MovieChat Forums > The Game (1997) Discussion > this movie is possibly the best example ...

this movie is possibly the best example of why IMDB is a gift + a curse

posted 10 years ago by redbeardnopirate
36 replies | jump to latest

this may contain spoilers, so steer clear if you haven't seen it

i love IMDB. been a member for years, and used it for years before becoming one. it's one of my favorite websites; i love watching movies, and i love discussing movies. but the absolute most aggravating thing in the world is when people want to analyze everything to death instead of just enjoying the ride. there's a reason they call movies ENTERTAINMENT and not crime scene investigation. the point of watching a movie isn't to try and turn over every stone looking for explanations or plot-holes. what's the point of watching a movie just to try and ruin the ending before it's even half-way over? it drives me crazy, but i guess that's the gift and the curse of websites like IMDB. it's open to everyone, and everyone has an opinion.

there's been a lot of talk about "suspension of belief" on this particular board, mostly because this movie absolutely requires it. but the idea that "this movie is too absurd even if you suspend your belief" is ridiculous, and shows that you didn't pay close enough attention to the movie.

everything in the movie is explainable. i hear talk of a lot of "plot holes" and "what ifs", but if you approach the movie logically, you can see that there isn't really THAT many "leaps". pretty much everything nick does is the logical next step. he's under the impression that he's playing a game in the beginning, so he willingly follows their instructions. even after he "realizes" it isn't a game, most of the steps are either A) the logical next step for a person in his position, or B) CRS would have found a way to intervene either way. remember that they had all of his phone calls on tap, so they knew where he was going and what he was up to. they had a PI following him around, so they knew where he was at all times presumably. if he had chosen to do or not do something, they would have just done something else to put them back on track. they do an exceptionally good job of setting him up to complete the next objective. remember that they also did an extensive "personality test" before the game, so they had a good idea of how he would react to certain things.

the most ridiculous thing i've seen is "how did they know he was going to jump off the right side?". well had you been paying attention and not so quick to throw something under the bus, you would have heard Feingold say "if you hadn't jumped, i would have had to throw you!" which implies that if they had saw him walking to the wrong side, they obviously would've stepped in and intervened.. like i said, NO part of this movie is that absurd. i mean, the movie itself is extremely absurd (the concept) but the execution was pretty much spot on.

and i challenge anyone who wants to be purposely difficult: if there's a part you have a problem with, post it. i guarantee i can come up with a logical explanation.
summary: STOP TRYING TO OVER-ANALYZE THINGS AND GET BACK TO ENJOYING ENTERTAINMENT. YOUR BRAIN WILL THANK YOU.

[–] macemace 10 years ago

I agree. For the amount of money the Van Orton's paid to play this game, CRS could have afforded to have tight control with lots of security, bouncer types, etc. to make sure it went along in the manner that they wanted. The movie "Flightplan" had MANY more plot holes that were uncontrollable given the circumstances, and made it almost impossible to enjoy the movie.

"Mediocre Marx Brothers is better than no Marx Brothers!"

[–] ewaf58 9 years ago

Any idea how much the game cost? Obviously Van Orton looked a bit shocked when he saw the bill.

[–] Buff70 10 years ago

I totally agree and enjoyed reading your comment.

Towards the end of this movie, I thought it would have been cool if his birthday was on April 1st.

[–] Chugs1124 10 years ago

Seriously, everyone needs to read this. There are zero plot holes in this movie. As many times as I've shown people "The Game," it still amazes me how often viewers don't pay attention to what's going on.

[–] texasbillyaustin 10 years ago

To the OP,

THANK YOU for your post, especially regarding this particular movie. "The Game" is one particular movie where opinions, thoughts, beliefs, conspiracy theories and the question of credibility covers one end of the spectrum to the other.

You're right about IMDB. IMDB is full of movie critics, movie experts, story experts, acting experts. In fact, anything that's remotely related to movies or movie making...there are certainly no shortage of experts to be found on this site. And yet, these are the people that use terms such as "plot hole", "continuity", "inconsistency", and the all too dreaded "jumped the shark"..among others. And you find the majority of people that use these terms, really don't have the first clue as to what they REALLY MEAN!

Then there are the people that watch this movie once. And while they do, they pay attention to maybe only HALF of it. Then they jump on here, complain about how it didn't make sense, how stupid it was, how this could never happen, how fake it was, blah, blah, blah. Or, because they didn't pay attention, instead of doing a little research on the net about it and find some good, hard answers...they come on these boards and ask the most stupid questions. "Why didn't he give the guy toilet paper?" "Why did the pen leak?" Why this, why that... To me, if I want to look into something further regarding a movie, I'll watch it again, or I'll research it myself. Kind of beats coming on hear, asking a really stupid, yet easily answered question, and just make myself look like a complete idiot.

I've seen "The Game" so many times since I first saw it in the theater. The movie itself is so clever and well-done, with a lot of credit going to Fincher for that. This movie was right up his alley. And the story itself and the concept was so well-done, well-written. It's a movie you certainly have to take a step or two back from, and really think outside the box while you're watching it. And have the same frame of mind when you're analyzing and processing it AFTER you've seen it. I think there are people that simply miss the bigger picture when it comes to this movie. They just can't SEE IT for what it really is, and simply dismiss it as something so outlandish and unbelievable. I think I saw a post where the guy said this was the stupidest movie he had ever seen in his life. Well, there are a lot like that. And of course, everything in his argument is what you really wanted to respond to and tear into him about. But then you realize, it's really a waste of your time. Because no matter what you say as a valid argument, this person will NEVER GET IT!

So much could be discussed about this movie, and it's always nice to meet those that you can have a really good conversation about it. But, I won't ramble any more or venture into that territory. But, I've had some great conversations and debates about this movie over the years. Even if we agreed to disagree, it was still a good discussion.

And I still like to reserve the topic of Nicholas Van Orton himself. It's so easy to speculate what Nicholas must've thought, how he should thought, or felt, or reacted to ANY one of the things that happened to him, that he was put through, that he had to endure. But really, I don't think anyone can truly guess with great accuracy, unless they were to go through and experience it the way that he did. There are those that say something like this could only happen in a perfect world where the pieces of the puzzle all fit together so neatly and easily. But, not necessarily. And you can't even say to yourself what you'd be thinking or feeling, until you actually did experience something like this.

But,I think the line "Where once I was blind, now I can see" holds a lot of merit in the grand scheme of things. And that's the beauty of it. That the genius.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dennisvest30 10 years ago

There are massive plot holes. You can ignore or attempt to rationalize away them but that doesn't explain them. Most of the major reviewers pointed these out too. No private company could effectively kidnap a man (cab scence) and plunge the car into dangerous waters. I know you will say they had divers standing by but that is a silly argument. The police would not allow such, just as they wouldn't allow firing guns in the city, even with squibs. I can suspend belief in a sci-fi or fantasy movie but not something designed to be realistic...

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

Massive plot holes, 1 where he is in the zoo brandishing a gun. Waving it around with lots of public there, don't tell me they were all actors, that they closed the zoo put actors in there even replaced security and told them to take the day off, this would not happen.

One person sees the gun and shouts for security, police get involved, even a SWAT team and its all over.

There are many more random factors like this involved.

You cant tell me that its all 100% planned, thought out and orchestrated when dealing with people.

Unless the whole city of San Francisco was cleared out and replaced by actors.

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

NO part of this movie is that absurd.

Sorry, but NOT everything in the movie can be explained.

When they are shooting at the two of them in the car, there WERE NO SQUIBS on the windows before the bullet holes appeared. Just in case you weren't aware, squibs are not invisible. They're not magic squibs, like Jack got to make the Beanstalk. Those were live bullets they were firing at them in that scene. And bullets don't just stop at glass and go "oooh, I better not go any further, because I sure don't want to hit the people on the other side."

So, yes, suspension of disbelief does have its limits. And this movie far exceeded them.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] blabus 10 years ago

And bullets don't just stop at glass and go "oooh, I better not go any further, because I sure don't want to hit the people on the other side."

You do realize you just perfectly described bulletproof glass, right? Given the degree to which CRS managed to infiltrate all aspects of Nicholas' life, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that they managed to secretly retrofit his car with bulletproof windows.

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

Right, because not only did they replace the glass with bulletproof glass, but they also reinforced all the doors to make them bulletproof as well, because Lord knows, you wouldn't want the bullets to go through the doors and hit the client on the other side either.

Do you have any idea how all this extra weight would affect the handling of that car? It would accelerate like a school bus. The shooters could run after him and catch up. Puh-leez.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] vestdennis 10 years ago

I don't mind people saying they enjoy the movie but to try and explain away every "suspension of belief" issue is hopeless. You can't act as if speeding through town, running red lights, with a man held against his will and driving off a peer into the ocean. Don't tell je about "divers", etc. He could have drowned despite that. There are so many laws broken in this one scene it's silly! Firing shots of any kind in a residential neighorhood? Kidnapping a man, drugging him, transporting him against his will across the border? Hacking cell phone calls and impersonating phone company and banking officials? Yes, it's a movie and it's fine to like it, but just don't try and explain away every issue (impersonating police and medical personnel). No city would every allow a company to operate like this. And no, the signed agreement doesn't allow a company to break laws.

[–] hobooo 10 years ago

How do you suppose people film movies with police cars and ambulances then? Since according to you no city will let anyone impersonate the police. Some people are so daft and stupid it is unbearable. You are literally watching a movie where the police and medical personnel are being impersonated, and it is too much for you to believe the same couldn't be done in the world of the said movie.

[–] vestdennis 10 years ago

Filming cop cars & ambulances in a movie are tightly regulated & sections of town are closed off for the filming. All sorts of precautions are taken in the event of an accident. This hasn't a freakin' thing to do with the silly premise of The Game. They expect us to believe that a private company could get away with flying through red light after red light, running off a peer into a river is possible, all without the possibility of a lawsuit or charges brought by the police!

You have ignored the crux of my post and dozens like it discussing the wholly ridiculous notion put forward by the writers. No way a private company could get away with even half of the things they were shown doing.

[–] hobooo 10 years ago

What makes you assume CRS could not have closed a part of town (carefully regulated) to do the car scene? They can literally say they were filming a movie. Your opinion that you are pushing on people about a private company not being able to do that, is in fact just an opinion. The sooner you stop treating it as a fact, the faster you will see the fallacy of argument.

Again, use your brain. This movie had filmed this exact scene in some town flying through red lights and driving the car off into the water.

[–] vestdennis 10 years ago

Again, this scene was just one of numerous instances where CRS could never get away with this! For one thing, Michael Douglas' character was NOT an actor. He could have charged them with kidnapping, reckless endangerment, and God knows what else (for the tax scene alone). In fact he went to the police (or who were supposed to be police).

Transporting him across the border was another instance. Your argument just won't hold water. Read on-line reviews by critics & they point out the same thing. Yes, it's an enjoyable movie but wholly implausible.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whatsthisnow 9 years ago

I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at the grasping rationalisations people are resorting to in order to defend this absurd film. Even if you suspend your disbelief regarding the practicalities, the whole idea was indefensibly stupid to begin with.

[–] vestdennis 9 years ago

I know! I have listed dozens of instances where CRS would have been put out of business and/or charged by authorities (assuming some stupid business actually tried this) & these defenders keep coming up with silly excuses in an attempt to explain it. Sorry, this movie simply isn't believable on ANY scale. Enjoy it but don't try to tell me it could happen.

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

What makes you assume CRS could not have closed a part of town (carefully regulated) to do the car scene?

Going to stop people coming out of their own house or go to their jobs? Client drives past so many blocks so they going to stop all public in that area?

Dont be so silly man.

[–] crissttigaldames 9 years ago

Going to stop people coming out of their own house or go to their jobs? Client drives past so many blocks so they going to stop all public in that area?

Well, they could have paid them. A lot.

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

Yeh you are right, they paid whole blocks of people to stop in their houses, and how would they enforce this?

[–] snelling 9 years ago

Any wild accusations about the residents and law enforcement etc. in San Francisco "not being in on The Game" is ludicrous.

CRS had anything and everything at their disposal throughout, as long as it's paid for. That is why the game is so expensive.

If complaints are brought up that the police would not allow this to happen, then how do we get The French Connection made? Bullitt? Foul Play? All these movies have car chases/high speeds that go on and on for many city blocks. Why didn't the real police intervene and shut those down? Because it's all set up beforehand. CRS gets city permission and pays for the use of that part of the city, which is then billed back to the person(s) who purchased said game.

"'Extremely High Voltage.' Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer Sim--" - Frank Grimes

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

No company would take this on, if a client or anybody else dies or does actually kill someone because lets face it, the client is under severe amounts of pressure or the client takes badly to it they would get sued and even face jail time like they pretend at the end.

Too many random factors.

[–] louisw1208 9 years ago

It's possible that the guns they were using produced a velocity for the bullets that was just enough to dent the car without penetrating it, and to crack the glass without actually shattering it or going through it.

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

And the flat where they are spraying bullets into, go through the windows, walls and up into the ceiling, come on man, perfect squibs?

Or real bullets then random factors come into play and he and others may die.

[–] utahman1971 9 years ago

It can't be explained? Hmm-mm, I think the ending does that. What bugs me about this website is people for the genre of horror. Acting is complained about for this genre. Why? I have no clue, because horror is never really in any Awards. So complaining about something that really needs not much acting. Not hard to scream and run or be dead. Anything besides horror is acting.

Horror is for entertainment only, not acting. You still see people rate a horror movie down, because of acting alone. The ratings on this website are so whacked. There not even mandatory votes. There is about half of the reviews with no votes at all, which does nothing to the rating at all. It stays as if they never made a review.

So I don't take any review as a review anymore, its just someone complaining about a movie that they went and saw, and came to a website to complain and nit pick about. Probably during the movie every second through picking at everything that is going on.

Movies are not just made for critics alone, they are for entertainment to take you away from reality, and when people are saying the movie is too far fetched, then they are too far fetched for even saying it.

I think people on here talking about horror genre is nuts. There is a lot of under rated horror movies on this site.

I guess there are some awards for horror movies like The Exorcist got some, but not many at all get any, and it really is not for acting in the horror movies. It for other things, and when I watch the Oscars, I don't hear much for any horror movies at all. It is either more towards Drama.

I still think people ruin the horror movies debating on acting to lower the ratings on this site.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

[–] residentevil6901 10 years ago

I agree, I enjoyed it very much and was very entertained by it. I watch it a few times per year and even though you could maybe pick it apart a little bit I choose not to since not every movie is going to make 100% complete sense. Looking back at the movies from the 90's there are so many that are so good and entertaining I feel it was kind of a little 10 year golden age. Seemed to me like once the 2000's hit the business started to change

[–] HalBanksy 9 years ago

The ending with him jumping off the roof, falling for like 10 seconds, then smashing through the glass in EXACTLY the right place is ridiculous. If he had been half a metre either side he would have been killed by those iron bars. Even if they had thrown him off the building - to judge exactly how far from the building and in the exactly right direction - impossible. It was a completely retarded ending, definitely soured the taste of the film experience.

There is ZERO 'logical' explanation for being able to plan him falling off that building safely, without the risk of him veering even fractionally off-course while uncontrollably falling through the air. ZERO

[–] Interlepos (1808) 2 years ago

Haha. Still a masterpiece, though.

[–] RKharlamov2001 9 years ago

It really makes me laugh seeing fans of this movie trying to rationalise it, trying to make it sound like it's not totally absurd.

Of course it's totally absurd, I still enjoyed parts of it enough to rate it a 6/10. But *beep* me, of course it's absurd. Take your goggles off.