Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


May 5, 2008
Spartan (2004)
Should I see it?
No.


Short Review: This movie doesn’t waste your time. It ties it up, stuffs it into the trunk of its car and drives it to the outskirts of town and tortures it.



Here is a movie written and directed by David Mamet, easily one of the most important American playwrights of the 20th Century. It is cast with a collection of some of the best real actors working (Ed O’Neill (Married with Children) I have always considered to be highly underrated) There’s an experienced and talented crew working behind the scenes. But yet this film is a aimless waste. What happened?

They forgot to tell the bad guy to show up.

I have affection for Mamet’s dialog. He is one of the best dialog writers to put pen to paper. I give him a pass for his notorious vulgarity the same way I forgive Jimi Hendrix his goofy lyrics for the sake of his guitar playing. The problem is that while Mamet is a genius with dialog, he is a doofus when it comes to plot. Mamet’s contemporary in the American theater, Sam Shepard, has the same problem with his films. There must be something in the transition from working on the stage to the screen. In the theater you can get away with prattling on without a linear progression (its not advisable, but you can do it.) In film, you must stick to the story.

The first act is solid enough and introduces the characters and situation to a degree where I was willing to go along. By the end of the second act I knew we were in trouble. The story started drifting, trying to find itself. The longer the story went on the more it meandered out of control. In the end, Mamet had to give up, kill everyone, and hope we didn’t notice his story didn’t lead us anywhere. The third act was easily one of the worst of the year given the talent of its writer. This film proves one thing. You can have plot twists without having a plot.

You must have a distinct antagonist to have a story. It doesn’t have to be a human. It can be an institution or a social movement, but in the end, you must have a bad guy. If not, there isn't any conflict. A void of conflict means you will have a meandering and meaningless story. There is a rule some screenwriters have when they work. They write their endings first. I agree with this for the most part. When you work on a story you need to make certain you know your ending before you begin. Who are the players in the end? What is happening and why? What are you saying with your ending? If you don’t answer these questions before you begin your audience will be forced to ask them when you’re done – and that’s not their job.


Related Reviews:
Val Kilmer movies
Mindhunters (2004)
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
PopMatters

Labels: , , , ,


posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 7:29 AM




Share






0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home