Fatal Attraction (1987)

[La Binoche]

This R-rated thriller opened at #1 with $7.6M in the Fall of 1987...and spent the next 2 months at the top, eventually ending its run with an incredible $157M domestic and $320M WW. 

 

It's weird to imagine a drama/thriller about middle aged adults making such a box office killing and becoming the zeitgeist hit of the decade. Would sadly never happen today. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jake Gittes]

No big loss that a drama/thriller about middle-aged adults *like this* hasn't been so huge since, given how idiotic and regressive this one is. 

[John Marston]

5 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

No big loss that a drama/thriller about middle-aged adults *like this* hasn't been so huge since, given how idiotic and regressive this one is. 

Sad some people have to make movies political 

[Jake Gittes]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Sad some people have to make movies political 

 

"Make"? No one has to do anything with this one. It's all on the surface. 

[John Marston]

Just now, Jake Gittes said:

 

"Make"? No one has to do anything with this one. It's all on the surface. 

 

 

Again. That what you're choosing to see. The filmmakers intended no political message 

[Jake Gittes]

17 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Again. That what you're choosing to see. The filmmakers intended no political message 

 

The filmmakers ultimately have the single career woman turn out to be a one-dimensional murderous nutcase and a psycho, and to have the wife conveniently forgive her lying cheating husband for the sake of preserving the family unit. Look, I'm usually the first to roll out the "It's just a specific story about specific characters" argument, but not when the story is so obviously and ridiculously contrived. In this case, not all of the filmmakers may have intended or agreed with the end result - we know that the ending was heavily rewritten, and Glenn Close strongly fought against it - but what ends up onscreen is still their responsibility. 

[John Marston]

7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

The filmmakers ultimately have the single career woman turn out to be a one-dimensional murderous nutcase and a psycho, and to have the wife conveniently forgive her lying cheating husband for the sake of preserving the family unit. Look, I'm usually the first to roll out the "It's just a specific story about specific characters" argument, but not when the story is so obviously and ridiculously contrived. In this case, not all of the filmmakers may have intended or agreed with the end result - we know that the ending was heavily rewritten, and Glenn Close strongly fought against it - but what ends up onscreen is still their responsibility. 

 

"Responsibility"? We're talking about a damn movie here! Gues you're one of those moral guardian types?

 

And even then, if that is how the filmmakers felt (which they didn't) they still had the right to do so 

 

its fine that you feel this way, lots of people regardless of wherever they lean can read certain messages into movies that make it seem the movie is against them, but I think most people don't. That ls why this movie was so huge and still remains popular today 

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by John Marston

[Jake Gittes]

4 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

"Responsibility"? We're talking about a damn movie here! Gues you're one of those moral guardian types?

 

 

its fine that you feel this way, lots of people regardless of wherever they lean can read certain messages into movies that make it seem the movie is against them, but I think most people don't. That ls why this movie was so huge and still remains popular today 

 

 

Responsibility in the sense that they create the finished movie and put their names on it. They may not be responsible for how people are going to react to the work, but they sure are for the work itself. (Unless it gets taken away from them, which didn't happen here.) And in this case, again, you don't have to "read" a message into the movie - it expresses a clear point of view, starting off as a complex tale about infidelity, and then abandoning the complexity and neatly dividing the characters into good guys and bad guys. It's not subversive or anything - it flatly tells the audience where its sympathies lie. And it isn't knowingly trashy fun - it keeps up a veneer of respectability no matter how dumb and hysterical it gets. It may be a movie for adults, but there's nothing adult about it, which is really what I was saying in my original response. It's a conservative movie that became a hit in a conservative era. Doesn't take a "moral guardian" to recognize this. 

[John Marston]

3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

Responsibility in the sense that they create the finished movie and put their names on it. They may not be responsible for how people are going to react to the work, but they sure are for the work itself. (Unless it gets taken away from them, which didn't happen here.) And in this case, again, you don't have to "read" a message into the movie - it expresses a clear point of view, starting off as a complex tale about infidelity, and then abandoning the complexity and neatly dividing the characters into good guys and bad guys. It's not subversive or anything - it flatly tells the audience where its sympathies lie. And it isn't knowingly trashy fun - it keeps up a veneer of respectability no matter how dumb and hysterical it gets. It may be a movie for adults, but there's nothing adult about it, which is really what I was saying in my original response. It's a conservative movie that became a hit in a conservative era. Doesn't take a "moral guardian" to recognize this. 

 

 

 

again, you're talking about things most people don't care about

 

 

you're also assuming only "conservatives" like this movie 

 

 

you're also seem to be thinking that a so called "conservative" message in a film is unacceptable

[Jake Gittes]

1 hour ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

again, you're talking about things most people don't care about

 

 

you're also assuming only "conservatives" like this movie 

 

 

you're also seem to be thinking that a so called "conservative" message in a film is unacceptable

 

maybe, but I care.

 

not really.

 

no.

[BOOYAH SUCKAS]

Guys couldn't we keep that sort of talk in the review thread?

[excel1]

The movie that ended and prevented MANY affairs. It is a good movie despite the leading man being extremely unlikable. Glenn Close's character is not the only one who seems like a well-done summarization of generalities. 

[filmlover]

lol that series last year that tried to correct all things folks find problematic about this movie these days and still ended up the worse version. What a waste of Joshua Jackson and Lizzy Caplan.

 

I think it's a better movie than the detractors its picked up over the decades claim but it's unquestionably more of a dated relic today than a lot of hits from that era. The main problem there is that it's hard to feel much sympathy for the Douglas character given the situation is of his own making as a cheating bastard, though a simple writing change by making the character either single or divorced would've cleared that issue (and the movie likely would've been just as successful). Sure, you still have a simplistic depiction of complex issues like mental health, but at least there isn't a question of "is there even an actual protagonist here?" hanging over the movie, at least like it does today.