Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "Edmond". They represent actual movie quality.

• Excellent story of a man walking the streets at night posted on 22 Aug 2009

  I wasn't really sure what to expect of this film going into it; it sounded nothing like the gory horror movies that Stuart Gordon made his name with, and I had little faith for him branching out after seeing the disappointing King of the Ants. Edmond is a simple thriller; just focusing on one man and if I had to compare it to other films, I would say this is something like After Hours meets American Beauty. While the film doesn't have a lot of plot, the director actually uses this to his advantage as the freewheeling approach gives the plot more opportunity for anything to happen, and the story isn't bound in any way. The film begins when Edmond is told by a fortune teller that he "doesn't belong here". He then goes home to tell his wife that he's leaving her because he's bored and doesn't love her. Edmond then sets off into the night, apparently in search of a woman but more likely not really in search of anything. Edmond walks the night and meets various people, eventually leading to violence and a place for Edmond to find himself.A lot of the burden of this film is put on lead star William H. Macy, and of course the actor that has impressed in almost everything he's been in since Fargo doesn't disappoint. Macy's performance is uncomfortable to watch and pathetic, but always fascinating. There is a range of events that happen in the movie and the way that plot pans out ensures that the audience is always interested to see what happens next. The majority of the film takes place on the streets in one night and director Stuart Gordon does an excellent job of building up a dark and muggy atmosphere to go with the dark themes of the story. The screenplay is written by ace screenwriter David Mamet and is adapted from his own play. This film sits nicely alongside his work in the thriller genre with films such as Glengarry Glen Ross and House of Games. You can never predict how this film is going end - and indeed, the way it ends is anything but predictable. I'm not sure how well it will go down with most viewers - but there is one thing you can't deny, it is memorable. Overall, Edmond comes highly recommended.

• Unspeakably Awful posted on 03 Jul 2009

  I have seen Glen or Glenda. I have seen Manos: The Hands of Fate. I have seen hundreds, possibly thousands of incomprehensibly bad movies at one time or another.Edmond is the worst movie I have ever seen.For starters, it is badly written. The plot may be summarized thus: Bill Macy leaves his wife, looks for some cheap sex, beats up a black man, kills a white girl, and then falls in love with a different black man in prison. I've seen chimps that could develop more realistic plot lines while masturbating. This bizarre series of events has been purported to serve as social and/or political commentary by Mamet fans. I commend you if you learned some valuable life lesson from this movie. Personally, I extracted more intellectual value out of "The Gay Bed & Breakfast of Terror". Then the dialogue. Has David Mamet ever heard two people speak to one another? I surmise that he has not. Every line spoken by every character is either utterly mundane, nonsensical, or pretentious. On top of that there's the precious "This coon cuts my dick off" speech, which requires no further explanation.Which brings me to the acting. William H. Macy is usually a good actor, but his character is totally incomprehensible in this picture. He is joined in his trials by fellow Mamet regulars Joe Mantegna and Julia Stiles, who seem similarly perplexed. All of these actors come across as stone-faced amateurs, efficiently masking the talent they project in other (non-Mamet) works.After I saw this for the first time, I had to know who directed such talented actors through such a cesspool of a production. Ah yes, Stuart Gordon, of "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond" fame (I wondered why Jeffrey Combs had a cameo in there). I really liked those films. Gordon clearly had a talent for self-parodying semi-retro sci-fi/horror B-movies. So why the hell did he agree to make this? Why did anyone agree to make this? This is the part that really pains me. The people who worked on it were clearly talented in their respective fields. But instead of pooling their considerable talents to produce a great movie, they made "Edmond". And oh is it bad. It is almost as unwatchable as dreck like "Track of the Moon Beast" and "Monster-a-Go-Go". But, unlike such atrocious B-movies of yesteryear, "Edmond" is also highly pretentious and represents a waste of good artists. As such, just thinking about this movie makes my body hurt. In fact, I think I may have ruptured my duodenum by writing this.

• flat drama on living your life posted on 17 Jun 2009

  Out of the blue, Edmond hits rock bottom with his life. Unhappy, Edmond leaves his wife, whom he's been unsatisfied with for years. Hitting the town, Edmond speaks with a random man at a bar. This man says we need to live life, simplify everything from life's complications. Taking this advice, Edmond walks the seedy side of town, hopping from strip club to peep show, desperate for a human connection; getting laid to simplify things.Edmond is a strange little film. Adapted from David Mamet's own play, Edmond is a study of life's philosophies, escapism and peoples raw needs. Inconsistentcies start from the get go and create major troubles. We never know what set Edmond off. He was depressed with life, but why; what happened before we meet him. As Edmond becomes more 'alive', during his night, he's slowly morphs into a rambling psycho, too when he finally snaps out of it he can't even comprehend what he was doing and why.Ramblings about life, why the black people have it easier, god, stream like the incoherent mumblings of a tweaker. They don't connect well together and are very inconsistent. It feels that Mamets trying to move you, hit you with a poignant blade to re-question your life and your happiness, but it all sounds dull and doesn't have the impact it aims too. Symbolistic touches with the tarot cards, thud on each appearance, given no information what they mean; so hidden messages are left hidden.William H. Macy is the only main character, shown in every scene. Macy has always been a consistent actor, though here he is below his par; he does the down trodden man so well, see The Cooler. The rest of the cast; Joe Mantegna, Julia Stiles, Denise Richards, Mena SuvariRebecca Pidgeon, are cameo spots and don't bring very strong performances.This story probably worked better as a play, as Edmond hasn't transfered to the screen very convincingly.

• The Angry White Man posted on 03 Jun 2009

  Urban horror or David Mamet's unique vision of New York City from the point of view of one hapless white man named Edmond? I'm not sure, but you have to be rather sorry for this man who is clueless about his surroundings and inexorably marching to his own doom (or bliss, judging by where he winds up). It's as if somehow, some vital piece that would make Edmond a functional part of society had ceased to exist. Edmond (William H. Macy) allows a cryptic number (115) and a reading by a psychic (played by Frances Bay in her usual creepy old lady mode) take over and drive him to suddenly leave his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon), seek enjoyment in gentleman clubs and sleazy peep shows, where he gets conned again and again by the women whom he encounters (Denise Richards, Mena Suvari, and Bai Ling), have increasingly violent encounters with street thugs and finally lose it when a waitress (Julia Stiles) fails to acknowledge his crazy demands. Some of the things that happen to him seem contrived to excessive lengths. Where a rich man like Edmond would penny pinch for ten dollars a hooker owes him, or be unable to negotiate money with another is beyond plausibility, but it happens here like this sort of thing happens on a daily basis to quite a bit of upper crust white men who live in snazzy penthouse apartments in Manhattan. Harder to imagine is why Julia Stiles would on the spur of the moment agree to leave her job and bring this clearly crazy man to her apartment and fail to see just how deeply insane he is. Even if he had looked like Daniel Craig, I can't see this man being a believable character one second. David Mamet is obviously a great playwright but this is a very dated play that belongs in a New York closer to the late Seventies where it wouldn't be out of place. And even then, the joke is squarely aimed at poor Edmond -- he can't have a normal relationship with a woman. The only relationship he acquiesces to is that with another man (Bokeem Woodbine) -- a black inmate, for that matter, as an irony of ironies (since for the most of EDMOND he's been attacking blacks and gays alike). That the last scene has reduced both men to frills and sewing and discussing karma and why we are here and what does all this mean is the final emasculating thing that could happen to any man, but this is exactly what happens in EDMOND. Happy ending? I'd say David Mamet must have read something from Jean Genet and decided to take the most indirect approach to the subject.

• Great yet disturbing posted on 18 May 2009

  I found this movie to be quite a bit disturbing, however; the acting was wonderful and the direction was quite masterful considering the difficulty in adapting a play to a movie, especially this script. Fantastically written with dialog that intrigues and shocks you. It is sometimes difficult to hear the things being said because of their ferocity, but they illustrate what can't be illustrated with pictures.William H. Macy was terrific as Edmund Burke, and the rest of the cast was stellar in support of his vicious character. I reminisced about Michael Douglas's character in Falling Down, but Edmund has a lot more content and a lot less posturing. A great movie that is difficult to watch at times because of its purely graphic nature.

• No plot, no plot, terrible character, no plot posted on 12 May 2009

  I don't know the first thing about David Mamet or his other work. However, I will say that this movie adaptation of his play Edmond sure -felt- like a play. A bad one. There's a lot of speaking but no actual dialogue or screenplay -- just a whole lot of nauseating, overwrought existential musing. There's no plot, only a series of totally unbelievable events engineered to force the theme of destiny down our already gagging throats.The play that this movie is based off of seems to be some kind of awkward twist on the Oedipus tale. Edmond is doomed to an unknown fate he avoids only on subconscious levels. The problem is, while Oedipus is a real character with real feelings, Edmond is a forced construct. The movie gives us no story, no relationships, only Edmond, and he isn't even a real man! He doesn't develop in any understandable way. Throughout the movie, he cycles exclusively between four vagaries of thought: horniness, generalized people-angst, generalized rage, and wordy revelations on existence.Edmond is a difficult character to identify with, to say the least. His pseudo-tragic heroic story doesn't speak to me because frankly, I can't understand him at all. What in the hell does he want? First he's out cruising for prostitutes, then he beats up a black man, then he picks up and kills a girl, then he's ready to testify at a black community church? When pressed for explanations, Edmond stammers out a clumsy anti-religious rant and follows it up with, you guessed it, more ramblings on people and the courses that life can take. Please, Mamet, give me something, anything to explain just what is going on in this man's head. Anything more than these random displays of empty emotion that are impossible to identify with and that show me nothing about Edmond, myself, or the world. He's angry because people won't listen? Could it be that he's NOT SAYING ANYTHING?? Edmond does happen upon a mild insight late in the game, that fear might be another form of desire. But yet again his diatribe is so cluttered with randomness that I fail to see the point. What does he mean, he finally feels "safe" in prison? His character seems to change completely at every given moment, defying all logic and all attempts to understand him. His interactions with others are confrontational at wildly varying intensities with seemingly little impetus. His drives and impulses are so arbitrary that by the movie's end, I'm not inclined to believe a thing he says. I can't sympathize with Edmond's story or learn anything from it when he is so clearly detached from normal humanity, and when there isn't even a decent story to latch onto.William H. Macy seemed to be doing the he best could with the "character" he was given to perform. His effort to create Edmond didn't make up for Mamet's lack, but I suppose it does earn the film an extra star, especially for Macy fans. He even manages to give Edmond some life during an amusingly uncomfortable striptease scene. Or maybe I only enjoyed it for the boobies.Had there at least been a plot behind Edmond's journey, this play-movie might have been moderately interesting. As it is, the movie is a baffling, incoherent disaster. There is no focus, no real climax, no suspense and practically no resolution. There is tension, but mostly of the "When is this going to go somewhere?!!" kind. I don't even understand what the main conflict was. The worst part is, Mamet attempts to make a theme out of this absolute nothingness. The destiny idea is deployed with a strange and distasteful dichotomy of heavy-handedness and haphazard ambiguity. From what I can see, Edmond could not have possibly learned anything from his incongruous experiences, except maybe not to be so freaking impulsive. Yet Mamet attempts vainly, through Edmond's incomprehensible outbursts and meaningless exchanges, to convince us that Edmond has learned a great deal. Mamet does a lot of telling, but no showing, and ends up saying nothing at all.

• Macy Carries The Day ...But Not The Movie posted on 02 May 2009

  Most fans of William H. Macy will love him in the role of Edmond Burke, and his character portrayal certainly has its merits. With those puppy-dog eyes, many will feel a touch of empathy for a mostly unempathetic character in EDMOND, a film from horror master Stuart Gordon (director of RE-ANIMATOR and the newer KING OF THE ANTS).Macy isn't unfamiliar with the dark side of cinema. His role as the sexually inadequate Little Bill in BOOGIE NIGHTS cemented his acting career. But he's moved on to "brighter" pastures with the warm-and-fuzzy PLEASANTVILLE and his stunningly excellent Sheriff Chappy in HAPPY Texas. That Macy reinvests himself on the shadowy side won't bother anyone, but Edmond's script surely will.Where the film fails is in its beginnings. Edmond Burke seems like a regular Joe leaving work when he's handed a Post-It note with a change in time for an appointment tomorrow. On it is scrolled the time of 1:15. He heads home and has a confusing argument with his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon, SHOPGIRL). He explains that he's emotionally and sexually unattracted to her and then promptly leaves. This is where the film has its biggest problem. We're never privy to Edmond's previous life experiences and so don't know why he feels this way. There appears to be no motivation for his leaving. He just ...does, and we're supposed to, somehow, understand it. And this lost understanding will plague the rest of the film for viewers.Edmond heads out into the night and comes upon a fortune teller who tells him "You're not where you should be." The rest of the film is relegated to finding out "where" he's supposed to be and constantly running into the 1:15 reference, a personal omen. What he finds is an unleashing of pent up sexual desire, anger, bigotry and murder. Edmond has had some sort of psychotic break but, again, the audience wasn't privy to his life before this night so have no gauge to tell why this has happened. He's just "going crazy" and the audience is supposed to go along with it. The 1:15 omen pops up at dangerous intersections, as do visions of the fortune teller's tarot cards, sinking Edmond deeper and deeper into a pit of no return.Scripting problems aside, there's no damning comments to made about Macy's performance. He's in topnotch psycho-mode and it is this that will keep people watching.

• not for the faint hearted posted on 22 Apr 2009

  If you like films with happy endings and warm, fuzzy, schmaltzy plots, this isn't the film for you. I loved the whole idea behind the movie "falling down" and this movie is like a stronger version of that.Its gritty and very realistic and shows what can happen when someone snaps and just decides to leave their idyllic, "safe" life behind. There will be many who will say this is sick or disturbing but isn't that what you see everyday in the news. Macy is brilliant as the anti-hero in the film, he's in virtually every scene so the films lives or dies on his performance and he doesn't disappoint. There are also great cameos by a number of other "character actors", everyone loves a David mamet script.

• Terribly poor! posted on 10 Apr 2009

  I am deeply sorry for all those who went crazy about this overrated, weak, shallow, pretentious and pointless film. Why, why was it made, in the first place? For me, a Russian man, who was raised on deep philosophical novels of Tolstoy or Dostoyevski, or on deep films by Wajda or Kurosawa, this film is a very surface try. We do not really see any real background for the displeasure of the main hero. Why was he not on his place? Why did he leave his wife? It all is so naive and skeletal, that the whole film loses its sense and direction. Then, why all those nervous banters with the putanes and the pimps? Is the man that incredibly silly that he has no idea what to do and how to peep, or to pay or whatever? And all those cameos of Denise Richards, Mena Suvari and others are just hilariously senseless. The murder scene is also so unconvincing that I started to think that the film director played fools with us all. And the prison part of the film - all those endless, pointless, dull and sticky monologues... What is the point? Wheere is the basis for all this? I saw only a shallow semi-baked poorly made thriller of a very low rating. I am sorry. Maybe, I am much too smart and too demanding. But films should have some moral, after all. This one has one - it shouldn't be shot after all.

• EDMOND (Stuart Gordon, 2005) *** posted on 25 Mar 2009

  Playing like a more philosophical version of FALLING DOWN (1993) but done on a more intimate scale, this character drama resolves itself into a series of interesting vignettes where a good cast is allowed to leave its mark: David Mamet (who wrote the script, based on his own play) regular Joe Mantegna and a surprising amount of female roles (including, as is his fashion, one for Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon) - with the most impressive, perhaps, being Mena Suvari (as a high-class hooker) and Julia Stiles (as an aspiring actress doubling as a waitress). But, of course, it's William H. Macy's show all the way and he delivers a terrific performance - vulnerable and generally perplexed, yet capable of incredible and unexpected violent outbursts (even the subway scene, in which he verbally lashes out at a black woman who is unwilling to engage in a conversation with him, is priceless). Mamet deals with Fate and how it shapes someone's future in spite of oneself - as the motif of number 115 proves; still, the film's suggestion that Macy's character ultimately finds contentedness behind bars as a homosexual is baffling and somewhat alienating! All things considered, however, a good film - surprisingly but well handled by gore-meister Gordon - focused on telling its story vividly (the sleazy L.A. nightlife, which I saw a bit of while in Hollywood late last year{!}, providing an overpowering backdrop), concisely and, occasionally, with great power. The jazzy score is quite nice, too.

• steaming pile posted on 23 Mar 2009

  this movie makes roadhouse seem like the seventh seal. absolutely horrid writing. at the 5th 'barter argument' i did a spit take. the peep show scene might be the worst thing ever filmed. this guy has zero talent. he comes from the dialog school that says to put swearing, N-word "shock" dialog and make it appear as normal, common conversation. wow. just bad. it's making me type 10 lines here (minimum) to post and it's torture to dwell on this pile of feces. whoever worked the camera wouldn't make it in porn. the music is like a tbs movie. it's playing as i type this and i'm not certain when i'll get over the horribleness. just dreadful. couldn't be worse. the only spoiler is my clueing you in to the enormity of it's awfulness.

• Not insane- posted on 13 Mar 2009

  And I'm not talking about a Firesign Theater album. I just saw this movie last night and my wife asked "did he go insane?" For a minute I thought he had, but upon reflection I think he was high. For a moment in his life, like Edmond says, he actually lived. I think this story speaks to a condition that a lot of people ignore and think of as a non-issue, but the white male experience in America has altered radically over the short course of my life. I do believe that Edmond's problems are of his own making, but that doesn't make them any less of a problem. Later in the movie, after abandoning his middle class respectability, he tries to go back to it and finds the door has closed forever on that part of his life. In fact, three times he tries to go back to no avail. He has become part of the world he was raised to control and be apart from, for good or ill.I think the movie is very flawed. There seems to be theatrical gaps between acts, just as if the curtain came down and the next scene has shifted and the playbill will tell you exactly what has transpired between scenes. That works wonderfully in the theatre, but not so well in the cinema. Also, the use of the priest was a very heavy handed device. Mamet seems to reject and then embrace spirituality, in a very Christian sense in the final scene.In summary, definitely not for all tastes. If you love Mamet this is a must-see. If you like ruminations on the meaning of life this will make for interesting fodder.

• F**k Braveheart. THIS is entertainment! posted on 19 Feb 2009

  EDMOND 2005 (WILLIAM H. MACY) DIRECTED BY: STUART GORDON ~ THE RUNDOWN: Gordon's best work; EDMOND is a brilliantly dark and horrifying masterpiece. ~ Firstly, the acting here is truly phenomenal. Now, I know you'd be a rich person if you had a dime for every time someone said that about a movie, but Macy's performance as Edmond Burke, your typical, upper-middle-class white business man who goes over the deep end and delves further and further into it as the film develops, is so good that if you didn't know any better you probably wouldn't think the guy was acting. But that's not the only phenomenal thing about this film; the screenplay, for instance, is really creepy and extremely realistic, guiding us through a series of situations ranging from humorous, to uncomfortable, to horrifying (note: the scene when Edmond meets his prison mate)...but always very entertaining. And, at a mere seventy-five minutes you can tell this was definitely intended for multiple viewings, each one acting as like a really long and dark excursion reminiscent of a Twilight Zone episode, offering something new each time, and each time as entertaining and rewarding as the last. It's one of those movies where you can essentially manufacture your own take on the meaning, or meanings, which I think is a really fascinating and rare spectacle these days. In fact, the way it gets your mind working kind of reminds me of those story-books for children where you choose your own adventure. Those were amazing. ~ Many will indeed find this movie boring. It's almost driven entirely by dialog with very little to no action, and the film's simplicity in plot will almost definitely throw a lot of people off right from the start. But, seriously, if you liked CRASH or FALLING DOWN, you should check this out. It's a creepy, much darker and more horrific version of both, but equally entertaining if you're into the kind of thing that it offers. ~~ NEXT REVIEW: HANNIBAL RISING

• Gritty and raw and surreal and turgid and abrasive and ultimately pointless. posted on 17 Feb 2009

  It's odd that I don't feel like I know much more about this movie now than before I just watched it. I knew that William H. Macy played a character that went a little mad, as they say, and that there was a substantial amount of nudity and violence, and now that it's over, I can still say about that much about the movie. I guess there isn't much more to say. It is associated with David Mamet, it is based on a stage play that was doubtless far superior to the movie, and it includes copious and gratuitous amounts of violence which wouldn't be copious and gratuitous if the senseless philosophical tirades which attempt in vain to justify it didn't so completely fail. I suppose that with enough effort you could impose meaning and significance onto what the movie is trying to say about society and class and marriage and racism and crime, but the film is so ineptly constructed that it comes across as a series of bizarre skits, the collective meaning of which I imagine is intended to point to some larger truth. Unfortunately, you might miss that truth while Macy is screaming it into the face of Julia Stiles, most likely because you are still trying to figure out why this beautiful young woman was still so fascinated with this creepy older man, even when he started waving around his double-edged knife/brass knuckles and unleashed a stream of profanity and racial slurs. Maybe if you like that kind of guy you'll like this kind of movie. It won't treat you much better....

• Disturbing and powerful...a real sleeper... posted on 01 Feb 2009

  Some actors are just made for certain roles and certain movies....and in the movie "Edmond" the casting and performance of each character is as compelling as the movie itself. Hats off to Stuart Gordon who did not miss with any of the main characters casted...each scene is full of emotion, tension and constant viewer unrest... The movie itself is a dark emotional ride for Edmond Burke who has a midlife crisis and life changing event taking place in the same evening which ends up being the events that ultimately define and destroy his life... At times, the movie jumps around....but you are eager for Edmond to reach his vindication...only to be frustrated by his own ignorance and lack of perspective in life. His notion of "life is for living" is an emotion that he manufactures to create a sense of separation from who he really is and more important, who he hates being. He isn't nuts...just a person who decides he is going to change himself and everyone else all at once...only to find out, most people live in their own lanes have their reasons for being that way...the underbelly side of NYC is the conduit that defines the notion that everyone is different, some good, some bad...Edmond becomes trapped in that lane and won't get out until he is vindicated on his terms...which spirals out of control. Common sense has no chance in the world of a man who is on a mission to change something. William H. Macy is beyond compelling as the main character, his performance as a selfish "know it all", "know nothing", "real life illiterate" New York executive is outstanding. His character is looking for sorted answers and life solutions, yet he accepts only answers from himself and preaches his own vulnerability on to others... Ironically, Edmond ends up in prison, in an environment that channels all emotions and answers...which is the fuel that burned inside him while living on the outside.... In the end, he narrates aloud what "it" is all about...but has no basis for the answers...he becomes a pitiful demised person who wants redemption for his life gone awry all at the expense of others who have crossed through his life...not sorry for what has happened in his life, but sorry and hateful that he had to be the one to live it... short of a masterpiece, but a very good movie that you will think about long after you see it....

• Edmond is everyman…perhaps. posted on 31 Dec 2008

  Psychologically, given enough stimuli and the appropriate context, anybody will do anything. Or, to paraphrase John Steinbeck (commenting on human nature): everybody is filled up to the top with goodness; and everybody is filled up to the top with badness.Enter Edmond – a passive-aggressive type who's stayed in a state of somnolence and acquiescence – subverted by "the American Dream", or what's left of it - and whose authoritarian, not to say murderous, inclinations remain just out of sight.Edmond has, for many years, been married to the same woman, the same job, the same company, the same mode of living, the same ideology etc for so long, he's like one of the walking dead. It's a familiar refrain, the alienation of the psyche, done to death by a succession of philosophers and social scientists since the time of the ancient Greeks.This specific type of film has also been done before, in a fashion, with Falling Down (1993), a film which also exploits the violence that lies beneath civilization's veneer of genteel respectability and sociability.In short, as we begin to look over Edmond's shoulder, we find out he's about to explore and explode, all on one night, when he decides he needs more stimulation than he's been getting at home, on the job or wherever. That's fine, as far as it goes; but this film is actually too short (82 minutes) to do the subject full justice. Falling Down, in contrast, is 113 minutes, allowing for more back story and character development; besides, as a film, Falling Down worked better, I think, as an exposition of one man's mental anguish and his response to adversity.Hence, Edmond is a deceit, in a sense. Perhaps 'mask' is a better word? Because it's not about him, per se: it's about the society all around him and the extent to which it manipulates all that he does, that he can do, and that he must do, in order to survive. Edmond is so ignorant, so trusting, so childish, so curious, so incredibly out of things, it's as though he's an alien from outer space who's landed in the Big City, trying to find out all about it, in a one night stand. Well, there can be only one outcome for that sort of scenario...Now, I really like William H. Macy. He's done some great work in Fargo (1996), Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), Panic (2001) and so on. He's up to the task for this work but the character is just too naïve, too much of a klutz, just too much of too little to be of much interest to me. However, maybe that's part of what David Mamet's trying to say: Edmond is a typical icon for Mamet's indictment of American society, and all similar societies? Hence, the story, such as it is, is banal and depressing, and no doubt deliberately so. But, the script, editing, sound and direction are spot on, particularly the exchange, at a bar, between Edmond and his unnamed bar-fellow for a few minutes (Joe Mantegna).It's not a film for children at all. It's also not one of Mamet's better stories; in fact, it's not like any of his others I've seen. I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say I truly enjoyed it. See what you think.

• Realistic and marginal posted on 23 Nov 2008

  As the film started I was expecting a naive succession where the lead actor would go on questioning his life style. This may be due to the acting style and facial expression of Macy. But then it turned out to be a very realistic and marginal one. This should be attributed to the horror-film filmography of Gordon and scripting of Mamet. I did not get a surrealistic taste but sometimes it was close.One more thing I was expecting was whether the character would reach any kind of conclusion about any of his questions. But as the film was ending he kept asking questions and accepted the conditions that he put himself into.Macy's is the single character that flows all through the film. Other characters come and go but all are well portrayed.When the film ended, I realized that I did not move a bit and never wondered what time it was.There are movies I dream the night I see them. The dream is not about what is on the film, not the actors, not the action. It is what infiltrates into my subconscious and comes out in different emotional scenes and only I can make the connections with the film. This movie is not capable to do that.

• A dark and engaging film posted on 09 Nov 2008

  "Edmond" is a very strong movie, detailing a man's descent into an unfamiliar world as a strict rejection to his demeaning and unsatisfying lifestyle. Starring William H. Macy in a truly impeccable performance; beginning with a straightedge businessman who is drawn to a fortune teller who simply tells him he 'isn't where he should be'. From there, he abruptly leaves his wife, specifying only to her a long growing loss of attraction for her which thrusts him into the inner-city night life where his intentions seem primarily focused on sex. His exploration through the sleaze culture only exposes him to abundant array of extortion and violence, which inevitably takes it's toll on his sanity as his philosophical mindset distorts his views of right and wrong. This is a very dark and depressing movie - quite offbeat for a Stuart Gordon film - with a very psychologically dramatic tone and disturbing moments involving the main characters constantly altered demeanor (such as an encounter with a police officer) and violent assaults. Give this one a look...

• A nicely done movie with a slight essence of Taxi Driver posted on 14 Sep 2008

  Some of you may go wtf the minute the saw the title Taxi Driver. Well, to tell you guys the truth, this movie is another slice from Taxi Driver, and properly done, too. I mean, who else got the guts to pull this off/ A story about an ordinary guy who just can't stand it any longer and eventually drive to violence with a terrifically sarcastic ending; and all these events are motivated by the number 115. Sorry to disappoint some of you guys for disliking this film. but honestly, what is there to hate? For this point I must borrow some of the stuff from other IMDb members. One of the guys that comment on this title say that this is a politically incorrect version of 'Crash'. That is indeed true, since 'Crash' for the modern American society which is filled with scent of racism all around. The similar point of both movies is to show the most innate nature of us human, whether forged by environments or experience. Now, in a politically correct country, this movie maybe a major blast. But in a country that this movie is politically incorrect, people don't get it, the impact isn't made, the movie sucked. Let's think why should we like it. The script is well-done and William H. Macy is groundbreaking. It is an intense and an interesting study of a ordinary man and how he got diverted into the life of violence; which in the end show him where he really belong.

• Edmond posted on 26 Jul 2008

  David Mamet scripted this existential undertaking directed by horror-meister Stuart Gordon about Edmond's slow journey into an abyss of sadness after leaving his wife. It really is a series of encounters that mold and shape Edmond into the unrecognizable man he'll wind up being by the end of the film. Startling and unpredictable, Edmond's search for truth and meaning in his life yields some very disturbing elements and nearly everyone he meets in the film have their own problems. But, Edmond's mental well being shifts to a dark place for those demons which have festered inside him come out and what we see as they do is quite throttling..the violence that occurs to him and BY HIM is very potent and surprising because it often comes out of left field and hits us with it's spontaneity.The meandering dialogue is quite fascinating and often we simply listen to Edmond as he speaks from his embittered heart and fragile, cracking mind. There's a moments where he proclaims his life is 40-something years of fog. I think that the fog separates, but what comes from Edmond is not quite pretty, and often baffling. He is definitely yearning for something to hang his hat on and I believe Mamet's story is saying perhaps what he's looking for is there or not.Stunning cast, but Macy is simply amazing. He is in every scene and his character's struggles are quite intriguing to behold. I felt as if we were watching this man's life simply come apart at the very seems. Seeing that can be quite an experience, and this film is.