This is probably old news, but I got about 30 minutes into the movie and I had to pause. My
dumb duh dumb buffer was filled. The two obvious idiots are well played and their stupidity seems real, I wouldn't trust them with the neighbor's garbage. Characters that are that stupid make me cringe and I know some who qualify.

I came back 20 minutes later and now even the third guy has lost his senses with the first real crime of the movie. These guys are dumb down to the bone. What's wrong with them, are they eating the yellow snow?

LtlPhysics, LOL!!

I felt the same way!

Jason

Can anyone tell me how the movie ended? I re-started it 2 nights in a row and ended up changing the movie both times. Maybe in a couple of months, when I've watched the rest of the movies that I haven't watched yet, I'll try again. (after a six pack)

"DVD Forever"......Hank Jordan

SPOILERS AHEAD

SPOILERS AHEAD

This is the second time AOL has lost the connection, arrgh.

After your senses are numbed by the two stupids, number three dumbs down and suffocates the old farmer. I didn't watch that all of the way through, I shut everything off and made that first post.

I was determined to watch this movie, a Netflix rental, and I found that I had been conditioned to accept the absurd and watched the rest of it. There are some nice moments between the two brothers and the pace slows down a bit, there is only one more dumbie left and she is one of the many dead at the movie's conclusion. Now, this is a big spoiler and I hesitate to reveal it because it will get in the way of the movie's better moments, so abort now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

bestmomentsofmovienewdumbiebrothersconversationslotsofdeadandthemoneyismarked

I hesitate to post, because I'm obviously outnumbered here. A Simple Plan was my favorite movie of 1998. Great acting, intelligent writing and stylish directing is the winning trifecta in Hollywood; and it hits about as often.

I saw this movie twice in the theater and once on DVD. Wish to god they'd release a special edition so I could add it to my library.

Uhhh, fellas, people are dumb. You know what you would do if you found all that money? You'd act dumb. I'd like you to tell me how three people, two of whom don't trust each other, could find all that money and make it actually work without dissolving into a web of deceit. Maybe you won't end up killing each other, but it would go wrong.

If you are so dumb yourself that you can't enjoy a movie with a plot perhaps you should just pop the truly dumb Titanic or the enjoyably dumb Fifth Element back into your completely wasted-on-the-dumb, state of the art entertainment system and watch the "reference quality" picture fly by while you drink another light beer out of the can and think up another excuse to beat your wife.

's aside, we're all entitled to our own opinions of films and this is the proper forum in which to discuss them. That does not give anyone free license to make comments about people with varying opinions that those whom the comments are directed toward may find antagonistic or otherwise offensive in nature (again, smiley faces aside). My point: Make yours nicely and move on.

--Heather

Reviews Forum Moderator

[Edited for spelling]

[This message has been edited by DVDer (edited 10-06-1999).]

Al Infinitum

I think you misunderstood. The acting was incredible. These guys had me convinced they were truly retarded. Brent Briscoe in particular was completely believable as a natural dumbie. Paxton managed to raise his voice without whining. It was the anxiety factor that blew me out of the chair...twice.

I could not watch the farmer being suffocated, it was an ultimate disaster for both characters. Forgiving yourself for murder is not an easy task.

I'll bet the audience went through the wringer with this one. I was completely unnerved. The survivors in the film are condemned to life and there are no good guys.

So when I was talking about my dumb duh dumb buffer being filled, it was not the movie, it was the characterizations hitting home. I would have avoided their company, even a brother, at all costs. The last ninety minutes flew by.

So, you saw it twice in a theater. I'll bet the audience was audible, what a ride.


3rainiac

You presume to know what I watch and how I treat my relations. You have delivered the first insult since I came aboard, happy?

I personally found this movie facinating and very "believable" - except for one part.

SPOILER AHEAD

When Paxton suffocates the farmer, I just couldn't follow his logic. I understand he was under a lot of pressure and such, but I just don't see a fairly normal guy doing that given the situation - I think he would be much more likely to try to talk it out first, then kill if necessary to protect the secret. The farmer was just whacked over the head from behind - I doubt he knew exactly what had gone on.

My apologies, all. I went quite a bit overboard on that post (well, overboard is a HUGE understatement). Thank you for not banning me, DVDer. I deserved it.

Anyway, back to the question that I initially asked and then overshawdowed with my idiotic comments. What choice did they have at each step? The suffocation question is valid, I don't think that I could suffocate someone in cold blood no matter what, its just too close and personal, being able to look into their eyes while they die (it reminded me of the knifing scene in Saving Private Ryan). But they had tried to kill him already, so what chance was there in talking it out?

SPOILERS


As I said before, I couldn't watch the suffocation scene, Paxton's character died with that murder and he would have to live with that crime for the rest of his life. That alone should have stopped him.

I know some dummies but I have to go back to high school to find people that might be capable of that crime and even then, it is a long shot. In the movie, had there been a discussion among the three recently enriched,
I doubt murder would have been acceptable. The only crime committed up to that point was the dumb brother hitting the farmer, and he could claim stupidity as a defense. Some of the money was returned to the plane, the rest was stashed and time would tell whether the three of them could sit on it. I doubt the two stupids could handle that, they would need some of the money for this or that, drinking or gambling or would trip over their own tongues, whatever. Paxton's crime, although unthinkable and unlikely, cast him as the dumbest and lowest of the trio, the story could continue and he spent the rest of the film covering his own ass. The script was
written (I imagine) and the movie was shot from Paxton's point of view.

Spoilers, of course.

His actions didn't cast him as the dumbest of the group, just the most self-serving, impetuous, and the most capable of actual evil. Paxton's goal at that point was self-preservation: he didn't want to get caught. He was suddenly willing to do whatever it took to reach that goal, and he did it without thinking.

As the story went on this streak in the character was shown over and over. True, you couldn't see that decisive evil in him before that act, but none of the other characters in the movie could see it even afterwards, either. Remember how the bank robber assumed that he wouldn't pull the trigger? And Paxton even managed to kill his own brother. Paxton's character wasn't the nice guy he appeared to be, either to the other characters in the film or to the audience (or to himself).

I doubt that there are people quite like this in the real world. But the point of this movie wasn't necessarily "real" character development. The characters are just metaphors for the evil that lurks just below the surface of all humanity, not individual humans. And making Paxton's character likeable, making the audience cheer for him, was a highly effective, shocking, and (unfortunately) confusing way to show this. Hopefully, some audience members went away with the thought that it is too easy to judge someone on how they seem, rather than for what they actually are.

Obviously, my earlier, boneheaded post makes this point quite succinctly...

3rainiac

You're correct, Paxton's character was not the most stupid, but his was the most frightening. He was all of us and for the most part, none of us. I could not imagine suffocating the farmer but Paxton made his decision quickly, considering its magnitude.

Humans are predators, there's no doubt about that. My cat sometimes goes feral and I, as an adult, had to one time. I know why some people enjoy fighting but prior to a confrontation that was suddenly thrust upon me, I had never given it a second thought. My cat and I have much in common.

As an aside, I thought Titanic was the worst movie to win best picture at the Academy Awards. I did not see it in a theater, I rented the laserdiscs and it must have been a bad year for the movies. I don't know what the nominees were but they have my sympathies. Something surely must have been more worthy than Titanic.