I expected to love this movie, like I did House of Games and Glengarry Glen Ross. I certainly loved all the people in it-- Rebecca Pidgeon, Ricky Jay, Steve Martin, Campbell Scott. And Mamet's got a bizarre stranglehold on the English language. His characters don't speak like real people do, but in a noir patois more at home on stage than on screen. His dialogue has an ebb and flow to it that's seductive. Aaron Sorkin has a similar talent. And this is a caper film (or more precisely, a con game film), and who doesn't love a good caper? So with the deck so heavily stacked in its favor, imagine my surprise to come out of the film disappointed. The reason is simple.
I figured it out.
I was one step ahead of Mamet the entire way. I saw the con coming, knew who was involved and who wasn't (although I thought even the mother in the airport was involved, because her repeated comments about ripping the book and getting fingerprints on it seemed particularly heavy-handed), and felt no surprise at any of Mamet's attempted trickery. I kept waiting for the rug to get pulled out from under me, but the darn thing was bolted to the floorboards. And that, of course, is the joy of a caper film. Mamet was trying to con the audience, and the audience generally goes for the ride because that's why they've come to the theater. When you're able to follow the queen the con doesn't work, and neither did this film.
Posted by Peter at May 14, 2005 11:43 PMI had a very similar reaction to this movie for pretty much the same reason. There was no "there" there when it was all done because there seemed to be little to it beyond the plotting, which felt obvious. I get a lot of crap from friends when I tell them I disliked this movie, so I'm glad to see your review (even so belated).
Posted by: Nathan Beeler on May 15, 2005 10:50 AM