Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

petra_ste On the surface, this legal drama by David Mamet (based on a play by Terence Rattigan) is as straightforward as it gets: in early 20th century Britain, cadet Ronnie Winslow (Guy Edwards) is accused of theft and expelled from the naval academy; his family, led by father Arthur (the great Nigel Hawthorne), starts a legal crusade to prove the boy's innocence, hiring famed lawyer Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam).Mamet and Rattigan operate a deconstruction of the genre in both structure and themes. Court scenes are almost nonexistent; what we do see are preparations and aftermaths in the Winslow household, and the fallout of the case on the family's welfare. For every character, there is something more at work than the pursuit of truth. Is Arthur Winslow motivated by paternal devotion and sense of justice or merely by pride? Does Sir Robert care about the case, or he just fancies Ronnie's spirited sister Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon)? Catherine herself, the idealist, at one point appears ready to drop everything to save her imminent marriage with a conservative officer; the mother (Gemma Jones) worries about their waning wealth; the other son (Matthew Pidgeon), forced to abandon his studies, becomes eager to join the impending conflict and will probably end up on the trenches of WWI a few years later.Even sneakier, is Ronnie truly innocent? The movie seemingly implies he is, but leaves a trail of breadcrumbs leading in the opposite direction as well. There is no explicit "Har har I did it!" twist - but, at the very least, it leaves you wondering. But maybe Ronnie's innocence is truly besides the point, as illustrated by his casual reaction to the final verdict - the family goes through a legal crusade, putting everything at stake, and the central figure of the whole case is just a boy oblivious to all the brouhaha.Hawthorne and Northam are great; the movie is worth multiple viewings.7/10

edumacated this is another directing attempt by David Mamet, and as usual he uses it as a vehicle to employ the mainly unemployable actors in his family.in most of his directorial projects he has produced films so stiff and wooden, and it amazes me that he sometimes finds excellent actors to appear in them. and it must be because as bad a director as he is, he can be just as brilliant a writer.i think Mamet chose, this time, a stiff cultural period which would hide his wooden direction, and his wife's poor acting. and it worked to a degree.the problem is that Mamet has gone to england and short circuited a perfect machine for turning out perfect period pieces. it is what the English film industry does best.his direction has sedated actors, worthy of giving a lively performance, and inspired little more than a walk-through of the lines: sedately matching the abilities of his wife.it all ends up in a mediocre effort. i wish Mamet should stick to writing, but he probably arrogantly believes he is the only director that can do justice to his words. interviews i've seen by the man, back this belief.

jc-osms A drawing room, period, study of manners, domestic drama, if you will... The drama is admittedly light, centring on the impact of a teenage son's expulsion from naval college and the truth or otherwise of this occurrence. Strangely enough, you never get to learn whether the boy was actually guilty or not of his "crime" - although he gets off, it's never fully resolved and could be attributed to the superior advocacy of his attorney - sadly still a predilection in modern society. However the dramatic content could have been increased with some kind of courtroom climax, or confession, but now I'm arguing with the original play, hardly the fault of David Mamet or his actors. The Edwardian, pre War "golden - era" is nicely evoked with the big house, coterie of servants and upper - class manners of the family, although contemporary influences such as suffragetism (strongly) and the approaching war (mildly) are referred to. I'm not sure Mamet properly and fully brought home the "sensational" aspect of the Winslow case on the British public, even as I appreciated his subtlety in demonstrating this via newspaper hoardings, contemporary cartoons and the like. He does however marshall his acting troupe well. Nigel Hawthorne shines as the patriarch who sacrifices the wants and needs of his wider family for the sake of clearing his son's name. I didn't get the impression that it was the family name he was defending and genuinely believe it was for his youngest son's future which concerned him, which is as it should be. I'm not quite sure however that Hawthorne seems just too old to have fathered the boy. The rest of the cast play very well although some of their roles seem stereotypical and perhaps more could have been made of the interfamily tensions...but again that takes us back to Rattigan's source material. Mamet this time, quite rightly eschews all opportunity to contemporise the play and his cinematic devices are subtly reined in, no overlapping dialogue or sharp cross-cutting here. I liked the utilisation of the swinging garden gate at the start of the film, letting in the "bad" from outside, which recalled to mind J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls". How often English dramatists seemed to write about the so called idyllic society of the upper classes breaking down...nothing lasts forever it seems. Anyway, in summary, a wordy piece, well shot, well played but ultimately probably best enjoyed as a stage play.

pegd-1 Based on a true story, Terence Ratigan's play is about an elderly father's defense of his teenager son who has been accused of theft at the Royal Naval Academy. In David Mamet's subversive hands, the story is subtly transformed into a battle of the sexes and sexual attraction. It's absolutely delicious.This is 1910 England, involving a retired banker, the Royal Naval Academy, a suffragette daughter with a couple of suitors, and a famous barrister hired to defend the son.While watching the DVD, I think I replayed the last two minutes of the film a half dozen times. Now there was some chemistry happening between Jeremy Northam and Rebecca Pigeon along with great dialogue. That scene alone is worth the price of admission.Everyone turns in first rate performances, Mamet slyly puts his stamp on this gem of a film. Loved, loved, loved it.