Glad to see another fan of this film. I’ve held off on the bare bones edition in the hopes of a real special edition. Despite the preposterous ending, I love the atmosphere of this film and I think it’s one of Michael Douglas’ best performances. Sean Penn is great, too.
I like that he gave Linda Manz a part. As did Harmony Korine around the same time.
I’m also a big fan of the film and believe it to be one of Fincher’s best. When the DVD was released, I was really puzzled that the disc was as barebones as it was, as Michael has mentioned (that is, if you were speaking of the DVD release). Did it receive this treatment because of modest box office returns, or some arbitrary studio decision?
I can’t say for sure – but I do know the production company that produced “The Game” [Propaganda Films] has since closed… technically. Actually they are now Anonymous Content. And the distributor (at least for home video) was Polygram – and they went belly up. So somewhere, someone does own the rights… or it’s up for grabs – literally on sale for a distribution company to buy and redistribute on dvd/bluray, etc.
Maybe Criterion will be able to get the rights again and put it out on DVD this time.
ZEKE: great info. Thorough though depressing. This could take a while, and that DVD blows, and that laserdisc always intrigued me…I remember it as one of the last Criterion’s for a while when it wasn’t clear how they’d make the leap to DVD. Probably my favorite Fincher…perfect ending.
@Banal1 – that’s so weird you mention Linda Manz – I just watched Days Of Heaven, two days ago – Linda as a little girl.
@Ben Simington – I’m kicking myself for not having picked up The Game on LD. It was a really cool Criterion edition – with deleted scenes and everything. The Criterion LD of Se7en comes with more supplements than the 2-disc DVD.
@Zeke – if you are a fan of Manz check out Dennis Hopper’s Out of the Blue -http://www.theauteurs.com/films/3540. After that, she pretty much disappeared.
This film is under the NBC Universal umbrella now, so they certainly could do a special edition.
^^
The Game is Fincher’s second best film, with his best being, of course, Zodiac. For some reason, this film doesn’t seem to be a big hit with many cineastes, and I don’t know why. All the Hitchcockian elements are there. Great premise, great performances, and, imo, a great ending. More importantly , it provided a new twist that breathed new life into an otherwise overplayed and borderline cliche message that pops up in many a film.
The great thing about the days of Laserdisc was that Criterion was able to obtain the rights to far more films because the Laserdisc market was so slim and only catered to the serious film viewers. DVD killed that, unfortunately. On the other hand, I think Zodiac would be more worthy of a Criterion release than The Game, but I’d love to see The Game in a Criterion edition.
I find “The Game” trite. A Twilight Zone episode essentially. Zodiac is my favorite though.
I had to sit through this juvenile piece of slime a few years back. I despise films with twist endings as they offer no repeat viewing value. As Casey put it, The Game is trite. I gave it 1 star, but I would have given it zero if it were an option.
I agree with those who consider “Zodiac” as Fincher’s major achievement. I disagree however with the criticism towards"The Game", a film I found meticulously crafted and very purpose oriented. Michael Douglas is outstanding there and Fincher swerves more towards a Hitchcockian style (and I do love that), as opposed to the depressing noir shades of his previous (and marvellous) “Seven”.
Fincher is a good commercial director, but he is no autuer. He has never written one of his movies, and simply relies on someone elses script to gain notoriety. I certainly don’t think he is one of the better directors in hollywood. Seven was a good film for the cookie cutter cop-crime drama, but Button’s second and third act was just awful, and the Panic Room….I won’t even go there.
What’s the true meaning of the auteur concept, as cooked up by Bazin and his fellow Cahier du Cinéma friends? Is that still valid today? There are many colossal directors that never wrote their scripts. Can that mean they’re lesser artists for that? For all I know the input of directors in the final scripts frequently goes uncredited. I firmly believe that some filmmmakers who succeed in the box office are also innovative, creative and auteurs in the true sense of the word. In fact, the talent to captivate the critics and the public alike is rare and should be rightfully admired.
I agree with Carlos. I never really understood the fascination behind this auteur word…or the defintion…
I don’t understand why someone can’t be a great director and not write their own scripts…i actually believe that one of a director’s biggest talents is the ability to adapt the written word into the moving image…and it’s even more impressive when it’s not his work in my opinion.
And like Carlos said as well; so many great directors collaborated with amazing writers on their work.
I’m a cinematographer…because I employ a great camera operator and gaffer, does that make me less of a good DP?@ Carlos. We’re in total agreement here. I guess films that use conventional “twists” is majorly offensive to some cineastes, as that seems to be the resounding and primary complaint they have in regard to this film, as Corduroy Suit illustrates above in his opinion. But his isn’t the first, as this film has been discussed in other threads with nearly identical gripes. To a degree, I can understand, but in the case of The Game, it was a film in which this approach worked, imo. And not to mention it was just a downright entertaining, edge-of-your-seat thriller. It’s why we pay to go see movies in theaters. We want to be entertained.
I also have to disagree that the film will not hold up under re-viewing because of the “twist” ending. I watch films not only for their endings, but the craft itself. How was a shot managed? What nuance helped the actor convey what might otherwise have been lost in the performance? Set design, lighting, etc… For myself, The Game has held up under several viewings, along with any number of other films with unexpected endings.
You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker. When you think of Schindlers List you think of speilberg, even though he didn’t really create anything, he just read a script, and followed the cues. The writer of the script id the true talent, because creating something out of nothing takes alot, and reading someone else’s script, and interpreting it does not.
You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker. When you think of Schindlers List you think of speilberg, even though he didn’t really create anything, he just read a script, and followed the cues. The writer of the script id the true talent, because creating something out of nothing takes alot, and reading someone else’s script, and interpreting it does not.
You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker. When you think of Schindlers List you think of speilberg, even though he didn’t really create anything, he just read a script, and followed the cues. The writer of the script id the true talent, because creating something out of nothing takes alot, and reading someone else’s script, and interpreting it does not.
“A Twilight Zone episode essentially”
That’s actually the way Fincher himself sometimes describes it.
Maybe The Game would have been better using the actual length of a Twilight Zone episode.
“You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker.”
I guess based on that logic there are many of great directors who much of the time weren’t good filmmakers then…(examples being Hitchcock, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lumet, John Ford). And I guess Shyamalan and Kevin Smith are filmmakers, but Sam Mendes, Ridley Scott, and Inarritu aren’t…
“The writer of the script is the true talent, because creating something out of nothing takes alot, and reading someone else’s script, and interpreting it does not”
It seems like you’re ignoring how much scripts change on their way to the big screen and how much that is affected by the director (many times without the influence of the original writer). I have much respect for writers but its a fact that there are more instances than not of the final movie being different than the submitted script in many ways, sometimes even being completely rewritten in editing. Even though the writing is extremely important, many working writers know and understand that this is not theatre and that once the script is greenlit and the director is onboard, the director is the voice. I just think its wrong to say that a director is less of a filmmaker if he doesn’t write the script, that’s undermining the fundamental elements that separates a good filmmaker from any other artist.
And based on that statement that interpreting someone else’s work doesn’t take alot, means that it’s just a breeze for any screenwriter to adapt a novel, short story, play, or graphic novel to the screen.
Great movie! Entertaining as hell. Loved Michael Douglas’s performance, second only to “Falling Down.” A masterpiece of suspense if you ask me.
The Game was underrated. Even a film mag (forgot the title) thought so.
“You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker.”
I kind of agree and disagree at the same time. Perhaps it’s simply because of the many questions and possible contradictions that this phrase brings along with it, but I’d say it also takes immense talent in interpreting a script and to make it into a good film.
The first film that comes to mind is Welles’ The Trial (but we could go on quite a few Welles films – or Kubrick for that matter) which he did not write but adapted (albeit loosely) into such a great film. There’s a lot of work required in adapting a script to film whether the director has written it or not.
As far as The Game, I thought it wasn’t bad. Fincher is frustrating for me because he often seems to make films on autopilot. There’s nothing really impressive about the filmmaking itself (i.e. cinematography, editing, etc.). His films tend to be good (though not great) as a result of the story than the directing.
"You can be a great director and not write your own scripts, but you can’t be a good filmmaker.”
Man, I almost jumped all over that statement but I can anticipate where the discussion would go so I’ll refrain other than to say I couldn’t disagree more.
Instead, I’d like to note something Deckard said – I’m kind of shocked you would say his films are good b/c of the story more than the cinematography. I’ve heard many people make the complete opposite argument. For me personally, I enjoy both elements in his films and would say Khondji’s work as well as Savides’ work on Fincher’s films have been nothing short of extraordinary.
Well perhaps I should elaborate on my use of the word “good” to describe a Fincher film. To me, it seems like Fincher takes a script having complete faith in it’s concept and plotline and then shoots it very unobstrusively. Zodiac, seems to me, like the exception. It works better than his previous efforts because the script fits Fincher’s conventional style more than perhaps any other Hollywood director out there right now. The Game kind of worked for the same reason. I don’t know I can’t really back it up to be honest unless I gave it more thought. Perhaps this is why I’m rather impartial to Fincher most of the time because his style of filmmaking doesn’t really make me think in any insightful way, heh.
Zeke
I for one did not care for Benjamin Button in the theatre. Maybe because of all the hype surrounding it at the time. Picked up the Criterion and watched it not too long ago and really enjoyed it. Perhaps I needed some time and space apart. It is a wonderful film that speaks volumes in its stillness.
Moving on, back when Laserdiscs were all the rage, I had (and still own) the Criterion Collection of Fincher’s Se7en. Then Criterion released in very limited quantities, The Game (on laserdisc).
DVD’s took home video by storm and thus, here we are. Se7en is now available in a very respectable 2-disc set, along with Fight Club and Panic Room (3 disc set). But where’s The Game??? Oh how I wish that Criterion would be able to re-release it on DVD.
Any thoughts or insight? Does anyone own the Criterion laserdisc of The Game?