Talk:Last Days (2005 film)

Reception
The reception part of this page is biased and needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.68.60 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on quality and speculation on film content
This was a horrible movie. It showed nothing and felt a lot of confusion. The people who filmed the movie put their POV into it and did not explore the option of murder. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This movie is fiction, so Van Sant didn't have the cover the 'murder angle' or any other facts of Cobain's death, because it's just a Cobain stand-in. If you felt it was a bad movie, fine, but you can't slam it for being biased or inaccurate because it wasn't supposed to be a biopic so it has no obligation to be objective or factual. I don't even think Blake kills himself at the ned of the film, as Cobain did, rather he dies presumably from a drug overdose (since there is no blood in the scene where they discover his body.)
 * That last fact is rather ironic, considering the apperance of a Tom Grant-esque character, who has since become a major proponent of the murder theory.
 * On the other hand... I'm not sure the film really indicates that it was a suicide or not. You simply go from Blake in the greenhouse, then cut to a later scene with the gardener finding him dead there. We don't see anyone slip into the greenhouse to manipulate anything, but we don't see Blake actually pull a trigger on himself, either. (We do see a naked ghost of Blake climbing a ladder to Heaven, for what it's worth.) Presuming that the character is undergoing a drug trip (one which seems to span multiple days), the cause of death isn't even illustrated -- the character could just have O.D.'ed or choked on his own vomit, for all we know.
 * Richard Lee, in his review of the film, points out a scene where "Blackie" (generally considered the Love analogue) calls the house in a frantic rage, and the person answering it (not Blake) says "You've got to calm down. Everything is under control here." As Lee points out, this is ambiguous, and could mean "Leave him alone, he needs time to settle down," or it could mean "Just sit tight, things are going as planned." - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And if you watch closely, when Blake walks into the greenhouse at the end, you see someone in red duck out of it. And Pitt's looking like he's seen someone in the last shot before it cuts out. Then the other characters see a figure in what looks like a red dress (possibly Blake, possibly not) in the greenhouse. And the other guys are saying that they could be implicated. Then at the end, the police drop Blake's body when loading it onto the stretcher which could be a dig at Seattle Police.

Personally, I don't believe Cobain was murdered but the murder theory was subtly thrown in there anyway.
 * Maybe this is obvious, but has anyone noticed the similarities between "LAST DAYS" and the late Jim Morrison's opus, "HWY?" In particular, the two films start with both rock stars swimming near a waterfall.  Further, both films use silent to barely-audible stars near their final days on this earth.

I wonder if Mr. Van Sant saw "HWY" before this film, and meant to recall another stereotypical rock star who died at age 27 like Cobain?

The article said that Blake dies by gunshot wound, which he does not. It also said that there is a mysterious figure in red in the greenhouse, but the figure in red is clearly Blake himself, I see no implication whatsoever in the film that there is a second person in the greenhouse at any time before Blake is discovered. When Blake, wearing red, is in the greenhouse, a friend of his sees him in there, from a distance, and is seemingly confused as to who it is in the greenhouse, but the confusion concerns identifying Blake himself, not the identity of an apparent second person. OlYeller 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is never revealed how Blake was killed. It may have been gunshot, it may not have been, but anyway, the way he killed himself is not important.

How is it clear that the figure in red in the greenhouse is Blake? This figure in red is seen when Blake is approaching the green house and when he is inside the green house. If the figure was so clearly meant to be Blake, why put it in? Gus Van Sant always puts small details in, and these details are usually important. This can also be seen in Elephant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.43.250 (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out the preceding commentary is about unsourced speculation on the films content.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that Blake entered the greenhouse wearing jeans and a striped shirt, and was found dead wearing the same thing. So he changed into a red dress, danced around for his "friends" to see from afar, then changed back before killing himself? I don't think so. Also, Love loved red dresses. Sortsdam 50.92.38.236 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harmonyk.png
Image:Harmonyk.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article quality
Anyone coming to this article will find it poorly written, unsourced, with speculations and original research. It would be nice if someone could clean this up. i may try. I cleaned up the refs as they were, but have not yet added more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, some clean up, added a few refs. still poorly ref'd, but presumably what is here could be refd. if anyone tries and cannot find refs for any of the material, please feel free to remove it. A published book study of the film would be a good source.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of the article says the film received mixed-to-negative reviews, but the Reception section says it received mixed to positive reviews. This is confusing, plus the whole Reception section seems contradictory and without citations. Maybe I am unaware of how "mixed to positive" vs "mixed to negative" is defined but maybe both places should just say "mixed".38.110.16.98 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception
58% in Rotten Tomatoes. The movie was polarizing, and this article should reflect that. 181.194.232.3 (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)