I have no idea if this movie is pretending to be a great thriller, but if it does, it's a true hit and miss.Hit because it starts as a guilty pleasure and make you a vicious spectator.Miss because the character evolution and, most of all, the horrendous ending, are worth a cheap tele-novella.As a thriller, you can't start out with machiavellic ideas and finish like a textbook Disney flick. It's wrong, frustrating and ugly.A group of friends comes up with a plan to become serial criminals "for a reason". Their last (missed) victim, however, is isolated for some time, reads between the lines and understands the whole point of his invitation, during which time one of the friends turns his back on the rest of the gang and points a gun at them. Fear no more, audience, because someone is simply going to tell him to "put the gun down" and he will quickly oblige, break down to tears and go back to the table to toast with the intended victim! No, you can't have a group of people coming up with a plan to become serial criminals, and have them toasting ("to health"!!!!!) with their last missed victim!As for character evolution, that scene where one of the girls touches herself while her boyfriend decides not to join her is supposed to translate as "distance between characters". No comment.I don't believe in something like "acting saved the movie". It's theoretically impossible. If the material is not believable, there is NO WAY for the actor to avoid "faking it". And, in the case of a crime story, everything must pass as accurate, from situations to emotions to dialogue. And even though Cameron Diaz and Courtney B. Vance are "good actors", I don't think that remaining seated when someone chokes to death in front of you counts as believable acting nor as some unrealistic situation you can blame on art and sarcasm.In Alfred Hitchcock's Rope, James Stewart understands that his hosts are criminals. However, instead of going straight to the police, of which he wouldn't get any personal satisfaction, he goes back to their place and tricks them! He doesn't play by the rules, he plays the killer's game! Because it satisfies his ego; this is human race! That's an exciting crime thriller! You can't simply put your gun down, go back to the dinner table where your guest (a complete stranger by the way) is waiting for you, and then toast to health with some cheap lines that mean "you know that he knows *wink*!".Actually, there are Hitchcock references all over the movie. The way Bill Paxton meets the hosts in the middle of a rainy night is, reminiscent of Psycho of course, whereas the backyard part of the story recalls the lesser-known The Trouble With Harry. It may flatter the creators of this movie to allude to Hitchcock, but in the end, it acts against the movie because it invites comparisons, and you can't compare a thriller to the work of the guy who invented the rules of the thriller. Also, the title "Last Supper" automatically triggers religious connections. Having a replica of Michelangelo's Sixtine Chapel on the ceiling was cheap but straight-to-the-point enough to get away with it.Script aside, this is a fairly enjoyable movie, apart from the hideous music. It's kind of fun to watch people whose egos are so big that they use their "intellect and wisdom" to decide whose life they can subtract.If you want to watch a great crime thriller with pretentious people getting all philosophical around a dinner table, watch Hitchcock's Rope. Seriously. It doesn't get better than that.

This movie is a raw satire about intolerance. It' s not really about political right or left wing views, but about people who fail to understand what freedom of speech really is. The main characters don' t think about their own limits - just the other people' s. This group of elite students conceived their own mission, a mission to get rid of everybody who they think have the wrong opinions about the society. As mention in the movie - i you travel back in time and met the young artist Adolf Hitler, knowing what he would do as a grown man, would you kill him to save millions of lives? I probably would, but to change history - what consequences would that make for the future? That' s the question I asked myself... This is the debut for director Stacy Title, the theme is controversial, and the product has a visual style that appeal to me. The actors are very good, Title and her staff have apparently picked the right cast, and everybody did an outstanding job - even the guest stars. Stacy Title haven' t done anything memorable later in her professional career - which makes me wonder why, for with this production, she hit the nail on the head.

This movie brings up a lot of major and provocative questions. It is not a work of film art, but it is a work of psychological art. The thoughts and questions that I find myself having are far more penetrating than the aesthetic questions that I have about this film. Advice: try to answer and address the questions posed by the film, and don't try to analyze this film as a piece of visual or film art. It will be more rewarding for you. This is a great film for two reasons: one, the film presents a lot of issues that I think intellectuals should try to answer, and two, it shows off the acting skills of a lot of young actors (at the time). I would highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to have some questions to mull over.

One of the blackest comedies of the 1990s portrays a group of left-wing activists murdering right-wingers at dinner. Yes, very grim, but they know how to keep everything in good taste the whole time. Probably the funniest character in the movie is Ron Perlman as a Rush Limbaugh type on TV (he calls for a return to the Reagan era).Admittedly, "The Last Supper" isn't any kind of masterpiece. I guess that they could have improved it some by looking into how these various individuals on both sides of the political aisle arrived at their views. But otherwise, it sure pleased me. Some of the ill-fated conservative characters made my skin crawl.Also starring Cameron Diaz, Courtney B. Vance, Annabeth Gish, Bill Paxton and Charles Durning.