More thoughts on The Devil's Advocate
A BANDAPAR
>>-Was everyone in Milton's employ or company of friends a demon? If so
>>does this mean that Don King is a demon?
>
>I don't think Don worked for the company. He may have been someone that
>Milton
> had helped in the past, though.
Yeah, don't think King worked for Milton. But I do believe he was (is) Hades.
skl
lotus
Damian Allen <VAN...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<62eosh$20i6$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> !!!!!! Warning,this post contains spoilers,if you haven't seen the film
> stop reading now!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> That being said,onto the post.
> I have to say that I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would
> and was especially surprised by Keanu Reeves performance,
I agree; in fact not only did he not screw up the role, in many ways his
kind of semi-doofy innocence (which was restrained in this role) was
perfect for his part of the sheep sent out among the wolves. He did act,
really act, well.
he
> actually displayed some life in this film.I was slightly disappointed
> with Charlize Theron's performance,personally I thought she was being
> a little too histrionic at times,I could appreciate her character's
> boredom though.
May have been the way that role was written.
>
> What I liked about the movie:
>
> -the cast,everyone gave a good to great performance.
Agreed. But if you think anyone besides Pacino gave a "great" performance,
then Pacino needs more superlatives because he was _really_ the star of
this one.
>
> -the art direction,
the surrealism mixed with realism was great.
>
> -the special effects were for the most part good and generally
> appropriate.
It wasn't a special effects movie; but the effects were haunting and
effective. One of the most effective scenes, he "almost mugging" on the
subway, didn't rely on special effects at all.
>
> What I didn't like about the movie:
>
> -the part with the bas-relief sculpture coming alive was lame.
I disagree. It is well done, off to the side of the action and depicts the
semi-hallucinatory territory that Keanu is, at last, entering, something
along the lines his wife had been experiencing all along.
>
> Questions and points of interest:
> -Did anyone else think at first that the Weaver character would end up
> being an angel or even God? Wouldn't it have been neat if he had?
Well, it does occur to me that the Weaver character, if he survives enough
cycles of "tests" which seem to be on store for him, could end up as the
Messiah instead - or the next John to welcome the Messiah (I don't know the
bible too well, but wasn't John the Baptist a famous reforme sinner before
he came the "Baptist" and ultimately baptized Christ)?
>
> -Anyone know the significance of Milton's patio/waterfall thing?
Reminds me now of what I recall from Ancient History about the terraced
gardens of Babylon, which may have had such artificial waterfalls running
down the terraces (in the desert, no less). Maybe just an excuse for a
stunning and vertigo inducing scene.
>
> -Was everyone in Milton's employ or company of friends a demon?
I don't think they necessarily started out as demons. Perhaps through
association with Milton their "dark side" was brought out, in spades. If
the wife had "bonded" with them instead of having an almost allergic
reaction to them, she would have turned out the same way. Sort of the way
ordinary people evolved into the Disciples of Christ and themselves became
holy...except in reverse.
On the other hand Christianity once accepted the doctrine of reincarnation.
Perhaps demons chose to incarnate to attend to Milton on the eve of the
Millenium.
But I prefer the "rise or fall by association" theory better. Otherwise
Keanu would have been much more of a Damien/"Omen" type in his childhood
and adulthood than he was in the movie.
BTW, wasn't he slated to be "sacrificed" after impregnating Milton's
daughter? She was fondling a knife in the final scene; also at the big
party at Milton's house earlier in the movie, there was a line of dialog
about riding ... him until he was all used up and then killing (or doing
away with ) him which could have been about a client, about someone
opposing the group or about Keanu himself. The reference was ambiguous but
suggestive.
MW
Damian Allen
!!!!!! Warning,this post contains spoilers,if you haven't seen the film
stop reading now!!!!!!!!!!
That being said,onto the post.
I have to say that I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would
and was especially surprised by Keanu Reeves performance,he
actually displayed some life in this film.I was slightly disappointed
with Charlize Theron's performance,personally I thought she was being
a little too histrionic at times,I could appreciate her character's
boredom though.
What I liked about the movie:
-the cast,everyone gave a good to great performance.
-the art direction,everything was suitably gaudy and overdone as
opposed to being dark and obvious looking ala Event Horizon,this was a
nice touch.
-the special effects were for the most part good and generally
appropriate.
-the humour in this movie was very good and I enjoyed the running gag of
the changing paint colours in the apartment.
-the scares were genuine,none of the cheap scares of Event Horizon or
I Know What You Did Last Summer,just nice expensive (literally and
figuratively) scares in this movie.The first morph scared the hell out of
me.
-the atmosphere and cinematography were also good,the opening shot of
the rolling clouds outlined in red was stunning.
What I didn't like about the movie:
-the part with the bas-relief sculpture coming alive was lame.
-the special effect at the end where we were taken on a trip through
Hell
that ended up with Keanu in the bathroom was also lame,very Spawn-ish.
Questions and points of interest:
-Did anyone else think at first that the Weaver character would end up
being an angel or even God? Wouldn't it have been neat if he had?
-Anyone know the significance of Milton's patio/waterfall thing?
-Quite a lot of female nudity in this picture,huh? I was a little
surprised (not
offended) though the scene in the dressing room was funny.
-Was everyone in Milton's employ or company of friends a demon? If so
does this mean that Don King is a demon?
Damian
----------------------
We joined the navy
To see the world
But what did we see?
We saw the sea -from "Follow the Fleet"(1930)
LIV
PUZZLR <puz...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971020060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Damian sayz:
>
> >-Was everyone in Milton's employ or company of friends a demon? If so
> >does this mean that Don King is a demon?
(snip)
--------------------
Eddie Barzoon (or was it Barzoom) was human and so was Cullen and so,
presumably, were most of the others...
I think the lamia that Mary Ann companies with were trophy wives, so to
speak, rewards, like the apartment, for good service.
I doubt Don King is a demon--may have some connection to Milton, though.
One of Milton's firm's functions seems to be providing legal services to
people who do good devilish work. Maybe Don King retains him.
--
LIV
L...@garbageZiplink.net
remove 'garbage' to reply :-)
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick-boxing...
PUZZLR
LIV getting happy with the clippers sayz:
>PUZZLR <puz...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19971020060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> Damian sayz:
>>
>> >-Was everyone in Milton's employ or company of friends a demon? If so
>> >does this mean that Don King is a demon?
>(snip)
>--------------------
>Eddie Barzoon (or was it Barzoom) was human and so was Cullen and so,
>presumably, were most of the others...
>
Umm...why did you snip MY reply to his post? If you're going to cut what I had
to say, then don't attribute the post to me. Sheesh. Since it was
unceremoniously cut, I'll say it again. They were all demons (the employees
of the firm), but Don King (who didn't work there) was not. Why would the
Devil employ people who weren't demons?
Puzz
yanto dharmadi
In article <34544dc4...@news.ao.net> fbl...@millen.net (Frank Black) writes:
>Path:
>magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!freenet.columbus.oh.us!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!math
>.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com
>!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net
>!news.spr
>intlink.net!Sprint!205.244.242.20!news.ao.net!not-for-mail
>From: fbl...@millen.net (Frank Black)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
>Subject: Re: More thoughts on The Devil's Advocate
>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:18:16 GMT
>Organization: Access Orlando (407) 895-1200
>Lines: 51
>Message-ID: <34544dc4...@news.ao.net>
>References: <62eosh$20i6$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: port22.tserver2.ao.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu rec.arts.movies.current-films:163423
>Spoilers:
>>Questions and points of interest:
>>-Did anyone else think at first that the Weaver character would end up
>>being an angel or even God? Wouldn't it have been neat if he had?
> During the second ending, I thought he was an angel smilling because
>Keanu had made the right decision, but after the offer of fame and
>fortune, the ending was perfect.
weaver is the fed guy who was hit by a car. the press guy is called larry i
think.
Frank Black
>>!!!!!! Warning,this post contains spoilers,if you haven't seen the film
>> stop reading now!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>-Anyone know the significance of Milton's patio/waterfall thing?
>
> In the Bible, when Satan tempts Christ, he takes him to a high
> place and offers him the entire world to deny God.
Yup.
LIV
lotus <lo...@grin.net> wrote in article
<01bcdd8d$12c10c60$45bf...@lotus.grin.net>...
> > !!!!!! Warning,this post contains spoilers,if you haven't seen the film
> > stop reading now!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
> Agreed. But if you think anyone besides Pacino gave a "great"
performance,
> then Pacino needs more superlatives because he was _really_ the star of
> this one.
--------------------
In many ways I disagree. I think that the devil is seen to set the
stage--control the events (a plot thing)--it is the devil's show. And
Pacino did put in a performance that was all it should have been. On the
other hand I think Keanu's performance was the one around which the other's
turned. Pacino could have done a standup devil riff and most of his role
would still be there. And, after all, he played the devil as a family
oriented, neighborhood oriented godfather and we know he can do that.
Keanu acted.
--------------------------------------------------
> I don't think they necessarily started out as demons. Perhaps through
> association with Milton their "dark side" was brought out, in spades. If
> the wife had "bonded" with them instead of having an almost allergic
> reaction to them, she would have turned out the same way. Sort of the way
> ordinary people evolved into the Disciples of Christ and themselves
became
> holy...except in reverse.
----------------------
I think the ladies were lamia, given to humans as prizes. Barzoon was
human and, criminal though he might be showed no tendency to metamorph.
Also I ;think the ladies were sent with the task of driving the wife off
the deep end; there was no intention that she bond with them.
------------------------------------------------------
> But I prefer the "rise or fall by association" theory better. Otherwise
> Keanu would have been much more of a Damien/"Omen" type in his childhood
> and adulthood than he was in the movie.
---------------------------
Well, the devil is evil; however, would the seed of the devil necessarily
be evil? Milton said he had many failures and it is clearly the--I guess
inherited--vanity thing that makes Kevin a good prospect. If milton
started out as an angel I'd assume his seed would--forgive me--contain the
genes of some goodness. Topic for discussion: is evil recessive? Is that
Milton's problem? Maybe mama's self-righteous bible thumping contains the
seed of vanity and Kevin is a double-recessive.
--------------------------------------------
> BTW, wasn't he slated to be "sacrificed" after impregnating Milton's
> daughter? She was fondling a knife in the final scene; also at the big
> party at Milton's house earlier in the movie, there was a line of dialog
> about riding ... him until he was all used up and then killing (or doing
> away with ) him which could have been about a client, about someone
> opposing the group or about Keanu himself. The reference was ambiguous
but
> suggestive.
---------------------------------------------------
I don't know but I got a strong sense of real affection from Milton in
speaking to/about Kevin. And Kevin appeared to have some real, useful
skills. Waste not, want not...
Damian Allen
Damian said:
>>Questions and points of interest:
>>-Did anyone else think at first that the Weaver character would end up
>>being an angel or even God? Wouldn't it have been neat if he had?
Frank said:
> During the second ending, I thought he was an angel smilling because
>Keanu had made the right decision, but after the offer of fame and
>fortune, the ending was perfect.
I think you're getting some of the characters confused,Weaver was the
FBI guy that Reeves' character was warned about.I asked if people
thought that he might be an angel or God (before his "accident") because
not only did he want to take down Milton's firm but he also talked about
knowing all about Reeves' character and how he had been watching him.
And then he mentioned the incident of the child molester Reeves' set
free
almost as if he knew that this might turn Reeves' character around,but I
guess Weaver's "accident" destroyed this theory.It would have been
kinda neat,I think,to have God and the Devil fighting over Keanu's soul,
as it stands though,I liked where the story went.
I think that the character you're thinking about is the reporter that
morphed
into Al Pacino at the end.
Damian
LIV
PUZZLR <puz...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971023063...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Liv wondered:
>
> >Admittedly I clipped Puzz's answer but did not actually attribute to him
> >anything he had not actually written, even if it was only to quote.
>
> Snip o'rama
>
> >I am sorry this bothered whoever you'all are--genuinely--but I
> >find this considerably more baffling and kind of silly.
-------------------
I am especially baffled because your message seems to involve things
written by someone else, as well, and certainly contains things I did not
read when I answered the original message or are you that Philip person?--I
said baffled; confused....
----------------
>
>
> First, I'm a she. Its ok, everyone makes that mistake.
----------------------------------
Not a mistake--a convention of the language.
------------------------------
>
> Second, flame wars break out for the most trivial of reasons. So not
quoting
> properly can also start a flame war. As in implying that one person
said
> something, and another person responds to that person in error, and so
on and
> so forth. Silly yes, but it happens.
------------------------
I have written messages and had people answer the message I answered
without addressing what I said at all. They did not offend me to the
extent that I needed to reply. People get tired or hit the send button
prematurely or whatever. I can tell the difference from an actual slight.
If you want to have a flame war about such things you will have to have it
without me.
---------------
> Third, it seemed to imply that I felt one way about the movie when I
didn't
> (that chaps my hide, LOL).
----------------------
No, I said that...you had written....that so and so had said...stop...this
says nothing about how you felt about the movie. It was a brief quote and
should have been easy to understand by anyone. I can understand that you
might be upset that I seemed to ignore what you had said: that I did
ignore what you had said. And this was rude of me and I am sorry,
especially since it has bothered you so much.
By the way I tried to send you an apologetic e-mail and aol returned my
message with address unfound.
LIV
lotus <lo...@grin.net> wrote in article
<01bcdd8d$12c10c60$45bf...@lotus.grin.net>...
> BTW, wasn't he slated to be "sacrificed" after impregnating Milton's
> daughter? She was fondling a knife in the final scene; also at the big
> party at Milton's house earlier in the movie, there was a line of dialog
> about riding ... him until he was all used up and then killing (or doing
> away with ) him which could have been about a client, about someone
> opposing the group or about Keanu himself. The reference was ambiguous
but
> suggestive.
---------------------------------------------
The candles, cup and knife were religious items. She was setting up an
altar. The impregnation had religious significance. In pagan marriages
the cup is a symbol of the female principle and the knife a symbol of the
male principle. He was not going to be sacrificed.
Matt Beckwith
"LIV" <l...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>The candles, cup and knife were religious items. She was setting up an
>altar. The impregnation had religious significance. In pagan marriages
>the cup is a symbol of the female principle and the knife a symbol of the
>male principle. He was not going to be sacrificed.
How do you know this? The knife worried me, since (projecting myself
into the protagonist's role) I was actually considering taking Milton
up on his offer, but didn't fancy being gutted post-coitally.
It's interesting that Milton presented Lomax with more than just
percs--he also threw suffering his way (raping and torturing his wife,
for example). It's as if the devil were not capable of simply
bestowing riches, but had to reveal himself for what he truly was (a
sick MF). Another poster said that Lomax knew by now that Hell
existed--perhaps this is how.
Another interesting thing is that the nature of the Devil and his
minions was revealed to the protagonists, sometimes not in their best
interest. Most notably to Lomax in church. Which makes sense, since
that's God's domain.
I didn't like the ending. It should have ended on a happy note. The
exhilaration that he had made the right choice (albeit after making
all the wrong choices) was ruined by Milton's minor re-victory. The
morphing was somehow not aesthetically pleasing, either. Besides,
Milton had told Lomax that he was the guy in the restroom; Lomax
should have known this. It would have been a nice touch if he had
spoken to the reporter in a way that revealed he realized the reporter
was Milton--e.g. "Get thee hence".
Mayhem, Inc.
In article <01bcdf31$94e10e20$247f...@pliv.ziplink.net>, "LIV" <l...@ziplink.net> writes:
>
> lotus <lo...@grin.net> wrote in article
> <01bcdd8d$12c10c60$45bf...@lotus.grin.net>...
>
>> daughter? She was fondling a knife in the final scene; also at the big
>> party at Milton's house earlier in the movie, there was a line of dialog
>> about riding ... him until he was all used up and then killing (or doing
>> away with ) him which could have been about a client, about someone
>> opposing the group or about Keanu himself. The reference was ambiguous
> but
>> suggestive.
> I don't know but I got a strong sense of real affection from Milton in
> speaking to/about Kevin. And Kevin appeared to have some real, useful
> skills. Waste not, want not...
they were going to sacrifice him. Upon reflection, I have to agree
with the latter poster. Milton went to too much trouble to just dump
Kevin, particularly since he's such a sharp lawyer. He was planning
exactly what he was talking about: leaving Kevin in charge of the
firm, taking Eddie Barzoom's place. That was the whole point to making
Kevin a partner and killing Eddie. Someone has to hold together
Milton's vast evil empire on earth, after all, and it may as well be
family.
Paul
LIV
Matt Beckwith <mattbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3453659...@news.se.mediaone.net>...
> "LIV" <l...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> >The candles, cup and knife were religious items. She was setting up an
> >altar. The impregnation had religious significance. In pagan marriages
> >the cup is a symbol of the female principle and the knife a symbol of
the
> >male principle. He was not going to be sacrificed.
>
> How do you know this? The knife worried me, since (projecting myself
> into the protagonist's role) I was actually considering taking Milton
> up on his offer, but didn't fancy being gutted post-coitally.
---------------------------------------------
Having some trouble finding some of my books on Satanism. Here are some
quotes from "Satan Wants You---the Cult of Devil Worship in America" by
Arthur Lyons (copyright 1988 by Arthur Lyons; Mysterious Press Edition,
Warner Books, Inc., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10103) (note, book is
titled to appeal to a sensationalist audience and counter the kind of
'satanic ritual murder' rumours abounding at the time but is a serious work
with a valid history of Satanism):
"William Seabrook, an American author, claimed to have attended Black
Masses several times during the twenties and thirties in Lyons, Paris,
London and New York. The Satanists he encountered worshiped Lucifer, the
fallen angel, who they believed always had more power on earth than God.
Their goal was to restore him to the 'throne of the universe,' these
strains echoing the tenets of the old Luciferians....the four essentials of
the ceremony as described by Seabrook are: an apostate priest, a
consecrated Host, a prostitute, and a virgin. In front of the altar, which
is surmounted by an inverted crucifix on which lies a naked virgin, a
black-robed priest recites the Lord's Prayer backward in Latin. The
prostitute, in a red robe, serves as an acolyte, and the chalice of wine is
placed between the breasts of the virgin altar..." (ch.4, The Black Mass)
Note Milton, when he begins intoning as Kevin and Sis get it on, may well
be reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards in Latin...
Ibid,from ch. 3, The Sabat and the Esbat:
"First the initiate had to enter the cult of his own free will...fourth,
the initiate had to receive the "witches' mark," a permanent scar, probably
a form of tattoo, which was placed somewhere on the initiate's body that
was not readily visible, usually under the arm or on the genitals. This
mark was not unique to Satanism, but has its counterpart all over the world
in the subincision rites of initiation on primitive societies, mutilation
of the initiate's body seemingly functioning as a symbol of regeneration or
rebirth. Before being born into a new life, in which higher mysteries will
be revealed to him, the initiate must first 'die,' the mutilation serving
in this capacity as a partial or substitute death."
I don't think there was any reason to assume they were going to kill the
lad, just initiate him into their world....
My pagan marriage bit was just babbling--Satanism is not paganism, although
sometimes there has been some morphing of the rituals of one into the
rituals of the other--by that I was just trying to point out that the
objects had ritual significance...
-----------------------------
(snip)