A whole new meaning to "deadly"

By popular demand (sort of, not really), I am now going to write a post dealing with the issues raised by the movie "Seven". This is not a movie I would recommend to the weak of heart, and this is not a post I'd recommend to anyone avoiding spoilers. In other words, don't watch the movie if you don't like gory stuff, and don't read this post if you would be mad if I gave away the ending. This being said, let's just dive right into it shall we?

Actually, there's too much plot for me to adaquately explain it all. Therefore, you can disregard what I said earlier because I'm just going to assume that you've already watched the thing. What's that you say? Why not go back and delete what I wrote earlier? That's a stupid question. I'm not even going to answer that.

I thought the movie was well thought out, excellently shot, and masterfully acted. The contrast between the characters of Somerset and Mills is perfect. We know astonishingly little about their biography so we learn about them through their reactions to the events of the movie. Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is a calm character, an experienced detective who wishes to retire because he no longer wishes to view the filth of humanity under a microscope. Mills (Brad Pitt) is a young and cocky detective who is very quick to annoyance and anger. The story moves quickly through the murders and the movie leaves very little time for character development. I think this is, however, a device that is intentionally employed by Fincher and Walker. They force their audience to make the same kind of assumptions about the detectives that "John Doe" (the murderer) makes about his victims. Our knowledge of the characters is shallow in almost the same way as our knowledge of the victims and their sins. I think it's partly a critique of the narrow mindedness of people who appoint themselves as judges of other people's sins. Perhaps, the director is trying to make the point that judgment is not that simple.

The director leaves the audience in an awkward position when he ends the story with Mills killing John Doe, as Doe himself urged him to do. "Become Wrath." And Mills did exactly what Doe told him to do, he became sinfully wrathful and killed Doe himself, rather than let him be justly punished for his wrongs. So, the audience must fill in the aftermath themselves, and give a verdict upon the outcome of the movie.

Were the "ritual killings" just, based upon the victim's deadly sins? Was John Doe justly punished for his crimes and sin of "Envy"?

My answers would be no, and no. John Doe went wrong when he thought that he could act as God, it was not his job to punish the wicked. And I don't think that's what the Roman Catholic church means by "Deadly Sins."