The Last Supper
Tags: comedy, dark, satire, murder, boring

Plot synopsis:
The film opens with a missing girl (Elizabeth Moss) poster being pecked at with a crow during a storm. After the opening credits, a young woman named Paulie (Annabeth Gish) is seen cutting a tomato from the garden before going back inside where she is preparing food for her three friends waiting for her on the sofa. They are watching a documentary interview of Dr. Arbuthnot (Ron Perlman) when a disagreement ensues over the Doctor's strong anti-gay remarks. Just then the front door opens and Pete (Ron Eldard) appears. He has had car trouble in the storm and has been given a lift by a passing stranger (Bill Paxton). Marc (Jonathan Penner) invites him in to join them for dinner.During dinner, the stranger introduces himself as Zack. The five guests introduce themselves as Pauline, Jude (Cameron Diaz), Pete, Marc, and Luke (Courtney B. Vance). They are liberal graduate college students who live together in this rustic house somewhere in rural Iowa. But the dinner soon turns unpleasant when Zack turns out to be a racist, anti-Semitic Desert Storm veteran who supports Nazism. Haunted by his possible post traumatic stress disorder, and after a tense political debate that includes Zack making statements such as "Adolf Hitler had the right idea" and "the Holocaust can't be proven," the evening takes a turn for the worse, with Zack threatening the group, putting a knife to Marc's throat and breaking Pete's arm after Pete tries to threaten him. Marc kills Zack by stabbing him in the back, and the group decides to cover up the murder.After a long discussion led by Luke, the students decide to continue killing people with conservative views, in order to make the world a better place. The initial horror of the event soon turns to intrigue amongst the housemates who have numerous discussions on the implications of what they have done whilst debating different views of their actions of many bottles of wine and digressing to problems of the world and politics. They discuss different methods of murder and settle on poison as being their first method used for the next case after Zack.The students lay down a procedure for each murder. The guest will be given every opportunity to change their mind and recant their beliefs. If the guests fail to change their ways by dessert, the group offers them poisoned white wine from a blue decanter and raises a toast. The bodies are buried in the group's vegetable garden.The following night, the group invites the local priest (Charles Durning) for dinner and lace a blue wine carafe with poison and reserve it for the priest's glass, while the green wine carafe is for them. Their previous discussions on good versus evil and man's right to serve judgement are to be played out. The priest's strong views on homosexuality and AIDS only serve to villify the housemates and justify their intended action. The priest eats his fill at the table and drinks deeply before beginning to feel ill from the effects of the poison. The housemates look on in mock horror and fascination whilst the priest breathes his last.Paulie feels guilty about what they have done, but the others console her and justify it based on the priest's strong opinions on certain topics that disagree with the views of the housemates, who go on to finish dinner with the priest still slumped at the top of the table. Suddenly, Marc begins to cough and act as though he is poisoned too, but it turns out to be a joke on the other housemates.Their next dinner guest is a man (Mark Harmon) with strong sexist opinions who considers rape to be a false state of mind and thinks that men are entitled to their position of superiority. The guest drinks from the poisoned blue chalice and soon begins to feel the effects to the amusement of the housemates, before he is buried in the garden alongside the priest.The film cuts to door-to-door enquiries being made by a local sheriff Alice Stewart, (Nora Dunn) about a missing girl Jenny Tyler, the subject of the poster at the start of the film.The next guest/victim to meet her maker is a woman (Rachel Chagall), a pro-life extremist with strong views on abortion.Meanwhile, Pete's abandoned car is found in the nearby woods by the sheriff who notes the licence number and contacts him to make enquiries about a gun found in the back seat.The next dinner guests are a pro-Muslim activist (Warren Hutcherson) and then an Homeless basher (Nicholas Sadler) - meanwhile the tomatoes are blossoming in the garden as they benefit from the 'added nutrients' and Jude takes to caring for the garden, and Paulie makes chutney from the fruit.A environmentalist is the next victim (Jason Alexander) who, after sharing his strong opinions on global warming drinks from the poisoned blue bottle and the results are inevitable. Following that is a Neo-Nazi (Rick Lawrence), and then an illegal alien hater (Amy Hill).Meanwhile, the sheriff is stepping up her inquiries and reveals to one day Pete that she has also found Zack's abandoned pick-up truck in the woods. Zack is a known felon and Pete feigns shock when she tells him that Zack is a suspected serial killer, but Pete denies knowing who Zack is and does not identify him from a series of photographs shown to him by the sheriff.The housemates discuss their progress and the next guest, a librarian (Pamela Gien) is invited to dinner. But the meal is interrupted with a knock at the door, the sheriff has made a house call and gets Marc to reluctantly open the door. She is asking about the missing girl, named Jenny Tyler, and shows Marc the same photographs that she had earlier shown Pete. Paulie joins them at the door, flicks through the photographs and denies knowing any of them even though the picture of Zack is included. While they are at the door, there is a crash in the background that the sheriff hears (presumed to be the librarian collapsing). Pete rushes to the door to cover and meets the sheriff again. They make small talk to distract the sheriff who eventually leaves, but pauses in the pathway, suspicious on the students nervous behavior .When the housemates return to the dinner table, they find Jude in a panic because she has had to stab the librarian because she was a tee-totaller and didn't drink the wine. A discussion ensues where the housemates try to justify their killing of Zack given his criminal past, with them declaring that they have prevented other deaths by killing him. They then argue over their body count to date and excuse their actions based on their opinions of their victims and their strong views, declaring that they have saved society.After ten murders, misgivings begin to surface within the group as a couple of them grow indecisive regarding the justification of their actions. Their next dinner party guest is a young teenage girl called Heather (Bryn Erin) who has strong opinions for her age on her human rights and family values, and an opponent of mandatory sex education in school. Her opinions quickly anger the housemates and Luke takes a particular dislike to her, with the other housemates arguing amongst themselves. Jude eventually comes to Heather's rescue and accompanies her out of the house and she makes a lucky escape.The next day, the sheriff secretly arrives outside the students' house and peers through the garden fence. She overbears Jude and Luke argue over the tending of the garden and tomato plants and tensions are high.The sheriff scales the fence to get a closer look when she thinks that Jude and Luke have gone back inside, but gets caught creeping around the garden by Luke who kills her with a blow to the head with a shovel.A few days later, Pete and Luke head to the airport for Spring Break but their flight is delayed. By coidence, they see Dr. Norman Arbuthnot in the departure lounge and approach him to introduce themselves. (Throughout the movie, brief segments of radical statements made by Arbuthnot had been appearing on the TV that the group had been watching in their home.) They invite him back to their house for dinner and prepare the intended blue bottle poisoned solution, but allow him to drink from an alternative green bottle at his own selection for the time being.They go on to debate his views and Arbuthnot reveals that his extreme conservative views he shares on television are about gathering high ratings rather than necessarily being his own personal opinions. His views turn out to be moderate and reasonable, much to the suprise of his five guests. Arbuthnot reveals that he is actually a full-on liberal and he stymies the group with his moderate and persuasive arguments, all of which the usually argumentative group have difficulty debunking. He even admits that he says more radically conservative things mostly for attention. When he reaches for the blue carafe, Jude prevents him from drinking from it saying "It was left out too long and has gone bad," much to Luke's horror. They continue their debate.After several more minutes of talk, Arbuthnot's responses to the issues of abortion, racisim, sex-ed, and women are unbias and agreeable. Out of pure frustration, all five confused students one by one suspiciously excuse themselves to the kitchen to determine Norman Arbuthnot's fate, leaving the behildered speaker activist alone at the dinner table. In their absence, Arbuthnot goes to fill his glass from the blue bottle but he smells something strange and sets the blue bottle aside thinking that the wine is fermented. (Note: prior to him arriving, an overzealous Marc has made the solution too strong with too much arcenic which would explain an overpowering smell the wine now gives off.)In the kitchen, the five housemates talk over what they should do with Arbuthnot since he is really a fair-minded liberal like them. A quick vote is taken on whether they should kill Dr. Arbuthnot, and it's 4 to 1 to let him live. But Luke continues to hold out, instisting that he must be killed and even calls Arbuthnot "Hitler" for he is a skilled manipulator. After a tense altercation, Luke pulls out a gun and aims it at Jude. Luke confesses to killing the sheriff a few days ago, who until now, the other housemates did not know had been killed in their back yard.Back in the dining room, a curious Dr. Arbuthnot looks around at the various things in the dining room. After a few minutes, he casually takes the time to light himself a cigar when he spots the ten freshly dug mounds in the rainy back garden when the lights in the room flicker for a few seconds from the storm outside. Arbuthnot then picks up and reads a discarded newspaper lying on the couch which has a headling on the missing sheriff. Norman Arbuthnot looks towards the strong smelling blue bottle, and then back at the ten mounds of dirt outside in the pouring rain, and then back at the blue bottle... he begins to put two and two together.In the kitchen, Jude dials 911 and Luke points the gun at her, but Jude is placed on hold by the police department so she hangs up. Luke breaks down and the house mates console him before rejoining Dr. Norman Arbuthnot in the dining room. Arbuthnot presents the group with glasses of wine and offers them a toast but does not drink himself, with the excuse that he doesn't want to be too intoxicated to fly his private plane.The film closes with the image of a painting showing five dead dinner party hosts and the voice of the Dr. Arbuthnot, the presumption being that he had filled their glasses from the blue bottle after realizing their deeds and delivering his own form of justice as delivered in a final voice-over semon to his listeners.

Review: A fantastic movie demonstrating the self righteousness of people on the far left and right of the political spectrum: "I'm right, your wrong, end of story".
It's very rare that a film which might be described as a political dark comedy shows the faults of people on the right and left who know that they're always right and it demonstrates that there's really no right or wrong (the homophobic priest wishes to kill all gays, but then the students kill him.
I love the intense scenes with the cop and when the liberals start to contemplate rather they should kill or not kill their dinner "guests." it's just great stuff!Imagine, all these "tolerant" liberals sitting around judging people on what they say and starting to actually LIKE killing.
It has an excellent cast, especially with Courtney B Vance, Ron Perlman, and Cameron Diaz (who is a real surprise).It also has a brilliantly witty script, like a 90s Oscar Wilde or George B Shaw with more sharper bite.
This is the way smart independent films should be, and it's a shame not all of them are this clever or perceptive.Obviously not meant for all tastes, but if you're fairly open-minded and like intelligent dark satire, this is a real treat..
The great irony is that the liberals become intolerant, revealing the dangers of political correctness and the very real possibility of a left-wing police state in which alternative views are crushed in the name liberal values.A good soundtrack, some sparkling cameos by the dinner guests, and a knockout performance by Ron Perlman as the conservative commentator make this largely overlooked comedy well worth a gander..
And, before we end the lame and obvious food metaphors, let's just say the film has a meaty premise, but is hard to swallow because it is half-baked -- okay, three-quarters baked.The plot is simple: five rather smug and pretentiously liberal graduate students in Iowa, the heartland of American conservatism, have a weekly ritual of inviting a guest to Sunday dinner so that they can have philosophical conversations about politics.
It is liberal activism taken to its not-necessarily-logical extreme.Their guest list (of cameo guest stars) begins with the lunatic war vet (Bill Paxton), a homophobic priest (Charles Durning), a male chauvinist (Mark Harmon) and an anti-environmentalist (Jason Alexander), but quickly degenerates to lesser villains (played by lesser actors) that include an anti-abortion activist, a librarian who dares to object to "The Catcher in the Rye" and a virginal teenage girl who doesn't approve of sex education in school.
The message is that Hitler alone couldn't accomplish much, but a group willing to rationalize any atrocity as a means to a just end is the real danger to society.It is as a critique of modern liberalism in the era of political correctness that the film is boldly, almost brazenly, sly.
The guest stars were all good - indeed, Ron Pearlman was the most likeable character in the film, and I'm talking about his 'fascist politician' scenes, too.There is nothing to recommend about this movie - the characters are obnoxious and self-assured wannabe standup comedians.
My friends and I sat stoney faced as one liner after failed one liner dropped limply from the 'clever and witty script'.There were moments when character development threatened to appear, as some sort of depth was introduced to the 2D stars, only for it to vanish as if it had wandered in only by accident and didn't want to cause a fuss.In fact, the characterisation was possibly the reason I hated this film so much.
Which was probably the point - the entire film could have been condensed to a five minute short, and would have benefitted innumerably from the need to cut the chaff.The almost final scene, in the kitchen (I won't give any details away, for those who want to see it.) was almost farcical, as the mood violently swung in directions I didn't think possible.
What if a group of people started inviting over directors, screenwriters, producers and actors who made stupid movies that insult the viewer's intelligence, and murdering them???.
Even if I spent the entire time banging my head against the wall for the whole time, it would have been a far better endeavor than watching this trash.While ultimately this film tries to make you think about tolerating the opinion of the next person, it conducts its' lesson by creating conservative stereotypes as manifested by left-wingers.
Left-wingers actually create these people and truly believe that this is the way conservatives think and act.
Of course, conservatives don't think and act as depicted in this film but left-wingers don't understand this point.
The idea was to show liberals as being well-intentioned yet mistaken in their methods.If they had done the film correctly, conservatives would be invited to supper, they would have explained real-world thinking to the liberals, and the liberals would have killed the conservatives simply because they could not grasp what mainstream America already embraces as its' philosophy.
However, except in the case of a child murderer, the characters just kill ordinary people with right wing political beliefs.
Of course, in all instances the right wingers are cartoon-like one-dimensional yokels while their murderers(the heroes of the film) are deep thinkers who anguish over the decision to kill others not for what they've done but what they say and believe.
This enigma fills with enthusiasm five students who took into their heads to eliminate the fellows which ideas of the far right can be considered as dangerous and harmful to the society.This movie tries and succeeds to show that although we are endowed with good intentions, we can be induced to commit blindly crimes, so-called for the public good.
But there is one thing that these students forget: of course, these victims who are either members of the far right or either supporters of nasty opinions remain human beings who killed no-one (except Zack who is the murderer of a little girl) and it's normal that the woman-cop wonders about Zack's disappearance.
As the film goes along, these students who, at first, are filled with good feelings are coming to become real sadistic executioners: their meals become questionings and they're even inviting a minor high-school girl!
Annabeth Gish is a real delight as Paulie, a character who is trying to come to terms with the world around her, and Cameron Diaz is uber-cool as Jude.If you watch "The Last Supper" with an open-mind, then you'll appreciate the movie for all it's worth.
A group of upper class liberal college students decide to kill people who disagree with their political beliefs via arsenic laced wine at their weekly Sunday dinners.
Power drunkenness and guilty consciences rifle through the group and come to a head when they get their political "would-be-Hitler" seated at their table.This is an intelligent black comedy with a unique style, exceptionally well written dialogue, strong performances and very eclectic music choices.
He has some great small moments throughout the movie but really gets to shine at the end when he puts the students in their place.
Their first guest in this movie is Zachary, a truck driver and Desert Storm vet who believes Hitler had the right idea, that Jews stole then and steal now, that the Holocaust was an exaggeration, that liberals accomplish nothing and they wouldn't be able to fight if they had to.
And Bill Paxton did quite a good job as Zachary.The best thing about the movie is that it gets a person thinking about other people's views and how bad it is to have unpopular opinions.
All of the guests but the abortion activist had very logical point of views and this movie just proves how young people like the 5 hosts know nothing about life.
I just read through 48 comments and I think nobody mentioned "Arsenic and Old Lace," which is an obvious source for the idea of quizzing guests and, as a good deed, giving wine with arsenic to those who'd be better off dead.Here the story is set against a familiar political divide, and as the murders (and cameos) follow one another, the criteria for getting killed become distressingly looser until the audience becomes impatient for the inevitable retribution.
I understand that as the movie goes on we are supposed see the toll these murders are taking on the grad students, but the characters are so unlikeable that I don't know why we should care.As somebody has suggested, this movie doesn't know what it wants to be -- a wacky dark comedy or a morality tale.
The initial premise - a group of liberal students act as judge, jury, and executioner to several dinner guests with extremist views - sounds interesting, but it is presented in an extremely dull and one-dimensional way.The group of students are impossible to like, and anyway, isn't their philosophy of 'making the world a better place' as bad as one of the extremist views put forward to them (put all homosexuals on an island with a limited supply of food and let them die).
The film is funny and yet scary in the sense that there are people I know personally that are so self righteous(just like the films central characters)in their beliefs, that they cannot conceive of anyone having the right to an opposing view.
"Last Supper" might not be the most cinematic of films, but it definitely should be watched by you.Give it a try, you might learn something about politics, art, and how to kill that jerk on TV who needs some killin'.The music was especially inticing (where can we find it?!?) with some spectacular acting and even a bit of cool cinematography (at least at the end).
An ending you might not get, but still gets the message across.The title of the film might turn a lot of people off (especially people who would SEE the movie), but trust us...
Disappointing,  though I really wanted it to succeed as the premise is compelling: a bunch of college students, brimming with ideal liberalism are confronted by a redneck bigot who gets violent and ends up on the receiving end of his own knife = poetic justice; maybe the world is a better place without such people.But, and here is where the cracks started to appear, it was an accident, and the ensuing catalogue of guest/victims who end up pushing up an unholy glut of tomatoes from their graves in the garden, were all planned.It is such a big gear change and demanded a scene which demonstrated common purpose.
The right-wing radio host was a ridiculous exaggeration of Rush Limbaugh.But in the surprising end, it's the wacko liberals that are painted as hypocrites (as many of them often are).Whatever your political ideologies, watch this film and place your tongue firmly in your cheek.
This is a very python-esque film, a group of pretentious grad-students decide that the world will be a better place without all those people that disagree with their beliefs (ie.
The movie goes where vigilante justice usually ends, but you are challenged and entertained every step of the way.The healthy tomatoes growing in the back yard can give you some pretty wierd thoughts, especially when you know that their 'fertilizer' was poisoned with arsenic.
Some people take their opinions to an extreme and kill for them (not to focus on any conservative movement that target physicians at work...).Political ideology aside, this is an interesting movie about transformations.
A little poison and a few sips later they are dead and being buried in the backyard with tomatoes plants to cover the evidence.There are terrific cameos by Bill Paxton and Mark Hamon but Ron Pearlman is the man who steals the show as Norman.Though it is a interesting and thought provoking story, this is still just a normal film and before you know it people are panicking and truth and honesty gets the better of them all.
The whole film was great, but the ending is what made it one of the best movies I've ever seen..
The point of the movie is that some people just wants to be told right and have whatever opinion they have prevail in society.The message is supposed to be that both extremes are just as bad, and the arguments of both parts are just as simple minded and void of deep, that's intentional.
But that is exactly the point of the movie, some people just wants to be told right and have whatever opinion they have prevail in society.On the comedy side, it's got a mild feel of screwball without going too crazy with it, that was very enjoyable.
Here we see five (liberally-minded) housemates start poisoning all those who they believe will cause more harm than good in life.Hardly a topic for comedy you might think, but then what you get is the blackest of black humour imaginable.
You'll find yourself agreeing with both sides' points of view at some stage I'm sure.Plus, all the performances are equally strong - Cameron Diaz in a most 'un-Cameron Diaz-like' role, but it's Ron Perlman and Bill Paxton who probably steal their respective scenes.If you're looking for a laugh-a-minute comedy with a feel-good vibe to it, then steer clear.
This movie is not disturbing but it makes you think about all those peopleyou know that love their way of thinking and will kill if ever challenged, Those people that you get soemtimes together with and you think you know so well and would ever think about getting away with murder or stuff like that.
Rather a similar theme, and both movies done strictly in "black comedy" mode.The premise of the film, ie actually killing people for their views, was interesting and I was looking forward to how the theme developed!
After a group of liberal students accidentally kill a racist, this question is more acute to them as ever, and eventually they decide to act: they invite people with extreme opinions for supper, try to persuade them, and if it fails, they kill them.
An ok film which becomes somewhat redundant with all the ultra-conservative stereotypical dinner guests espousing the opinions we just love to hate, "TLS" does wind up well and makes an important point which has to do with the on-going and age old tug-of-war between left and right and its role in keeping the majority centered.
But of course the point is the same--to kill one's political enemies when they simply refuse to agree with you.The plot is certainly interesting, in that it has complexities that are worth considering: The liberal group becomes increasingly agitated as it goes on with its grisly business, in strangely different ways.
Maybe not a main character, but atleast one of the dinner guests.One thing I did find funny though, is someone on here said something along the lines of Cameron Diaz giving the only good performance in this film.
The group decide that they have done `a good thing' and plan to invite lots of extremists around whom they disagree with and try to change their views and if they can't  then kill them.
Perlman is excellent and is really the only character that the film has.Overall this is semi-intelligent, based on a good idea and makes you think.
However the smug liberal group are the heroes and this is likely made by people who all had exactely the same sort of dinner parties in plush colleges (without the murder of course!)  so don't be expecting too much of a political comment to come out of Hollywood trying to be insightful or intelligent!.
This movie was actually a lot better than the film the guys wanted to watch.
The good thing is, that you can decide if you want to enjoy the movie as wicked, dark comedy or really read between the lines and get all the stabs it takes (no pun intended) against humanity/society!.
The plot is interesting, and could have made for good film, the this movie falls on it's face.
The basis of the story revolves around 5 liberal grad students who decide that their contribution to making the world a better place will be to invite one closed-minded person over for dinner once a week, and poison them if their views cannot be altered.
It is one of the few movies that is "about" politics and never lets that "about" get in the way of the audience being engaged by the film.
Its over-the-top killing of every stereotype the writers could think of just lets you see past the murder so that you can ponder more deeply the question that it raises : Should you kill someone if it will make the world a better place?This whole film is backed up by superb performances (and performers )all round, from people like Cameron Diaz, Annabeth Gish, Bill Paxton, Courtney B Vance, and, the highlight of the film - Ron Perlman.This is a great film that will get you thinking - 10/10..
They think that it would be a good idea if they invited people, who had very conservative policies, to dinner and kill them off with arsenic.
The acting is brillant especially those of Cameron Diaz, Courtney B Vance and Ron Elard.This is a great movie and should be watch by everyone.
A group of liberal, graduate students decide they can make the world a better place by poisoning people who are evil after they accidentally kill a racist jerk..
So here we go: Like the characters in this film, I am a liberal.
Last Supper?Well, with these elements of symbolism aside, here is the concept of the film: A bunch of liberals inviting conservatives for communal dinners and killing them after the slightest disagreement!
So you presumed that the whole premise of the film was to show that these liberal thinking students were totally right, and that everybody else was wrong??
Thought the premise is interesting, the film is far too short, and doesn't go much beyond 'invite a conservative guest over, kill them, rinse, repeat'.