Amazon.com

The hugely ambitious Beckett on Film project gathered together 19different directors to turn the 19 stage works written by Samuel Beckettinto films. The range is vast--from the 45-second Breath to the twohours of his most famous play, Waiting for Godot--but all the worksreflect Beckett's penetrating obsessions with memory, regret, and thesimple, excruciating experience of being. Not every film succeeds--likeall great theater, Beckett's plays demand interaction with a live audienceto express their full intent--and though scholars tout Beckett's everyword as genius, several works are slight (Catastrophe, OhioImpromptu, or What Where will leave many viewers unimpressed).But all the plays feature Beckett's uniquely distilled language; thegreatest of them--including Waiting for Godot (in which two trampspass the time while they wait for someone who may never come),Endgame (in which a blind man and his lame servant bicker and jokeas the world declines), and Play (in which a love triangle isbitterly recalled by two women and a man in urns)--are astonishing in boththeir potent humor and piercing grief.

Though Beckett's stature drew in animpressive array of directors (including Anthony Minghella, PatriciaRozema, and Neil Jordan) and actors (including Jeremy Irons, JulianneMoore, Alan Rickman, Kristin Scott-Thomas, Michael Gambon, and JohnGielgud), some of the finest work comes from relative unknowns. But thegem of the collection is Krapp's Last Tape, about an old manrevisiting his life through recordings he has made throughout his years.It's the perfect marriage of text, actor (the incomparable John Hurt), anddirector (Atom Egoyan, The Sweet Hereafter); in their hands, theplay spins from deeply funny to deeply sad, all with only the slightestdim of the light in Hurt's eyes. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Worth a look.
2 stars is misleading. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Becket. To see a directors interpretation of his work provided invaluable insights into both the works themselves, and the process of directing film.
That being said, I was not amazed. The potential of a four disk DVD and large booklet, exclusively Becket, was unlimited. The product was a half-dozen enjoyable plays, and not even a documentary on Becket. In their great humility, they made a documentary, about themselves, making the DVD you are about to purchase. Great.

Who Put the Film in the Beckett on Film Project?
Directors working on stage-to-screen adaptations find themselves torn between dual obligations to both the original work and the new medium. In the case of creating a collection of films meant to highlight the playwright's vision, questions raised by these obligations become even more controversial: should they remain true to the text, even if elements of the play don't work well on film? Dare they change those elements to better fit their new mode of expression? And in the case of Beckett, what percentage of the collections' earnings should go towards manic-depressive treatment centers? Of course, total objectivity in stage-to-screen adaptation remains a pipe dream. But we have to remember that even a theatric production has a director, who-while possibly faced with less decisions than a film director-invariably must makes choices leading to his own personal interpretation of the play. Ultimately, every production of a play, be it for DVD or Broadway, interprets rather than mirrors the original work. Therefore, the Beckett on Film Project should not be regarded as an unbiased representation, but rather an ambitious interpretation of one of the greatest playwrights of the twentieth century. And in this regard, with few exceptions, the Beckett on Film Project shines with commendable effectiveness.

I wish to illustrate a few interpretive anomalies in the collection, to give you an idea of both the kinds of adaptive problems these directors had to face and some of their solutions. Consider "Act Without Words II," a short and dialogue-free play in which two characters mime their different daily routines against a narrow backdrop "violently lit in its entire length, [with] the rest of the stage in darkness." Director Edna Hughes chose to divide this backdrop into three film frames and to add a movie reel-like quality to the video. This constant reminder that we are watching a film is the same sort of self-referential metatextuality we find in many of Beckett's plays. Hughes' interpretive decision regarding the background also reinforces the repetitive theme of the play. That is to say, these characters' routines will go on and on, day after day, just as this very movie is being filmed-one frame after another. Hughes' use of a freeze-frame effect also highlights the technological superiority that film holds over its older cousin, theatre. The play calls for a "Frieze effect," but only on film can this be accomplished literally; in theatre it must be acted out. These changes by Hughes show intelligence in both his reading and adapting of the play to screen. Now, for something of a contrary example, consider one of Beckett's most famous short plays, "Play," in which three characters, trapped in urns, are forced to perpetually retell the story of the love triangle between them. The inquisitor: a lone spotlight that dictates which one of the three urns speaks, when, and for how long. But director Anthony Minghella's version gets rid of the light altogether, in favor of a loud and sometimes shaky camera, whose stronger presence is meant to take the light's place as these characters' inquisitor. Minghella's technique here ultimately falls somewhere between failure and success. The audible clicks and zooms of the camera do, for a time, give the viewer a feeling of submersion within the scene; since the camera now questions these characters, and we as viewers share the camera's gaze, the film achieves an interesting effect that draws us into the world of the story. But the camera cuts between the three urns so many times that the sense of a "unique inquisitor," as Beckett requests, soon dissipates. Not that the adaptation adds nothing to the play; once or twice, the camera pans around to give a broad scene of the background, a dark, foggy, and graveyard-like field littered with many more people in urns. While this background reduces the ambiguity of setting present in the original play, it does so perhaps necessarily, and in addition, clearly suggests that these characters' situations are in fact meant to be symbolic of some greater human condition. Ultimately, we recognize a tradeoff for every one of these questions of adaptation, but by and large, as these two examples illustrate, the gain outweighs the loss in the Beckett on Film Project. Or, put simply: the directors and actors earn their paychecks.

Now keep in mind that despite the interpretive decisions I just described, the main thrust of this collection remains Beckett's. What does that mean? It means that these plays glimmer and shine with a bleak despair. The most dramatic moments are often the most comedic, and the only happy characters-well, forget about happy characters (after all, "Nothing is funnier than unhappiness," as Nell from Endgame tells us). But, dismal as they can be, Beckett's plays always manage to match their gloom in originality, creativity, and importance. They pose critical questions about what it means to exist as a human being. Do we simply spend our days idly, waiting-for Godot or anything else? Do we bury ourselves in the desert when we say "I do"? Can our condition be reduced to the emblem of a solitary finch, living in a draped cage with a dead mate and only a cuttle-bone to eat, in a darkened room stalked by a black cat whose own life depends on a suicidal man standing at a window? Whether or not you agree, you cannot help but ask, once Beckett has shown you the shadowy corners of his imagination. And keep in mind his influence on theatre and even art in general. Often touted as odd and sometimes inaccessible, but always brilliant, Beckett's plays deserve our attention, whether or not we choose to buy the Beckett on Film collection. What these productions add to Beckett's vision is an important sense of a modern moment. How have the technological advances made since Beckett's death affected what it means to be Beckettian? And how do the questions his work poses affect you? It's worth your time to find out.

Mixed bag
Those who are familiar with the original productions will find this collection both exhilarating and frustrating. The more faithful the directors are to Beckett's vision, the more successful the adaptation to film. Come and Go is perhaps the purest of them, and also the most chilling. Other effective adaptations include Krapp's Last Tape, Rough for Theatre II, Act Without Words II, A Piece of Monologue, and Play (Minghella's truly -cinematic- adaptation probably deserves the highest marks). I'm ambivalent about many others, not least Ohio Impromptu and Catastrophe.

Unfortunately the longer plays (Godot, Happy Days, and Endgame) suffer from the directors' mistaken impression that Beckett's characters must be decrepit, disgusting, and/or humorless. Quite the contrary, there is levity and compassion to be found in Beckett's work, and without it his meditations become intolerable rather than incisive. Godot has its moments, but it's not nearly as effective (or funny) as any number of previous productions.

Pacing is also a significant issue here. Beckett's plays (excepting Not I and Play) demand a very slow reading, with an abundance of silence. Many of these adaptations simply plow through the texts with no apparent consideration of heft or nuance; Rockaby is probably the most egregious example. Other directorial liberties make Not I and What Where wholly unacceptable; these simply cannot be considered Beckett's work.

Happily, more Beckett productions are becoming available on DVD. You can purchase Happy Days with Irene Worth's excellent performance on this very site, three plays (Eh Joe, Footfalls, Rockaby) starring Beckett's favorite actress Billie Whitelaw, and a DVD of Beckett Directs Beckett (the three long plays) hopefully in the near future.

Excellent, with one exception.
First let me say I've been waiting my whole adult life for this collection. I've spent 30 years trying to collect audio and video recordings of Beckett's work, and suddenly here are all the theatre peices in one beautiful package. The chance that you will ever find another film version of most of these works, or ever have a chance to see them on stage, is almost nil. If you love Waiting for Godot and Endgame, you will not regret the money spent on this. Unlike most plays and almost all movies, these are peices to be seen again and again, over a lifetime, letting the beauty and subtlety of Beckett's language slowly soak into your being.

That being said, I was disappointed with only one peice: Endgame. With Michael Gambon as one of the leads, I expected the most from this play. But I'm afraid he was badly misdirected in this. He simply enjoys his dispair too much. He enjoys being a selfish, cruel master and his "Perhaps I could go on..." speech (one of Beckett's greatest)loses all its power. Gambon delivers this with hardly a pause, rambling on with the same puckish tone as the rest of his performance. (I thought maybe I was just too used to an earlier film version directed by Beckett, so I went back to the script to check this. After almost every phrase in the speech, Beckett has written (Pause). Without these pauses to let the anguish of the words sink into our minds, the speech carries no more weight than the rest of the text. Well, probably much more than you wanted to know.)

Short Review: BUY THIS NOW! You'll be watching these films again and again as long as you own a DVD player.

The Artist of the Century
Curious that DVD Basen, the wonderful Danish web-compendium of dvd reviews from all over the world, has yet to register a word on BECKETT ON FILM, by any measure the dvd release of the year. These film renditions of Samuel Beckett's nineteen works for the stage (which is not the same as his "complete dramatic works," which would include radio plays and scripts for television), are, for the most part, thrillingly successful. The plays fall into two types. WAITING FOR GODOT, ENDGAME, KRAPP'S LAST TAPE, and HAPPY DAYS, however revolutionary in their time, still more or less conform to the conventional understanding of what a play is, ie: they contain recognizable characters and the shortest is an hour long. Despite the filmmakers' protests to make true movies of these plays, as opposed to "filmed plays," each of their single-locale settings make the theatrical origins of each work inescapable. Having said that, they are the best "filmed plays" this viewer has ever seen. Most of the remaining plays, particularly the late plays, are very short (under 15 minutes), and as Alan Rickman remarks, seem more like installations or "performance art," then full-fledged plays. What makes these works among the greatest plays ever written is precisely their inability to be transfered to another medium. With one exception, each of these little films, even the most brilliant of them (I'm thinking of the mind-blowing PLAY), must somehow compromise itself as a play in order to make the transition to film. The exception is OHIO IMPROMPTU. The intensity of this two character, ten minute piece perhaps reaches the full measure of its power as a film. Beckett's stage directions specify that its two actors be as alike as possible. On film, they can be exactly alike, by virtue of being played by the same actor, namely Jeremy Irons, who has famously played twins before. Despite the actor's disavowal, the characters of Reader and Listener can't help but conjure the image of DEAD RINGERS' Elliot commiserating with his twin brother Beverly aeons from hence in their own personal purgatory. Irons' performance is impeccable and affecting, although the Beckett purist might wish there were a little less of it. The performances throughout the plays are deliriously good, with the sad exception of the beautiful FOOTFALLS, which suffers from an overly mannered delivery on the part of its two actresess. One can only feel sorry for the director saddled with the relentlessly uncinematic THAT TIME. But BECKETT ON FILM is mostly a box of treasure, and a gift to the world. ... Read more

Description

When Robert Scott (Val Kilmer) is recruited to find Laura, the daughter of a government official, he is paired with novice Curtis (Derek Luke). Scott and Derek stumble upon a white slavery ring, which may have some connection to Laura?s disappearance. ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Nice Looking. Bad Writing.
"Spartan" is the eighth film written and directed by playwright David Mamet. It stars Val Kilmer as a elite secret agent with paramilitary training who does dirty work for various U.S. Government agencies. He goes by the name of Mr. Scott, but we're led to believe that's not his real name. When the President's daughter disappears from her college campus, apparently kidnapped, Mr. Scott is assigned to assist the Secret Service in finding her. They have only two days to find and retrieve Laura Newton (Kristen Bell) before the news media get ahold of the story. Scott tracks her down. A rescue mission is planned. But things aren't as they appear.

"Spartan" is not an adrenaline-pumping thriller. It's more of a puzzle. It's filmed in a shadowy, brooding style. A surprising number of scenes take place at night. "Spartan" presents an extremely cynical view of politics and power, which might be interesting if the story made any sense. Not only does the story not make sense, the dialogue doesn't either. It's conspicuously unnatural and consistently nonsensical. I think Val Kilmer's timing is poor in a few places, but it's hard to tell, because the lines are cringe-inducing anyway. Derek Luke and Tia Texada give the most memorable performances as young rookie agents Curtis and Black. I'm giving "Spartan" three stars for the cinematography by Juan Ruiz Anchia. I like the way this film looks. But the writing is just plain bad.

The DVD: Bonus features include an audio commentary by Val Kilmer and a theatrical trailer. Don't watch the trailer before the movie. It's full of spoilers. The audio commentary is interesting in spots but a little frustrating because it meanders and contains a lot of long pauses. Kilmer also frequently doesn't comment on the scene that he's looking at. It's very stream-of-consciousness. It gives more insight into Val Kilmer than into the film, so I would recommend it for his fans only.

Kilmer's great performance sparks this intelligent thriller!
Not too long ago, I managed to check out "Spartan" at the theater. And, to me, I thought that the film was nothing short of amazing. "Spartan" had a great storyline, a powerful plot, and masterful direction by David Mamet ("Heist", "The Spanish Prisoner"). The performances of Val Kilmer ("Red Planet", "Top Gun"), Derek Luke ("Antwone Fisher", "Biker Boyz"), William H. Macy ("Jurassic Park III", "Magnolia"), Ed O'Neill ("Dutch", TV's "Married with Children"), and Kristen Bell ("Pootie Tang") were top-notch and flawless!

"Spartan" puts the focus on Robert Scott (Kilmer), a career military officer working in a highly secretive special operations force. Scott is a man hardened by years of brutal service, but is respected by his peers and elders in the world of espionage. When Scott is recruited to find Laura Newton (Bell), the daughter of a high-ranking official (more than likely, the daughter of the President of the United States), he is paired with novice Curtis (Luke), who becomes his protege. Working with a special task force comprised of presidential advisors, the Secret Service, FBI and CIA, Scott and Curtis stumble upon a sex slavery ring, which may have some connection to Laura's disappearance. As the story unfolds, the straightforward search-and-rescue mission becomes complicated by the political ambitions of those in high places. Like Stoddard (Macy), a political operative who may know more than he's telling about the clandestine circumstances surrounding the abduction of Laura. Scott and Curtis are on the brink of tracking Laura's whereabouts when the mission comes to an abrupt conclusion, with the media issuing reports of the girl's death. Scott returns to the quiet life of landowner in a rural location and awaits his next assignment in relative peace. But Curtis can't rest. In his naivete, he seeks out Scott to confide his belief that Laura is in fact alive. If she is, their continued unofficial investigation will put them, as well as Laura, at the center of a dangerous conspiracy that reaches the highest levels, even past the doors of the White House itself!

In conclusion, "Spartan" is a fine, superb, underrated thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat as well as to keep you guessing from heart-pounding beginning to breathtaking finish! With powerful performances by a stellar cast and masterful direction by David Mamet, "Spartan" is nothing short of a DVD must-own when it's released!

Mamet is not the talent everyone would have you believe
After my wife and I forced ourselves to watch the whole thing through to the end, we did a quick mental review of all the Mamet films we could think of in order to try to figure out why we had had this idea he was such a great writer. American Buffalo, The Edge, Oleana (sp?), The Spanish Prisoner and, I think, State and Main. None of them are deserving of the reputation Mamet enjoys. The Spanish Prisoner is mildly interesting, I suppose, but none of the others fall anywhere near the top of my greatest films list.

This movie was just a dull action film dressed up (and not very convincingly) as an art film or as something with intellectual appeal. The dialogue gets so fast and furious at points that, if it weren't for the all the frequent repetitions, you'd have to be rewinding all the time to hear what was said.

We gave it our best effort, but in the end, we both agreed that we'll pass on any future Mamet productions.

Better then others would have you believe.
Many don't seem to have any real argument against this movie other than that it is "bad". Well, thanks for those helpful reviews about how the movie is "bad" over and over, but that doesn't help people.

It isn't bad. Matter of fact, it is pretty good. The first few minutes are corny, but the rest of the movie is great. Basically Val Kilmer tracks this 19-year-old girl down. He shoots alot of people and the action is great. I mean, it's not like he has a futuristic blaster and blasts people in the shoulder. I love movies with guns that look real and I love seeing cool gun fights. This movie has quite a few gun fights and they are good. They are imaginable also. The guns are awesome.

The movie's plot is okay, but again, the gun fights and guns make it worth watching. Also, the plot has quite a few twists, including alot of things that you wouldn't exactly be prepared for.

This movie isn't "bad". It's good, and after watching it I was pretty impressed.

Just another stupid action flick.
When I read about this movie I thought it would be a political thriler or something close to that. Boy, was I missguided. The screenplay sucks big time!!! It's just a stupid patriotic action movie where 10 people have to die just to save a slut who happens to be the U.S. Presidents daughter. C'mon Hollywood you can do better than that!!! And as a Val Kilmer fan I have to say " What's wrong with you Val? You can't be so desperate!" ... Read more

Reviews (48)

A classic yes, but Crouse's acting is miserable...
As one other reviewer here very accurately put it: "we've become smarter since this movie was made". Especially when we've since seen mega-stunners like the "Usual suspects" or "Sixth Sense", movies that took the "film with a twist"-genre to a whole new plataeu.
A hotshot psychologist finds out the hard way that her trade doesn't cut it much down at the streets when she becomes emotionally (and otherwise) involved with a con-man and his circuit. As she's awed by all the "rules" and even more so the tricks that make the con-world spin, she asks to be "shown more", only to see that being shown more includes being caught in an invisible and catastrophic spider web. I don't want to give the plot away since this is obviously the strength of the film, but "House of Games" was one of the premier twist films for the time it was made, even if it might seem dated today.

Some of the twists might (emphasis on the "might") be somewhat predictable but that would be the case only for the very initiated viewer.

Mamet has got some great scripts under his belt, but if there's one thing that seriously undermines his film hee (he also directed it) is the acting of J.Crouse. While Joe Mantegna (the other lead in the movie) is in my opinion absolutely great, Crouse gives a half-dead performance, wooden and surreally uninspired, especially when one considers that she was acting (?) a part in a solid story. Were it not for her terrible performance this movie would be elevated into whole new heights.

Some people thought that the dialogue was problematic, but in my view it's exactly the bizzarity of the dialogue that makes the "House of Games" all the more special. The dialogues are unique in the way things are being said and not in what is being said.

But otherwise, this is a great film, also in a historical way, since it provided a cue for many scriptwriters since, with maybe better results but this doesn't diminish this film's importance.

Well worth its reputation and the time you'll invest in watching it.

Love It Every Time We See It
This is a very intricate movie written and directed by David Mamet. Unlike lesser talents, he can make a convoluted story totally understandable to the viewers yet surprise you every step of the way. Lindsay Crouse, his then real life wife, played the woman psychiatrist who has just written a bestselling book and become the toast of the intelligentsia in New York. She's also had quite a bit of money roll in from her book. One of her young male patients exhibits great distress and she discovers he is in mortal danger because he owes some big guys in crime a lot of money that he can't pay. Although she's not supposed to become personally involved with patient's lives, this time she decides to talk to the head man in question and see if she can reason with him for her patient's welfare. That crime man is played by Joe Matagna who does a tour de force acting job showing every facet of this con man, trickster character. The psychiatrist is attracted to him and Mantagna can make this guy attractive. But there is no doubt that he can be a very bad guy and an expert con man. You find yourself drawn further and further into the con games going on until they seem like one of those Russian nesting dolls which keep breaking down into yet more dolls. Hubby and I have seen this film about 4 or 5 times and we always enjoy it. I can't tell you anymore though without giving too much away. Let the film work its own mesmerizing magic on you.

"Trust no one"
David Mamet's "House of Games," is another of that director's giant flip jobs. I've been working my way through the Mamet catalogue, and one can't help but feel the director sees the world itself as a giant con. Well, that's perhaps a bit simplistic, but Mamet does cling, in movie after movie, to some core principles. One of these is that you must trust no one. In "Spartan," "The Spanish Prisoner," and "House of Games," this very line is uttered, usually by a villain to an innocent. This sounds like a negative credo, but it really isn't. First, consider who's issuing the warning: the villain. Will the innocent learn from experience? And will the learning result in corruption? (Important questions for Mamet.) Second, trusting yourself and knowing yourself (weaknesses included) in a dangerous world is advisable, necessary, in order to survive . I have to believe Mamet is a big reader of Joseph Conrad.

The story behind "House of Games," involves Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford, a doctor and popular author. Her "big book" is titled "Driven," about compulsive and addictive personalities. It doesn't take long to figure out the book is about herself. So driven is Margaret that she is beginning to make Freudian slips in her conversations, slips that reveal dark corners of her own personality. She may be heading for a breakdown - and a teaching colleague warns her, tells her she must slow down. But "slowing down" comes as another writing project presents itself, seemingly accidently due to the dilemma of a patient , when Margaret is introduced to the world of the Con at a local bar and pool hall called "House of Games." This introduction comes at the hands of Mike (Joe Mantegna), a handsome and slick con man who is willing to provide a tour - though he does warn her: "Trust no one."

To reveal any more would be telling. Like all Mamet films, the dialogue is essential. I don't think I've ever seen a director make such interesting use of dialogue. On one level the dialogue in all of Mamet's films (that I've seen so far) is seemingly stilted. But it works! Why? I can only attribute this to Mamet's precision as a director. What seems stilted, comes across instead as elevated speech - as in Shakespeare. Mamet is a dramatic poet who no doubt has Shakespeare's great maxim engraved upon his mind, and present in the framing of each scene: "Suit the action to the word, and the word to the action." (Good actors must love working with this guy.) So pay attention, there's no fat in a Mamet film, and always plenty to ponder. "House of Games" is no different. See it.

Don't believe these reviews!
It may be due to the fact that I was only 7 when this film premiered, but I found House of Games to be atrocious! The acting was laughable (Lindsay Crouse was dull and wooden, while Montagna's lines came across comically though not usually intended to be so), the plot was entirely transparent (just imagine - getting conned by con men), and the character development left much to be desired.
An interesting side-note, however, is that this movie reminds viewers just how much influence tobacco companies had on movie houses back in the '80s. The whole film is one long drag off a Camel, and even Granny happily lights Crouse's cigarettes with her vintage lighter.
Do not purchase this movie without first watching it!

"Look Out for The Tell...."
....or, "The Large Con consists of a series of Small Cons put in an 'attractive' order".

....or, "Everybody's got a little bit of small con in them. Well, some folks have larger cons..."

I saw this movie again and, despite my distaste for certain aspects of the Mamet approach (He wishes actors to read the dialog as written, without emoting too much. The emoting is somehow brought across in the words. In my opinion sometimes the dialog comes off as more staccato than true life, but who am I? Mamet is the world renown author/director, here. I am simply a hack reviewer--but I digress)...this, I think, is a very cool movie with a lot going for it. The chemistry with Crouse and Mantegna is subtly packaged...the cool psychologist becomes child like to the swaggering, but one step from being oily, con-man. She wanted so much to believe that she was being allowed in a world of secrets, privy to only a few, so she trusted this guy to Father her thru this mesh of crosses and double-crossings.

Those moments with the con-artist to her were romantic, exciting, hell, downright sexy and she was feeling more alive than the sterile clinical environment offered to her as a psychologist. Until, that is, The Big Tell gave her a kick in her nether regions.

What makes the movie a surreal experience is that on one level anyone who is in movie making and story telling (or sometimes health services like psychiatry/psychology) is some what of a con artist that we all surrender to one way or another. And we in the audience usually have to remind ourselves to Look Out for The Tell...do you see where I'm going with this? Good. Remember then. And see this movie. It's a good one. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Many thought The Winslow Boy was an odd choice of material forDavid Mamet. It was originally a Terence Rattigan play from 1946, taken from a true incident in England in 1908 abouta boy, 13, discharged from Royal Naval College for allegedly stealing and cashing a five-shilling postal order. The boy's father, Arthur Winslow (Nigel Hawthorne), mounts a lengthy and expensive legal campaign to clear his boy's and by extension his own name, with the rallying cry, "Let right be done!" The resultant notoriety, the dwindling fortune of the Winslows, as well as the punishment this pressure exacts on them, form the surface action of the story. Yet underneath the staid manners of the dialogue there roils a whole emotional life hardly hinted at in the actors' faces. The famous lawyer engaged to defend the boy, Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam), makes a suitable sparring partner for the Winslows' daughter, Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon), a suffragette whose suitors are scared off by the family's legal battle. The unspoken romance between these two is more the point than whether right is done or not. Pidgeon brings the same inscrutable countenance that complicated her role in Mamet's previous film, The Spanish Prisoner, to this film--but here everybody seems to have it. As the differences between appearance and actuality reconcile themselves, Mamet builds bridges to his other works, House of Games and The Spanish Prisoner, for instance, for the ways in which dialogue is a cover for someone's true nature. The Winslow Boy is masterful in its quiet treatment of human mysteries. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Beautifully written and exquisitely filmed drama...
David Mamet's fantastic direction makes this version of "The Winslow Boy" my favorite. The acting is superb on all counts. Nigel Hawthorne and Gemma Jones are perfectly matched as Mr. and Mrs. Winslow and play off each other beautifully. The plot revolves around the case of Cadet Winslow, who is accused of a crime and suspended from the Naval Academy. Determined to clear the family name, Mr. Winslow pursues his son's case through the highest court in the land. Sir Robert Morton comes in as advocate for young Winslow. The best pairing in the film is the gifted Jeremy Northam as Sir Robert Morton and Rebecca Pidgeon as Catherine Winslow. Catherine finds her "non-militant" feminism at odds with the views of Sir Robert Morton, whom she has long disliked. This creates a delightful tension between the two in their scenes together and leads up to an ending that will leave you smiling and wishing there had been a sequel. The case of the Winslow boy is an intriguing one, and this film version does not dissapoint. If you like courtroom drama, this is perhaps the best movie about a legal issue that does not include one courtroom scene!

A Masterpiece
So many times in the movie world, we find movies that are packed with either violence, adventure, romance, comedy, or tragedy. Not so with The Winslow Boy. Here is a movie that tells the true story, of a young naval cadet who is thrown out of school on the accusation of stealing a five shilling postal order. Mr. Winslow (portayed in this film by Nigel Hawthore) is determined to defend his son's innocence and honor. Joining him in his fight is his wife (Gemma Jones) and his daughter, Catherine Winslow (Rebekah Pidgeon). When recourses and defences begin to run low, the family turns to the famous lawyer, Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam). Sir Robert accepts the case and fights a determined fight in order to "Let right be done.". As the family loses more and more, they pull together and strive on until the final outcome. This story is about the fight for right and good during the times of the late 1800's. We are allowed to see the courage and character of each individual and we find that we should not judge people by what they at first may appear to be. Some would consider this movie slow and boring, but I say that, in my oppinion, it is a classic masterpiece full of excellent acting, superb cinematography, and morals and ethics that are so rarely displayed in the movies today. Allow me to leave you with a quote that Sir Robert Morton used in his speech to the court. "You shall not side with the great against the powerless! Have you heard those words gentlemen? Do you recognize their source? From that same source I add this injuction. It is this.'What you do to the least of them, you do to me.'" There is no great source of adventure, romance, or comedy here, but it in itself is one movie you will not want to miss.

Let Right Be Done
I have probably watched this one 15-20 times. It's based on a true story, and there was evidently a play about it which preceded the film.

I saw it the second and the third time because the tenor was so appealing to me, the heroism of the father so compelling and the love story so masterfully executed. It could be the best ending I've ever seen on film. Furthermore, Mamet's grasp of that time and place was solid enough, that I was convinced he was born in England before the Second World War. And the acting was incredible -- particularly that of Jeremy Northam who admittedly had the best part, but also all the other major parts were played very, very well.

And then for a time with each new viewing, I saw things I hadn't seen before. The plot is so complete and well conceived, that I'm left a little breathless.

The central theme of the film, it seems to me, is "Let Right be done." Everybody gives up everything for Right. Only the incompetent maid doesn't observe any loss, though it is her unswerving faith that makes her impossible to fire. If she must go, then the point is lost somehow. So the entire ship sinks or floats as one. The father spends all the family money and sacrifices his health. The wayward older brother must leave Oxford. The daughter gives up her marriage. . All of it reasonably cheerfully. And for what? For Right. Yet on the surface, it seems "such a very trivial affair". A kid is accused of stealing a couple bucks. The discrepancy between the triviality of the case and the forces brought to bear upon it suggests something very powerful.

And then in the final sentence, everything is restored. It's beautiful.

All aspects of this problem of Right are addressed. It's not only about the comfort of the boy, whose life would be easier without the publicity. Nor is it about his honor. "The case has much wider implications than that." The father describes himself as fighting for 'justice'. But it's not even about that.

It's about Right. The only thing that has the power to cause Sir Robert to show his emotions is when Right is done -- "very easy to do Justice, very hard to do Right." And I think it is because Sir Robert sees the distinction, that he is able to play the trick without losing his moral ground. He plays the trick to take control of the House of Commons, to discredit a witness, to determine whether the boy is telling the truth, and even to trip up Edmund Curry so he can seize the girl at a distance. Kate initially mistakes this trickiness for simple avarice, and although she lays into him for being so 'passionless', she shares his capacity to keep a level head. Though they both do have their knee-jerk emotional responses. She falls for some guilty radical just because he takes on the establishment. And he's wrong about women's sufferage. But he shows his eligibility for her by sacrificing his career for Right. And she also demonstrates her eligibility for the big league by sacrificing for the cause of Right her only hope of a decent marriage. They make a very convincing pair.

Superb Performance
To my taste this is a fantastic film, almost like watching the theater. Jeremy Northam swept me off my feet. I simply fell completely in love with him. To me, Kate seemed a bit cold, even colder than Sir Robert, which is funny because at first she thought Robert was a cold man whose causes are cynical. In any case, what impressed me the most was how Mamet built a huge story out of a minor case. The story is that of emotions. What's important - in life and on screen in this case - is not the events or the results of them, but the people's reactions and emotions towards them. This is what makes the events, and this is what makes this film so fine - all the tremendous streams flowing far beneath the surface, specifically ofcourse, the mounting (and melting) love between Sir Robert and Kate. Almost like Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy... True love very hidden but so obviously there!!! Indeed , go see this film.

Let Right Be Done
--Prologue--
To quote Mel Brooks, 'it's good to be the king'. The King, in England, cannot be sued. It is a presumption in law that King, being the embodiment of civil authority, can do no wrong. Consequent to this, all parts of the King's establishment, household, etc. also carry this immunity by extension.

So, when a 13 year old boy was accused of theft in Osbourne Naval College on the Isle of Wight, and summarily dismissed, the family had little recourse. And only one hope.

The King can allow a suit to go forward, essentially by an act of grace, by proclaiming that despite the legal immunity and presumption of infallibility (and you thought only the Pope claimed infallibility!) that there is a just cause at stake. So, he can let the case be examined and tried, using the proclamation: 'Let Right Be Done!'

--The Case--
George Archer-Shee was the accused. Despite the suspicion of several cadets, Archer-Shee was the only one expelled. This was in 1908. His father, Martin Archer-Shee, a Liverpool banker, believed his son's insistence of innocence, and pursued the case through legal and political channels to the extent that his influence would permit.

It became quite a celebrity cause, complete with all of the trinkets, hats, shirts, etc. that one more recently would ascribe to the antics surrounding the O.J. Simpson trial. People waited impatiently for the latest press reports, and the final verdict in favour of the boy sent the public into cheering.

--The Play--
This movie is based on a play by Terence Rattigan, which opened first in 1946. It was previously made into a film (in 1950), and has enjoyed periodic resurrection on the stage, most recently in 1994 as a West End production by Wyn Jones.

Rattigan changed details, not least the names involved: he changed the sister and brother, both ardent Conservatives, into liberal and, in the case of the brother, less than diligent personages. He moved the date forward, and the age of the boy back, and dropped the religious aspect, to try to make this a tale more involved with justice against the Crown (representing any unfeeling, uncaring, faceless authority).

David Mamet, best known for movies such as Glengary Glenross, The Spanish Prisoner, and Homicide, adapted the play. 'In adaptation, at first it would seem like the other fellow's doing all the work,' says Mamet. 'But when you get into it, you see it's not true. The previous work exists in its own right and for very good reasons, but you have to make changes to adapt it to the medium of the screen. But to the degree that this succeeds, it's because it's a great piece of dramaturgy on the part of Rattigan.' The play actually takes place completely within the confines of the Winslow drawing room.

--The Film--
Mamet of course did not confine the movie to the confines of one room. Also, he changed the dialogue around such that much of it occurs in a rat-a-tat-tat fashion much of the time. Mamet is not one for a great deal of action in a physical sense, but keeping track of the dialogue can be positively tiring.

Sir Nigel Hawthorne, best known currently as the star of the title role in 'The Madness of King George', for which he was nominated for an Oscar. He brings his quintessentially British character and presence to this very English family. In the role of the lawyer (Sir Robert Morton), Jeremy Northam (perhaps most recently seen in 'An Ideal Husband') brings an insight into the cost of career and the distance created from an image of greatness, while maintaining the basic humanity of the character who cares for justice. Rebecca Pidgeon, who worked with Mamet earlier in 'The Spanish Prisoner' plays the pivotal role of the accused boy's sister, Catherine, who sacrifices her marriage to the cause (for the husband-to-be wants a less controversial life, er, wife). In this picture (and play) Catherine is a dedicated Suffragette (Rattigan finally got the real sister to accept his revision of her life -- remember, she was an ardent Conservative).

The acting is superb, seems to be a bit slow at times but that is due more to the intentional style rather than any fault of acting. This is a cinematic style of presenting an essentially dialogue-based play that becomes a bit laboured. Much better in the theatre (either as a play or a film) than on home video, where the minor distractions of the home make it more difficult to concentrate. This film requires concentration.

--Epilogue--

In the end, the case is won. In the film, no discussion is made of the aftermath, for this is a single-pointed story ' 'Let Right Be Done'. Of course, right can be defined in different terms. Despite being acquitted, the young Archer-Shee never got much benefit of this. He was killed shortly afterward serving in the military in 1914, near the beginning of World War I. His older brother (portrayed in the film as a slacker-student) in fact became a Conservative Member of Parliament, and pressed the case to win back for the family a compensation of £3000 (a princely sum in that time) plus court costs. However, the Admiralty never issued an apology and never rescinded the charges.

Such a minor case. Such a major issue.

A pity so few will ever see this film. Be part of an exclusive set who do. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Campbell Scott plays a green young technocrat who invents a secret and highly successful high-tech process that, it appears, most of the free world would like to get their hands on. His own company may not be dealing with him fairly, and competitors are lurking around every street corner and kiddie carousel in New York (not to mention Caribbean hideaways) hoping to steal, cajole, or trick him out of the formula. The plot is as full of switchbacks as a mountain highway, and the delights are in watching it unfold around Scott, who is not so much of a naif that he doesn't catch on that not only his formula, but his life, are in dire danger. Steve Martin is consummately assured--and scary as hell--as a wealthy big shot determined to come out on top. David Mamet's script is refreshingly free from his trademark mannerisms; it's his most satisfying film since 1987's House of Games. --Anne Hurley ... Read more

Reviews (133)

"Beware of all enterprises which require new clothes."
The art of the confidence game, or con, for short...very few manage to bring it to the screen as well or a clever as David Mamet, and The Spanish Prisoner (1997) is, while not in my opinion his best, but better than most, and certainly is a good display of Mamet's writing and style for direction. Written and directed by Mamet (House of Games, Glengarry Glen Ross, Wag the Dog), the film stars Campbell Scott, Steve Martin, Ben Gazzara, and Rebecca Pidgeon (who's married to Mamet).

Scott plays Joseph Ross, an inventor who creates a top secret mathematical formula of sorts intended to allow for the manipulation of the stock market somehow, and has the potential to make a lot, a whole lot, of money for the company he works for...problem is Ross is beginning to have doubts about receiving his fair share, what he believes he's entitled to, from the company that plans to utilize the formula. As he tries to negotiate an equitable agreement with the company, he meets a well to do businessman by the name of Julian 'Jimmy' Dell (Martin) to which they become friendly, with Jimmy even offering to assist Joseph by putting him in contact with a lawyer that deals with contract law and proprietary information. But nothing is what it seems in this film, as Joseph soon learns as he's accused of theft of the formula, and even murder, as evidence begins appearing that certainly points the finger at him, becoming the perfect patsy. Will he be able to fully understand the intricacies of the con and learn who's involved before he captured by the police and/or FBI? I know, but you'll just have to watch to find out...

I really enjoyed this film, and all its' intricate twists and turns. It's difficult to talk about without giving anything away, but the story is truly a wonderful mystery that will keep you guessing until the end, even if you manage to uncover some of the elements for yourself. The crafting of the con within the story is really good, even though we see so very little of the machinations and planning behind it, instead seeing only the end results, as Scott's character is drawn into a world of fabrication, deceit, and lies. My favorite role here was the character played by Steve Martin. I thought he did an excellent job presenting a charming and sophisticated character, playing the rare serious role. I do enjoy many of his comedic roles, but it's always a treat to see an actor successfully break out of his/her element and show they are more than what we see on the surface. Scott was good, although I felt his character was just a bit too gullible at times, especially given the nature of his work. I've never really cared for him much as an actor as he reminds me too much of that lame white guy from the 3rd season of MTV's The Real World (I think his name was Judd). He was such a smarmy, wishy washy annoyance always following the majority, trying to present an image of the understanding, evolved, sophisticated, yet oh-so-sensitive male in touch with his feminine side, ever careful never to appear politically incorrect for fear of being offensive to the viewers on the other end of the camera, spouting meaningless phrases that make you want to punch him in the face like "I feel your pain", or "Why can't we all just get along?" but I digress...

A couple of things about Mamet's movies, sort of his signatures to me, is the direction by Mamet giving the film the feel of not so much watching a film but of watching a play on film unfold outside of a stage and also the often times odd dialogue spoken throughout by a number of lead characters. I think the latter element is what may put some viewers off, as it can sound very unrealistic and sometime contrived. I mean have you ever heard anyone say, "Worry is like interest paid in advance on a debt that never comes due"? It sounds nice, but I know of no one in real life that talks like this, spouting strange and introspective statements off the cuff (you could catch a beating in my neighborhood for doing so). I suppose the character played by Rebecca Pidgeon had the most noticeably odd lines, especially seeming out of her character. Maybe these looked good on paper, but I feel it takes a really good actor to pull them off on screen, and make them sound natural. I like Rebecca Pidgeon, as she's very sexy in a demure way and, I believe, a capable actress, but I felt she wasn't able to pull off some of the lines she was given here, within the context of her character.

The picture presented here looks very clear and crisp, and the disc is two sided, with a wide screen version on one side, and full screen format on the other. I did feel the audio was a bit soft, but English subtitles are available. I did find the subtitles didn't always match exactly what was spoken, and I thought that a little weird. Not much here with regards to special features other than a theatrical trailer and brief production notes on the insert inside the DVD.

Overall, I think The Spanish Prisoner is a very good, low-key mystery thriller that will keep you on your toes until the end and does have replay value if only to better understand the layered complexities within the story (I've seen it twice), but I still feel a better Mamet film to watch is the first he wrote and directed in House of Games, with Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna.(...)

If this is Mamet's best...
...then I'll pass on the rest. Seriously, The Spanish Prisoner represents a decent movie idea soured by numerous miscasts, spotty acting, and deadful dialogue. I really can't believe the praise it was given when it came out. I really had to wonder if this was the same movie that the critics saw.

Steve Martin is quite good (a welcome change from his hammy, over-the-top comedy performances) and Campbell Scott could certainly hold his own, despite his character's too-flawless-to-be-believeable persona. Rebecca Pidgeon is terrible. Every time she appeared on screen, I just rolled my eyes, counting the seconds until she went away.

The premise certainly is interesting. I like plot twists just as much as anyone else, but the end of the film does not fill in the holes like other thrillers do (think The Usual Suspects). The pacing is really uneven and at times you're convinced that Mamet was directing a play and not a movie.

That can be blamed on Mamet's dumb dialogue. Rarely do I ever hear people speak the way they do in The Spanish Prisoner apart from other really bad dramas. The only suspension of disbelief is that you won't believe this came from such an experienced man.

I'm serious, if this is David Mamet's best movie, I'm out.

Good Con Movie
A very clever story with many intricate plot twists to keep you guessing. However, all of the twists are realistic and never gratuitous or done without purpose. The movie moves along with excellent pace without feeling rushed or forced. Steve Martin and Campbell Scott are excellent. There are a couple of secondary characters who seem to be overracting or are at least very deliberate; By the end of the movie you'll realize that this is appropiate and not caused by bad acting.

A Cure for Insomnia
With the exception of Campbell Scott`s convincing acting, this movie has little or nothing to offer. This is supposed to be a suspenseful mistery about what people seem to be and what they really are, a subject that is presented in most of director David Mamet`s films. However, the plot is contrived at best, the pacing drags endlessly and the characters are just tepid and souless, excepting the lead that somewhat makes the viewer care a bit. The acting is also far from excellent and the direction does nothing to improve the slowness of the movie. The plot twists are quite irrelevant too, since the story is so uninteresting. "The Spanish Prisoner" is just another forgettable and useless movie about cons and burglars, and it`s as bad as "Heist", another Mamet film that goes nowhere and also fails to engage.
A good one to ignore.

OFFBEAT AND CAPTIVATING, BUT SOME LOGIC MAY HAVE HELPED
I can see why this very well made film ranks at roughly a 3 out of 5 on Amazon. It's very stylishly done, no doubt, and it will keep you on the edge of your sofa all the way through. But it also sports some yawning plot holes.

The central premise hinges on an inventor keeping a SOLE copy of his proof-of-concept in his safe behind a picture, with no other copies, and still thinking that it's alright to carry this in his armpits to a public park. As though this were not enough, the FBI then finds exactly the same kind of a notebook to pull off a spoof. Finally, it's perhaps alright to drive a knife into someone without worrying about fingerprints. How's that for a plot hole.

Fortunately, the screenplay, the music and the occasionally thrilling dialogue save the day. On balance, an entertaining flick. Besides, it's one of the few suspenseful movies with a PG rating, so the entire family could watch it too.

Recommended rental. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Witty and Smart
"State and Main" is a David Mamet movie, and it shows. While more light-hearted than most of the his other works, it shares their stylized writing, understated cinematography, and brilliantly cynical humor. The movie follows the misadventures of a Hollywood film crew as they try to make a movie in small-town America, spinning locals and movie people alike into a whirlwind of hilarity.

Featuring an ensemble cast of excellent actors (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Rebecca Pidgeon, David Paymer, William H. Macy, Sarah Jessica Parker, Alec Baldwin, Clark Gregg, and Julia Stiles, among others), "State and Main" relies on their energy and fast-paced paced interaction to keep the laughs coming. The characters they play are caricatures (the noble writer, the slick director, the skirt-chasing actor, the greedy producer), but they are nevertheless believable. The very absurdity of the characters is entertaining, but the humor is intelligent - there's nothing slapstick about this.

In fact, if the movie has a weakness, it is this very intelligence; at times, the writing seems a little self-conscious, the smartness a little stilted. Nevertheless, I'd much prefer a comedy to be too smart than not smart enough, and "State and Main" leans that way if it leans at all.

Aided by a punchy soundtrack, the film gets off to a quick start and maintains its pace throughout. The dialog has a staccato rhythm, and the lines are delivered with beautiful comedic timing. The underlying themes of second chances and the transience of the American Dream are clear, but unobtrusive.

I truly feel that this movie is an underrated masterwork, and I recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone who likes to laugh. I've watched "State and Main" at least five times, and it remains funny and engaging on each viewing - something I find very rare in a film. Buy this movie today, or rent it, or borrow it - you won't regret it.

David Mamet does it again
STATE AND MAIN is a clever pastiche on Hollywood and celebrity which is handled wonderfully by a superb cast and a cracking script by mastermind David Mamet.

The cast and crew of a big-budget film descend on a small New England town to take advantage of some of the province's picturesque places.

The brash director (William H. Macy) certainly has his work cut out for him as he juggles the production with his cast and crew's various emotional hang-ups. There's the heart-throb star (Alec Baldwin) who has a penchant for young girls, the gushing starlet (Sarah Jessica Parker) who is so eager to please but then refuses to do her contracted nude scene; and the sensitive, first-time screenwriter (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

But the real standout role is that of the wonderful Rebecca Pidgeon, who plays the local bookstore owner. She gives a glowingly understated performance.

Also featuring Charles Durning, Patti LuPone, Julia Stiles and Clark Gregg, STATE AND MAIN is a fantastic movie that is a real charmer.

Mainly Funny
Phillip Hoffman is searching for purity. Unfortunately his play has been purchased by a wild Hollywood movie crew, and they're off and shooting in Waterford, Vermont because Main Street is already there. It's cheaper than building a set. Then the town's folks, New Englanders, dry and pragmatic, mingle with Hollywood slime balls, daft, smooth-talking director, William H. Macy and screen idol, young girl chasing, Alex Baldwin. Sarah J. Parker of Sex in the City fame plays the nymphomaniac actress bedding everyone in sight. Small town smart girl Rebecca Pigeon and writer Hoffman make the necessary changes in the script and then they fall in love. A scandal threatens the shoot and somebody forgets the mayor's dinner party. There's plenty of manic fun here. I recommend for a good laugh. Also, is it just I or is William H. Macy the best actor in the world.

Not very good...
...But it gets one star for the brief moments that Ricky Jay has in the film and another for portions of Alec Baldwin's performance. Overall this is a stinker. Mamet is not a good director. He should stick to writing.

Enjoyable and fun
State and Main is a witty, intelligent, and funny movie. Worth owning. ... Read more

Reviews (111)

<2.5> Somewhat Boring with Stellar Acting
In the real world, things are often not what they seem; in the cinematic world of David Mamet, things are never what they appear to be at first glance, and rarely what they seem to be when looked at twice. And "Heist," the latest offering written and directed by Mamet is no exception. This one involves a crew of criminals led by Joe Moore (Gene Hackman), doing a thing, yes a thing, don't you see, yes, don't you see, they have to do this thing for this other criminal named Bergman (Danny DeVito) before they'll get their cut of the last thing they did for him. And so it goes for Joe and his crew, Bobby Blane (Delroy Lindo), Pinky (Ricky Jay) and his wife, Fran (Rebecca Pidgeon), as well as Jimmy Silk (Sam Rockwell), Bergman's man, whom he insists must be included with Joe's crew for the latest "thing," or robbery. The heist of the title. It's the reason they're all here, and it's the reason, yes, don't you see, it's the reason the audience is here, too.

Anyone familiar with Mamet will appreciate-- or at least understand-- the opening paragraph of this review; and by the same token, those same people will probably be somewhat disappointed with this film, because though it is pure Mamet, it is sub-par Mamet. The problems begin with the casting, or more precisely, the miscasting of the project. I never thought I'd feel that Gene Hackman didn't belong in a film, but in this case I do. Not that he did a bad job here-- I don't think Hackman has ever done a "bad" job in anything-- but he didn't do a "Mamet" job. And neither did Danny DeVito. Both outstanding actors and craftsman, without question, but neither did justice to the material in this one, which certainly has nothing to do with their respective abilities and talents.

Mamet has perfected a certain style which has everything to do with the way his actors deliver their lines, something of a Mamet trademark "clipped" delivery that Hackman and DeVito simply did not seem to grasp. It's a way of presenting Mamet's material that in his previous films has been perfected by the likes of Joe Mantegna, William H. Macy, Campbell Scott and Lindsay Crouse. Here, only Rebecca Pidgeon and Ricky Jay managed to deliver it effectively; otherwise it was missing. And it made a tremendous difference to the overall success of this film. On the surface, it may seem like a small thing, but without that particular style of speaking-- of presenting the dialogue-- the usual tension and suspense that Mamet manages to build and sustain throughout a film was sorely lacking. Another factor may be that the plot of this one was not as intricate or involved as that of "House of Games" or "The Spanish Prisoner," both of which kept you on the edge of your seat until the very end. This story is a bit more straightforward, and as such was perhaps simply not conducive to that magic Mamet touch that accounted for the success of his previous films. Not that this is a bad film-- it's not-- it's just that it could've been so much more, which is what fans of Mamet, especially, have come to expect.

As previously stated, Hackman gives a solid performance here, but it's simply not the kind of presentation that was needed to bring this story to life. And the same goes for DeVito; a good job, but just not right for this material. Delroy Lindo seemed to fall into that same No Man's Land, as well. Just as certain actors-- even great actors-- cannot do a Woody Allen film justice (Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity," for instance), not all actors are cut out to do Mamet. Performance-wise, the only saving grace of this film is Rebecca Pidgeon (Mamet's wife in real life), whose presence alone is mesmerizing. The bottom line is, she knows how to do "Mamet;" she knows, yes, she certainly knows, don't you see, how to put his material across. And watching her do it is a study in perfection. As she demonstrated in "The Spanish Prisoner" and again in "State and Main," she can single-handedly take a Mamet project to a higher notch on the scale. Unfortunately, as good as she is here, it's not enough to raise the bar to a more satisfying level. Her performance alone, however, makes this film worth seeing.

The supporting cast includes Patti LuPone (as Betty Croft-- a thankless role for an actor of her stature, and one that leads you to believe that most of her work here must have ended up on the cutting room floor), Karen Cliche (Alex), Christopher Kaldor (Laszlo), Andreas Apergis (Trooper) and Tony Calabretta (Coffeeman). Not every film can be a gem, especially when the director has guts enough to take a chance and go outside the box in an attempt to keep his material fresh and new, which is exactly what Mamet tried with "Heist," beginning with his cast. And you can't fault Mamet; there's not a director around who wouldn't take a chance on Hackman for any project, and with good reason. And, again, this IS a decent film-- it's just not that "classic" Mamet, and looking at it from another perspective, if every director's "misfire" was as good as this, there wouldn't be any "bad" films at all. In the final analysis, Mamet fans are going to want to see this one, and everyone else should give it a look, as well, because it is entertaining, and for most will undoubtedly be a satisfying cinematic experience. Because, in the end, it's still all a part of the magic of the movies

just not good
this movie sucks. ending is predictable. the line about being as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton was ALMOST good. Reservoir Dogs--now there's a heist film!

A Crime Classic
Unfortunately, HEIST, one of the best films in the crime genre, isn't better known and liked precisely because it is so intelligent and depends on characterization and dialogue for its power rather than on violence and special effects.

HEIST revolves around an aging master thief, Joe Moore (Gene Hackman) who decides to retire when he gets "burned," i.e., gets caught on videotape while pulling a job. When Joe meets with his eccentric boss, Mickey (played to perfection by Danny DeVito), however, Mickey talks Joe and his crew into pulling one more job...this time in Switzerland. And, to make sure Joes goes along with what he wants, Mickey refuses to pay Joe until the Swiss job is complete.

Joe and his crew have no choice but to agree to Mickey's demands, one of which is that his nephew, Jimmy, join the heist. Mamet has set the stage for twists and turns and crosses and double crosses and triple crosses and he certainly delivers. This is an intelligent film that keeps the viewer a little off balance, but not so much that he gets confused.

HEIST is a slower-paced crime film that depends on the interaction among its characters for its success. Danny DeVito does a wonderful job playing a greedy "bad guy" and he's so convincing he manages to steal more than one scene. Hackman, however, as the aging Joe, is the character who really pulls HEIST together and defines it. This is truly "his" film and he makes the best of it.

Anyone who's ever studied creative writing of any kind knows that "good" dialogue is usually transparent; it is conspicuous by its inconspicuousness. Mamet, however, is different. He's edgy and his dialogue defines his work in more ways than one. This is true, for the most part, in HEIST, although there were a few places when I thought a phrase was a bit clumsy or flat.

HEIST probably will never get the large audience it deserves, but that's okay. It has won the critical acclaim it deserves. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, better give HEIST a pass. This is, above all, a quirky character study and it's really only for the intelligent viewer.

Run after the gold
A thriller that never ends thickening the plot to a somewhat sickening level. There is always an extra-solution, an extra-development to the plan ? and the solution that comes next is never the last. In the end we cannot know the real outcome because a door is maybe open, or half open, and yet it is not quite there. One thing is sure, the gold is navigating from one place to the next and then to another to end up in the hands of those who deserve it. But is it the end ? We cannot say. And why should those who get the gold in the end deserve it ? We cannot tell.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Just Another Heist Movie
"Heist" is, well, an heist movie like so many others. This one goes completely by the book and is uninspired at all levels. Gene Hackman gives a standart, average performance as the burglar who starts having problems with his mates. This is a "who fools who?" picture, it has some required though predictable twists at the end and the character motivations remain unclear. In fact, the characters themselves remain unclear, since they don`t speak all that much and the dialogue is poor. Acclaimed director David Mamet glues scene after scene with little creativity, so most of them turn to be boring and lifeless. This just seems like a weak episode of some late-night cable b-tv series. Dull, unsurprising and shallow, one to avoid. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Worth watching yet ultimately dissappointing
I'm a fan of both Mamet and the actor William Macy so I came to this one with high expectations. This movie centers on the power struggles between a college professor and one of his female students, touching on issues of male/female relationships as well as the perception of power between the genders. An ambitious plot which, unfortunately, seems to meander all over the place before leading to a rather chilling, climactic ending. While Macy does a fine job of communicating Mamet's dialogue his character, a university professor on the verge of tenure, seems artificially constrained by the stilted dialogue and the peculiar rhythms of speech ( a trademark of Mamet which sometimes works, but not in this movie). The young woman who plays the student seemed equally restricted by the dialogue. Even with the unevenness and flaws within this movie, I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen as the plot was intriguing. Ultimately, however, I was left with a feeling of confusion and a sense that this one fell far short of its ambitious intentions. What was the message Mamet was trying to convey, I wondered? Or was there any message at all?

title of review
This is the most intelligent movie I've ever seen. This is far from the typical arty/intellectual movie approach of using vague abstraction to distance a film from any responsibilty for making a clear statement or even having a clear narrative. It's basically just a battle of wits between the two characters, but it's totally enthralling. Many times one character would make a statement, and the other would come back with a response that would leave me thinking "y'know I might not have looked at it that way, but what was said really makes a lot of sense".
I found the ending melodramatic and disappoining though. I had the impression that the two characters were both intelligent enough, and valued the truth enough, that they would have reached some reasonable conclusion. Maybe I misread the characters, but I never got the impression that either of them honestly had a distorted view of the truth or reality, they just chose to manipulate it at times.

Just Makes the Grade
It's always been a puzzle to me why some screen adaptations of stage plays work just fine and others fail miserably. Lately, I've been watching a fair number of them--not for the sole purpose of answering that question, mind you: it just seems to have worked out that way. Good thing, too, that I haven't been hellbent on resolving that issue, because I'm no closer to an answer now than I've ever been.

Sure you can talk about how successfully the play has been "opened up" for the screen. In the case of OLEANNA, the answer would be "not very much at all." It is, as others have noted, still very much stagebound. Like the female student, we feel virtually confined to the professor's office. Theatergoers have to accept such conventions as a (usually) necessary theatrical limitation. But in the context of a film, it becomes almost unbearably claustrophobic.

And I see from reading other reviewers' comments, that I'm hardly alone in finding the dialog too mannered. For long stretches at a time, the two protagonists (well, actually, antagonists) do nothing by interrupt each other. Some interruption makes for a more natural representation of actual conversation, but when neither character actually gets to complete an entire sentence, it is anything but natural. It's just irritating. Mamet, who reportedly writes to a metronome, should probably have turned the darn thing off this time out.

And of course there's that constantly ringing telephone. That would likely have driven me nuts even as a theatrical device. On film it's too much.

Mamet is always interesting enough to make almost any of his projects worth watching (at least once). And William H. Macy is his reliably quirky self. The quintessential character actor, he shines when given the lead role. Despite the mannered dialog, he is able to plumb his character's proverbial depths and create a fascinating portrait of a tortured academic, whose ambition, though very real, is hampered by nagging self-doubt (to say nothing of his doubts regarding his chosen profession).

Debra Eisenstadt as his student antagonist doesn't have as rich a palette to work with. Her character goes from insecure, diffident student, somewhat in awe of her brilliant professor, to near militant, bent on the personal destruction of her former instructor. The actual transition seems to have been made deliberately vague. She seems to have fallen under the influence of an unidentified but apparently quite militant "group" and finds some new strength and a sense of identity therein. With a moral certitude unique to the very young, she has no qualms about sacrificing her professor's life and career on the altar of "political correctness."

Which brings up the subject of the film's "message." The film's tagline is "Whatever side you take, you're wrong." And that simply is not true. As riddled with self-doubt as the professor is, he is clearly the more sympathetic character. Yes, both "sides" are aired, but it is clear almost as soon as the nature of the conflict is articulated, that the tortured but intellectually honest professor doesn't stand a chance against the newfound black-and-white worldview of the "true believer" student.

All of this conflict could have made for gripping cinema. What you actually are likely to come away with is that "hmmm-it-probably-worked-onstage" feeling. And that's too bad. Given the potentially incendiary subject matter, it really should have been a better film.

Brilliant.
Phenomenal movie - watch this and try not to get stirred one way or the other. By virtue of its tough yet well handled subject matter this remains my favorite David Mammet film. Stylistically its quite minimalistic, but somehow this seems appropriate in the context of the film. But again, thats just my opinion. Watch it for yourself and you decide.

Oh, the damage two people can do...
As mentoined by others, this is not a film for the unprepared. Take Mamet's trademark choppy and rythmic prose - add that there are two characters in the whole film - put that together with the fact that the film is about one of the most controversial subjects and yet, does no 'moralizing' of the 'who's right' variety. What do you get? Boredom? Torture? That's what you'd think, right? Wrong! This film is outstanding; that is...if you are a David Mamet fan. I am, and quite frankly, if you're not, you should be.

Oleanna is the story of a girl who goes to see her college professor for help in a class she is failing. He means well (so it seems) and tries to help, but says (and does?) some thing that lead her to suspect sexual harrassment. Before long a complaint is filed and he may lose his tenure and his job. Yes, the whole film - THE WHOLE FILM - is dialogue between these two characters in his office (three acts). But as a testament to Mamet, no one has ever made a two-person dialogue stretched over 90 minutes so forward moving, exciting, confusing, nuanced, and awesome. The ending is explosive!

The reason for the knocked out star is for the Mamet-ness which, though I am accustomed to and love, may seem strange to the uninitiated. His style is this: the dialogue he writes containes fragmented and somewhat choppy sentences as an attempt to immitate real speech (why do movie characters always talk in complete sentences?). Further, instead of the actors improvising the "ums" and stammers, Mamet actually WRITES THEM INTO THE SCRIPT and the actor's job is to perform it completely as written! What does this make for? If done correctly and properly it makes for a highly rythmic and forward moving style. If done poorly, it makes for a mechanical and almost dull recetative that gets under your skin, it's so tight. Fortunately, it is done quite well by the two actors (with ever-so-slight slippage into the monotone from the actress).

All in all, this is a film I will watch again and again, and I'm confident that I'll see new nuances each time (that's just Mamet's way!). If you want to see some great art, get this film! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

The greatest "Don" - Don Ameche in subtle mob masterpiece!
Don Ameche has always been a great actor who has portrayed in role after role something most actors never achieve: Elegance. In this role of Gino, a humble cobbler, Mr. Ameche achieves something even more sublime: Quiet elegance, coupled with gracious charm that defeats even the worst intentions of all those who would want to harm this truly GENTLE man. Joe Mantegna, as Gino's "foil", is equally wonderful as a basically ignorant man with a great heart who is obviously in the wrong profession. Mamet's (and Shel Silverstein, of all people!) screenplay and direction are flawless: his story is filled with suspenseful and humorous moments piled up one after another, and all are surprising - to us as well as to Gino! Nothing is as it seems, and the finale is truly inspired! Before this film I was not impressed with Mamet's work, neither on film nor on stage. I may still not care for Mamet's work. But, "Things Change" changed my view of what he can do with a good story and great actors, at least for now. However, as Ameche/Gino says: "things change." One reviewer has compared this film to Peter Sellars "Being There", and I think the comparison is a good one. Although we are not dealing with an idiot in this movie, Mamet's film does show that (most) people will react positively to a positive impulse and allow the good in themselves to surface over avarice and other human errors. And, like Gino, this is a very gentle movie. There is virtually no violence, no rabid car chases, no steamy sex, and, much to my personal amazement, virtually none of the profanity that has littered Mamet's scripts (his profanity, in my opinion, has crippled his work for many people). Above all, though, this is Don Ameche's film. His quiet elegance, charm, and subtle humor create a character who lives in the memory long, long after the film is experienced. This movie, and his performance, are to be cherished and watched again and again. Hurrah that it is on DVD!

Mamet proves that THINGS CHANGE
David Mamet has always been a fimmaker whose most unique asset is his control of the english language... (Or maybe more accurately, 'Mamet's English Language') Well, this film looks like a Mamet film, especially with favorite performers like Ricky Jay, Joe Mantegna and William H Macy (in a blonde punk hairstyle...). But, it is less of a language film than a touching and slight odd-couple comedy. This matching a mob enforcer with a sicilian shoemaker in Lake Tahoe. Don Ameche is a totally charm in the film, each moment displaying the innocence of a shoemaker. That innocence is misinterpreted as cold-hearted mafiosa control. The film is a wonderful distraction but lacks the brain of other Mamet films like HOUSE OF GAMES and OLEANNA. The DVD has a nice widescreen transfer and an original mono audio track. Remneber, Things Change.

Three thumbs up!
Undoubtly David Mamet lived a glorious decade in these eighties. House of games , the untouchables a scripter and this one.
Don't wonder if this movie belongs to cult movie status. It's a witty comedy about an inept , poor experienced and low level gangster who suffers the consequences of his acts when he goes against the orders to take an old shoe - shine boy on one last fing just before the latter goes to prison being not guilty.
Notice this disfunctional state of mind of this rookie gangster, follows the ancient rule about the wisdom of the experience , despite this statement is not always true all the times , but it does in this case.
The laughable side about the sordid universe that surrounds the underworld has been so irreverently told as in this case.
Don Ameche (Coccon) and Mantegna (House of games and Alice) give a fine performance.
Don't miss this funny comedy. A winner film.

Change To Another Movie
Joe Mantegna and Don Ameche star in this drama/ thriller/ comedy directed by the overrated David Mamet. Like most Mamet movies, "Things Change" tries to clever, unusual and oh-so-surprising, but unfortunately the overall effort is nothing more than a dull, tedious and uninspired achievement. The acting is alright and the direction competent enough, yet the plot just drags endlessly and fails to present a memorable and remarkable moment. The last ten minutes are somewhat interesting and present enough dramatic tension, still that doesn`t make for the boring hour that precedes it. "Things Change" has little or nothing going for it, delivering an intantly forgettable cinematic experience.

There are more compelling things around.

pretty good
I gave this film four stars, kind of as an homage. Joe Montenga and Don Ameche were both pretty good, they made me chuckle; a star apiece.
The other two stars, just on general principle, have to go to the writer.
Shel Silverstein wrote this! ... Read more