It was a move that didn’t pay off. Was it a bad movie? No. It wasn’t two hours of slogging through nonsense, despite scenes that went on too long or felt pointless. The ones that were meant to make you feel things, did a good job.

The movie deals with “do you really know your neighbour” and domestic terrorism in the US, which isn’t a spoiler (it’s in the trailer and, well, it’s been 25 years). What really hit me, though, is that this came out a few years after the Oklahoma City bombing and a few months after Columbine, both were huge pre-9/11 events. They even seemed to use real news footage from the aftermath of that attack in the movie. It’s wild. Plus, this wasn’t based on a book or anything—just an original screenplay. That makes it even more impressive in a way because it was written being inspired by the commentary around those events.

There were some parts of this film that from a critical point of view really pushed boundaries. I have watched a lot of movies in my life, and this one did things that I found very cool. The use of practical lighting was breathtaking. The use of black space on the screen was also really neat. This would have been impactful on a big-screen. There were good intense movie scenes where you realize, “Wait, this means x actually did y?!” It definitely had some heavy stuff going on.There even “OH SHIT” moments where they really broke those unspoken movie rules.  

Unfortunately other parts of me were annoyed because despite being intense it was also a bit too predictable. I called some of the ending about an hour and fifteen minutes in. It’s got that typical late ’90s “forced dramatic conflict” thing going on—where instead of characters communicating, they just become unreasonable with each other forcing escalation—yes, this was already a tired trope then, and this movie relied on it a few times too often to force the plot instead of letting it flow naturally. I admit, I’m not big on thrillers or horror. These next few weeks of “Spooky Season” watching thrillers for this series are going to be a challenge for me. My sister, who watched with us, reassured me that these kinds of uncomfortable endings are pretty normal for the genre.

Here’s the thing, I can handle being uncomfortable if it makes you think or drives home a message. One part of me loved it because it made me so uncomfortable. The other part of me looked at my sister and those on the discord and said, “Shit. What was that about?” Even Wing Commander (the worst movie we’ve watched so far) at least had a “racism bad, togetherness good” vibe. Arlington Road? The message was basically, “Hey, ‘merica. You’re fucked.” (No, I am not going to make a joke that they were being prophetic because when you think about it, that’s not a funny joke). It’s crazy how close to home it hits with the rise of extremism. Unfortunately, rather than being uncomfortable for a point, or lesson, or warning, this just felt like it pulled the rug out because dooooom.

Time to Mine!

Let’s see what we can pull from this movie.

Characters

I think if you are looking for a dark character, grabbing the Lang past would be a challenge for a veteran player. I would not let a new player tackle this level of complexity and darkness until the table and DM had a strong trust built, because this could get real dark real fast. Grant Faraday as an adult would be a fascinating role as well. Though again, it could go real dark so you’d want a strong trust at the table.

Story/Hooks

Trojan horse a mcguffin to the BBEG. Setting the PCs up to be the delivery system or cause of the thing the antagonist needs to happen is a really powerful move. Because this is a game, unless it is a dark game, you would 100% MUST make sure that you give the players a chance to win. This kind of ending would only work in very specific groups. Honestly I don’t know that I as a GM could pull it off cause it would leave me so uncomfortable. However, it could be done. And done well could be a very powerful moment.