VividSimon Simply Perfect

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

rzajac I wish I could give this flick a 10. It has much of what I want from a movie; colorful writing, great scenario work, and supercharged acting moxie.But... what does it lack? Hm. It's one of those things where the writing smells of the craft, and it's up to the direction/acting to cover that up. And it valiantly tries and does make some inroads. But, in the end, you can still smell the writing craftiness.Mamet is known for his knotty, gnarly complexity. Every now and again he gets the balance (of detail and myth) just right e.g., Glengarry. Here, it's a little detail top-heavy. But, yes, the myth is still there in all it's shining glory.It's still a fun flick to watch for all the positive attributes cited above, and highly recommended. It's also got a truckload of insider film patois and self-important preening.Loved the glancing ref to Mamet's old buddy, Jonathan Katz: "...and, P.S., pal: I put the word out of the street and Betty Boop can look for work in Squigglevision!" Not to mention Katz's cameo!Anyway... Yeah, I can recommend it. Not as taut as Glengarry, certainly not as gratuitously/ungratifiably complex as "The Spanish Prisoner". It's a rollicking cavalcade.

writers_reign It seems that at one time or another everyone and his Uncle Max wants to make a film about Hollywood and in my case, as a viewer, I welcome them whilst acknowledging that the best novel about Hollywood, Budd Schulberg's What Makes Sammy Run, has yet to be filmed - unless you know something I don't - though Ervin Drake did turn it into a Broadway musical. In some ways David Mamet attempts to rectify this by coming at Sammy from another angle so that Sammy Glick, no-talent writer-on-the-make is here the Producer combined with the sleazy small-town lawyer, whilst Schulberg's hero, the idealistic writer used as a pawn by Glick is retained in the shape of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Mamet manages a number of digs at easy but nonetheless amusing targets and really showcases his real-life wife, Rebecca Pigeon, who has never looked lovelier or been more believable even if it is a tad unrealistic that such a lovely, erudite creature would be withering on the wine of Smalltown, USA. This is a lot of fun to watch first time around but I wonder if it will stand multiple viewings.

Robert J. Maxwell It's not hilarious but it's consistent in its good-natured cynicism, from which most of its amusement quotient is derived. Mamet takes us to a small town in Vermont where Bill Macy is trying to set up locations for a film he is directing, (Some problems there with the old watermill, the centerpiece of the story, which doesn't exist anymore.)Alec Baldwin is a little careless about his attraction to young girls and this adds to the difficulties when he's put upon by the authorities. He has the best line though -- the last in the film -- when he shuffles off to the set and mutters, "It beats working." Philip Seymour Hoffman has a strange face, indeed a strange presence, and brings a good deal of talent to the role of a screenwriter with principle, probably the closest thing to a protagonist the movie offers us. He quits his job at one point before having an epiphany and returning to work. And he has a romance with the attractive, perceptive, flatly matter-of-fact Rebecca Pigeon, who projects an extraordinary intelligence and sexiness despite her ski boots and overgrown running shoes, which any normal viewer would love to pluck off and turn into soup. As their romance is nudged forward by events, she asks Hoffman, "How do you feel about children?" He stares back open mouthed, his mind whirling, before he replies, "I never could see the point." I just claimed his mind was whirling but he gives no evidence of it in his behavior. He simply stands there agog and hesitates for some seconds before speaking. But a viewer KNOWS his brain is clicking, even though it's moving in an unanticipated direction. That's acting talent, and pretty good writing too. Some clever lines are sprinkled over the script. Macy examines the wardrobe sketches and remarks, "Who designed these costumes? It looks like Edith Head puked and the puke designed the costumes." Well, I'm not sure that's "clever" but it's funny.It will probably leave you smiling, so go ahead and watch it if you can.

fedor8 The first hour is quite entertaining so it's quite a pity that Mamet chose to ruin the movie with the totally lame last third. (He also half-ruined "Homicide" with an illogical ending.) Instead of continuing the movie with the sort of fun satiric tone established by that point, he tries to moralize in a most pathetic old-school-Hollywood way.Hoffman is having second thoughts about how he will testify, just because he cares so much about the truth and because a sudden rush of patriotism devours him! Even worse: Hoffman is supposed to be a likable character, but in fact he loses all MY sympathy when he decides to betray the entire film crew for some very skewed moral Americana reasons. Mamet has his morality all wrong, to say the least: he expects the viewer to identify with Hoffman's childish impulse to "be honest" and "tell the truth" even if doing so would only serve to ruin a whole bunch of people who are simply trying to get a film made, while at the same time promoting the career of a jealous, unsympathetic, ambitious politician! Of course, doing so would also ruin his own career, making him some kind of super-principled, likable martyr. Yeah, right... Pidgeon, who once again plays in a Mamet movie because no one else besides her husband would hire her (for obvious lack of talent), even encourages her boyfriend Hoffman to tell the truth; this makes HER unsympathetic, as well. So what have we got? The movie's love-couple is made up of two unlikable characters and the viewer is supposed to feel good about their happiness. Mamet also employs too many plot-devices that rely on coincidences, so much so that they eventually get annoying.The first hour is fun. The characters of the director, the producer, the main male star, and the main female star, are all well thought-out and amusing. Baldwin plays the typical male moron star who thinks with his penis, and it is a very amusing, clever premise that he has a weakness for under-aged girls. (Though, as I find out later, Mamet used it only because he wanted to create that legal nonsense in the last part of the movie.) Parker plays the typical, over-sensitive, spoiled bimbo actress who causes a ruckus about showing her breasts in a scene. In fact, the best scene in the movie is when the producer (a very likable character) roasts Parker about her contractual obligations. Then again, maybe Mamet - in his infinite lack of moral vision - expects us to dislike the producer and the director, who are, ironically, presented more sympathetically than probably 95% of all real-life producers and directors.This is no "Living In Oblivion". Well, apart from the fact that Mamet seems to live in a moral oblivion. Instead of finishing the movie the way he started it, Mamet opts for trite plot-twists that offer little comedy and make little sense. The casting is also a problem to an extent. Hoffman is far too unsympathetic and uncharismatic to play a likable lead character - especially when the character ironically isn't even likable thanks to Mamet's idiotic sense of what is morally right - and his love-interest is played by a Pidgeon who, though having improved on her acting somewhat, hasn't got much charisma. (She was far worse in "The Spanish Prisoner".) Parker, though a solid actress, is simply too unattractive to play a Hollywood star. (Then again, considering how many female 90s stars are ugly (Diaz, Barrymore, Roberts) maybe she isn't that ugly, after all.) The rest of the casting is good. In the end-titles the voice behind "Dr.Katz" can be heard (David Mamet was a guest on the show in an episode).