Edmond - Review

Discuss this movie on our message board!

Length: 82 min

Rated: R

Distributor: First Independent Pictures

Release Date: 2006-07-14

Starring: William H. Macy, Jeffrey Combs, Rebecca Pidgeon, Joe Mantegna, Julia Stiles

Directed by Stuart Gordon

Produced by Chris Hanley, Molly Hassell, Duffy Hecht, Stuart Gordon, Roger Kass, Mary McCann, Kevin Ragsdale

Written by David Mamet (based on his play)

Visit the movie's Official Site!

Reviewed by Edward Darell : 2006-07-12 11:16:13

It must have seemed a good idea at the time. You take a well-received 1982 play by David Mamet, have Mamet write the film adaptation, put in a couple of Mamet's favorite actors, and voila! You have a fiasco.

Edmond, featuring the incomparable William H. Macy in the title role, is an epic centered around yet another dullish, middle-aged suit who decides to take a walk on the wild side. So what do we know about Edmond at the outset? He's a middle manager at some company who looks like he's dead on the inside. He gazes wistfully at young lovers in the street, visits a fortune teller who's not where he's meant to be, heads home, and gives his wife some bad news. He evidently had a life up to this point, but seems to have slept through it and suddenly awakened. "I don't find you interesting sexually or spiritually", he announces. Wifey throws him out.

What follows is an odyssey through the Times Square of 1982, when it was a just a collection of sex shops, peep shows, whores, pimps and three card Monte players, not the current gussied-up Disneyland version. There, Edmond encounters every kind of hustler imaginable. He seems naive to a fault, yet he's learned enough in the business world to bargain hard for everything. One wonders, where the heck has he been for the past two or so decades? You'd think he was an extraterrestrial just off the rocket. He spews racist invective alternating with new agey philosophical insights. No wonder: Mamet wrote this.

Edmond buys a World War I survival knife, one of those weapons you find in movies that somehow, without the least bit of training, turns the clumsiest, geekiest spaz into a stone cold killer just because he owns it. Edmond nearly kills a phony pimp who tries to rob him, then heads for a bar where he meets a cute waitress, Glenna (Julia Stiles). Having just cut up the pimp, and feeling manly, he snows Glenna with more pseudo philosophical, in-her-face claptrap. She takes him home to bed. After sex, evidently in some kind of postcoital triste, he browbeats poor Glenna about her acting aspirations, she calls him crazy, and another bad thing happens. He's arrested, and coolly explains to a detective who's grilling him that his murderous behavior may well have been the result of drinking too much coffee. A funny line, I'll give you that.

The main problem with Edmond is that its two central themes have been addressed much more effectively in films made after the play was written. The descent of a straight-arrow guy into the scabby underbelly of urban life was depicted much more effectively in Martin Scorsese's 1985 black comedy, After Hours, starring Griffin Dunne. The frustrated, rageful white-collar guy who goes on a big-city odyssey and ultimately commits mayhem was infinitely better portrayed by Michael Douglas as the unnamed "DEFENS" in Falling Down (1993).

Macy's character is racist, misogynistic, and mean-spirited, yet Mamet seems to want to make at least a semi-sympathetic Everyman out of him. As usual, Macy puts on a fine performance, but in Edmond even he cannot rise above the over inflated, contrived, and ultimately trite and dated material. A cut-rate Camusian existential protagonist, Edmond ends up in jail with a large black cellmate to whom he eventually takes a shine. The 'any port in a storm' theory notwithstanding, Mamet's implication that Edmond somehow ends up happy, or at least content, rings false. At the end, I couldn't figure out if this film is about a man's self-abasement, self-discovery, or self-discovery via self-abasement. I left the theater with the feeling I get when forced to see a Samuel Beckett play, scratching my head and my poor numb ol' ass at the same time. This film should have remained a play and been left back in 1982 when tolerance for high-flying pseudo-intellectualism was higher. Halfway through the film, I also felt, as the fortune-teller had said, that I wasn't where I was meant to be. Where I was meant to be was at the local pub, having a few pints to wash this claptrap out of me poor head.

Latest Movie Reviews:

Public Enemies

The Boat That Rocked (UK release)

My Sister's Keeper

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs 3D

Comment on “Edmond”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

Subscribe to topic comments

0 0 / 0
y n

mikkelmak
July 25, 2007 at 12:34

I went to the movie because i am a big fan of Glengarry, but this was utter tosh.

A poor script, poor cast selection, and a storyline which beggared belief at times.

It made 'Signs' look good. Nuff said!

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Dylan
June 24, 2007 at 05:21

Seems pretty simple to me... it is the ending which makes this movie a work of art. True it is not a thriller. More a gory train crash in slow motion... with all the real action (the "reveal") in the final second of the film.

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Ziggy
April 7, 2007 at 11:14

I am happy to see this review. The film was a boring, dull experience. No drive, no highlights, no tension, no nothing. A no go!

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Bruce Too
February 16, 2007 at 00:29

The dialogue in this film waas really pretentiousand amateurish. The actors tried valiantly to pull it off, but much of it was really stilted and embarassing. A real "downer" of a film. I wonder if David mamet has ever actually experienced any of the "worlds" that he writes about so cavalierly. Thumbs down. (more frontal nudty from Julia Stiles would have helped.0

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

A Non Y Mouse
October 23, 2006 at 12:27

Don't waste your time. This is a social commentary / lesson targeted at racists and / or homophobes, and definitely not the thriller claimed on the film's jacket. In light of the idea that people enjoy films because they identify with the film's characters, this film's social and somewhat superficial message is framed as follows: "If you happen to be a homphobic racist your biases are indeed hiding your desire to have homosexual sex with an alternative race in a prison cell."

I rented the movie based on the line up of great actors, including William H. Macy and Julia Stiles. Macy's Captain Kirk-like staccato presentation throughout the movie was at first interesting, but after about 15-20 minutes annoying. The producer made the mistake of spending too much time on an effective factor and as a result drove its effectiveness into the ground. Julia Styles is simply too hot to be convincing as a waitress that would go home with Macy's manic character for a night of hot passionate sex.

This film was marketed as an edge of your seat thriller. It's not. It's a social commentary / lesson, and will waste your time if you're looking for a so-called thriller. The world is moving much too quickly to make this move seem even remotely thrilling and there is no real mystery to it.

I generally prefer to know as little as possible about movies before I view them so that I can experience them as they were meant to be experienced. So, I don't spend much time investigating what looks like a promsing flick. I don't necessarily mind being somewhat dissappointed...there will be ups and downs. But in this case, the film's jacket was misleading. Mamet....You won't be getting my money so quickly again. Booooooooooooooooooooo!

Reply

Subscribe to topic comments

Please login or sign up to post reply

Back to Edmond

Edmond - Review

Comment on “Edmond”

Leave a Reply