup, or do you have to live like a bum?

Is Mills doing the sin “wrath” when he kills John? When is an act just “normal anger”, and when is it “wrath”?

What is a sin? You would get different answers from different people, and the answer even changes over time.

3. John got it all right
What he saw as a sin, was the right definition, and maybe even he was sent by God.

His point was to show the world how miserable it is, and to enlighten the people to be better (do no sins). Quotes from John:

“Only in a world this *beep* could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.”

“But when this is done, when it’s finished, it’s going to be… People will barely be able to comprehend, but they won’t be able to deny.”

John is showing how people are doing all these sins, and that “envy” can lead to murder (Tracy), leading to “wrath” leading to revenge and murder again. We doing the sins leads to an infinite circle of hate, murders and wars. We must stop the sins to make world peace.

Him killing Tracy was either a part of his sin of envy, or not a sin because he did it for “greater good”. Like when God killed all the people (implies even innocent kids) in the cities Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sins. Quote from John:

“Don’t ask me to pity those people, I don’t mourn them any more than I do the thousands that died at Sodom and Gomorrah.”