The Spanish Prisoner (1997) User Reviews

Entertaining, but with plot holes and inconsistencies.

[Rainy-3 · 7/10 · 23 June 2007]

I enjoyed this movie in the theater, and I just recently watched it again on television. I enjoyed it both times, but the second time around several plot holes were evident, most of which took place in the last 20 minutes.

*****Spoilers***** *****Spoilers*****

The problems start at the airport where it appears that Susan is going to double cross Joe by putting a gun in his baggage and giving him a ticket to Venezuela. Before going into the airport Susan insists that he get a clover for St. Patrick's Day from a guy at the entrance, and this turns out to be a recording device that is later used to entrap Susan and Julian. Why did Susan insist that Joe get a recording device to entrap her later?

Joe narrowly escapes being caught with the gun and ticket, but does not realize it and heads out to find Susan. She is talking the the fake FBI lady, verifying that she is a bad guy. Joe does not see this, but it is obvious that they expected him to get arrested in the airport or else she would not be in a compromising position. Later, on the ferry, it is made to look as though it was planned that he would end up on the ferry the whole time so that Julian could kill him, but that does not make any sense in light of the fact that they already planned to get him arrested at the airport.

It also seems odd that it seemed planed by the US Marshals that he would get on the bus with the Japanese tourists that were all carrying the tubes, one of which would later turn out to be holding a rifle. So did the Marshals plan for Joe to run out of the airport at the last minute, just barely evading police? It seems as though they would have had to plan for him to get out of line at the last minute.

These things at the end give the whole movie a very contrived feeling. The rest of the movie seemed plausible, and it was good until the end, but the ending was a real bummer.

Implausible but stylish mystery.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 5 August 2005]

Basically a story about the theft of a "process", which we may here define as a "MacGuffin", around which an elaborate industrial con game is organized.

In any game (an activity with rules, more than one participant, and a recognizable outcome) there are only three elements: (1) physical skill (you outdrive the cars pursuing you), (2) chance (you jump off the roof and an awning breaks your fall), and/or (3) strategy (you outwit your opponent). Unlike most action movies, Mamet's stories are almost entirely about strategy.

That might make it sound like rather less than it is. Mamet seems to love puzzles -- and puzzles within puzzles -- and the lengths people will go to manipulate one another and, man, is this a prize-winning example of his obsession. As in "House of Game" we have a big con that goes a little astray and winds up not only with the theft of a priceless invention but murder as well.

I realize "Glengarry Glenross" is probably Mamet's most highly esteemed work but I think "House of Games" and "The Spanish Prisoner" are more engrossing because more things HAPPEN. Mamet's dialog always involves a lot of byplay, repetition, non sequiturs, and general ellipsis, but the elegant stylization isn't worth much if it doesn't go anywhere. Here the plot moves from the Caribbean to New York to Boston and with each step the conundrum becomes more difficult to figure out.

Of course the plot is an implausible one because it depends on the heavies being able to predict precisely the moves of the mark, down to small basically unforeseeable details, such as his snooping in a secretary's desk and stealing a souvenir FBI card out of her scrapbook. But it hardly matters because we're swept along so fluidly in the mystery that we don't really question these events. The viewer, by the way, is kept as much in the dark as Scott Campbell, the protagonist.

The performances are all quite apt. Scott Campbell might be a terrific inventor but he's kind of a dim bulb in other respects. He's the kind of highly conventional Schlub that wouldn't DREAM that anyone, let alone an entire organization, would lie with comfort and such powerful effect. You have to wonder what his voting record looks like.

Rebecca Pigeon is, I think, an actress who never got the kind of attention she deserves. She's beautiful in an unconventional, petite, brachycephalic, angular way and her locutions and expressions always seem to suggest she may know more about what's going on inside your head than you do yourself. She delivers Mamet's stylized speeches efficiently but in other films has demonstrated considerable range. "You never know who a person really is," she says. Something else. She may be treacherous, and he may be wary of an office romance, but they seem genuinely attracted to one another. Near the end, when Scott finally kisses her, she draws back and says, "Crikees!", as if amazed and tickled. This is a set up for a final scene when she is hustled into the police van. She's supposed to break away from the cops holding her, run to Scott, throw her arms around him, kiss him fiercely, and confess that her feelings had changed to true love. But no! Thank heaven she has no remorse at all and leaves him with a wisecrack and a sardonic smile. Mamet is nobody's fool.

I ought to mention the score. It's mysterious and melancholic. The main theme is built around a handful of descending notes and the orchestration is simple but a little odd -- bass, piano, quiet woodwinds, and chimes. It is so weird and catchy that it could just about stand on its own.

Repeat viewings don't spoil the polish, even though the viewer knows the solution to the mystery. It's an original commercial product and it's enjoyable.

A film that twists around suspense film conventions (some spoilers)

[gee-15 · 7/10 · 8 February 2005]

This is definitely a "thinking man's" suspense film that references thrillers of yore. I was reminded of two old films in particular: "North by Northwest" and "Charade". Both of these movies concern a mysterious goal and questions about identity.

The high stakes involved are established in the first scene of the movie with the introduction of "The Process", a vaguely defined procedure or product that will make the company funding it very rich. Joe Ross, the inventor of "The Process", is soon marked for an elaborate con game and finds his world tipped upside down with no one being exactly who they seem.

A brief consideration of the plot will quickly reveal holes but plot really isn't the point of the film. It's the ideas presented here that make the film fascinating. Even the title "The Spanish Prisoner" that supposedly references an ancient confidence game doesn't make much sense. The actual confidence game that plays out on the screen bears little resemblance to the Spanish Prisoner as described. In fact, the Spanish Prisoner confidence sounds more like the basic structure of the cinematic thriller (the guy gets the money and the princess). It is this basic structure that Mamet twists just a little. A good example of this is the use of the "innocent remark" that triggers a memory of something essential. A mother berating her child become the example of this in the film but rather than making her remark once (as is usually done in such films) she repeats it over and over again. In doing this, Mamet is hitting us over the head with the comment's significance and calling attention to it as a cinematic convention.

Ultimately, what are interesting are the ideas being presented: the effects of deception, the slipperiness of identity and the ambiguity present in all our lives. All of these ideas are communicated via characters' comments and various objects with some kind of metaphoric meaning. For example, the film creates an interesting metaphor with Joe's glasses. At one point, Susan, his secretary, asks him to take them off as if asking him to stop looking at the world through "rose-colored glasses" and see her (and the world for who and what they really are). I wonder if Susan was truly drawn to him at this point and offering him a real relationship if he will only see it. However, he puts his glasses back on and gently rebuffs her. Susan, rejected, becomes committed to a course that will find her ultimately betraying him. Later, when Joe goes to the only person who appears to be his ally and finds him dead, his glasses (with a bloody fingerprint) are left on the table next to the body. He does not wear the glasses for the rest of the film, symbolic of his finally seeing world around him for what it is: untrustworthy and duplicitous.

Joe is referred to, somewhat disparagingly throughout the film, as a "boy scout." In fact, the film initially seems to be somewhat contemptuous of "nice guys" in general as it is this characteristic of Joe's that the grifters use to their advantage. Whereas most cons appeal to victims' baser instincts, this one appeals to higher ones. While this appears to be Joe's weakness, cleverly, it is also presented as one of his strengths. There are two times when the con goes awry and both times it is because of Joe's "boy scout" nature. The first is when Joe thoughtfully substitutes the worn-out book given him by Jimmy (to deliver to Jimmy's "sister") with a better copy and keeps the tattered book. The second time is towards the end of the film when Joe helps a woman struggling with her young child through airport security. The mother's comments (as mentioned earlier) spark Joe's memory. In addition, as Joe and the security guard help the woman through, the security guard misses the bag containing the gun handed to Joe by Susan. Unknowing, Joe leaves it behind in his hurry to get back to New York; narrowly avoiding an arrest that surely would have ended all his efforts to free himself from his nightmare. The screen with the x-rayed image of the gun is the only image in the move that we see and Joe doesn't. While it broadcasts an interesting twist, I think the scene was included to also punctuate the idea that "maybe nice guys don't always finish last".

However, even Joe's good behavior can't protect him from everything and, to save him, Mamet employs the "deus ex machina" a tried and true method of rescuing the protagonist in suspense films of this ilk. Many a hero has appeared doomed only to have help from some totally unexpected and obscure corner. But even this convention is twisted a bit as the Japanese US Marshall who ultimately saves Joe actually appears in previous scenes.

In conclusion, The Spanish Prisoner is a film that entertains you while it's on and leaves you pondering a bit after it's done.

Clever "who can you trust" whodunnit, with Steve Martin in a serious role.

[TxMike · 9 August 2001]

Steve Martin in a serious role in a Mamet film is reason enough to see "The Spanish Prisoner", which I believe gets its name from a type of sucker scam of the same name. And that's what this film is about. A young professional invents "the process" which is very valuable to his company but he is worried he will not get compensated well enough. This seed of doubt, which others around him recognize, sets into motion a whole series of secrets and deceptions. The dialog is snappy as in all Mamet writing, and you either really like the style a lot, or you don't. I really like it. The various twists get a bit hard to follow, and it is the kind of movie you have to see at least twice for full benefit. It is not a great film, but a worthy one.

Beside Steve martin in his serious role, which he pulls off very well, the film also has Ben Gazzara and Mamet's wife, Rebecca Pidgeon who is very good in one of the key roles in this film.

"You never know who anybody is."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 27 May 2018]

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the film, 'The Spanish Prisoner' is a con game playing to a victim's vanity and greed. I didn't know that before watching the picture, but have seen the modern day, internet equivalent in action that goes by the name of a Nigerian Money Transfer. Same idea, you'll get rich if you shell out some cash to help out a 'rich' unfortunate in a foreign country. Sure, and there are bridges in New York City you can buy too.

This was a compelling and intriguing story up to the point when Joe Ross (Campbell Scott) knew he was duped. Then it sort of fell apart under it's own complexity. What gave it away was one main thing. In a glaring unforced error in screen writing, Ross's contact at the FBI accepted his cold call and agreed to meet him at a questionable location. Ross, who was smart enough to come up with 'a process' that would control the global market for his company, didn't have an inkling that the odds of getting face time with an agent were virtually nil on the basis of an anonymous phone call. That one instance lowered the credibility factor of the story for me, and then it was a patient wait to see how it all played out.

One thing though, I'd never seen Steve Martin in a serious role before and I thought he did a great job as the enigmatic Julian 'Jimmy' Dell. His role was critical in setting up the scam, the grift as it were, The Spanish Prisoner trap for Ross. I liked what he had to say about good people/bad people, that people generally look like what they are. I've often come to that same conclusion myself, it's sort of an intuition you get about someone who might not be playing it straight with you. I thought Jimmy Dell was giving off that vibe even while being generous to a fault with Ross. But if you're looking for that switch with the red bound book containing 'the process', you're not going to see it. The camera never leaves the book when it was positioned on the ledge by the phony FBI agent and then handed back to Ross. You just have to take it on faith that the scam was pulled off.

So without analyzing things too thoroughly the film is a good enough mystery flick, but still, it's the little things that bother me. Like the switch Joe Ross himself made with the Budge tennis book. It turned out to be a maguffin of sorts with no bearing on the outcome of the story, just like Jimmy Dell's 'sister' ruse. And in the end, Joe Ross WAS the victim of an elaborate scam because his process notes were gone along with his expected big time pay day. Some days, it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraints.

Runs rings around `The Usual Suspects'

[Spleen · 10/10 · 6 October 1999]

You heard me. Even if you prefer, say, Kevin Spacey's performance in `The Usual Suspects' to Campbell Scott's here (to each his own), at least this is a film that plays fair with us. We begin at what is, from the protagonist's point of view, the beginning of the tale; things happen that are interesting in their own right and not simply because we know that there's meant to be a mystery lurking somewhere; we are given information as we go along; and later revelations actually explain earlier puzzles. Mamet doesn't force us through a maze. Rather, he lets us watch someone else walk through the maze, and it's a pleasure.

I'm determined not to spoil this pleasure, so I'm unable to say anything at all, really, about what the movie's about. I can't even tell you to what the title refers. I can't even tell you whether it refers to something peripheral or central. I'd better watch my mouth. As the slogan of a poster in the film says, in letters screaming above a drawing of a torpedoed battleship, `Somebody talked.' Not me.

All of the cast turn in good performances - that's right, all of them. I'm tired of remarks about how Rebecca Pidgeon got her role because she's the director's wife. It could well be true, and it could also be true (for all I know) that she's an actress of minor abilities, but her abilities are more than sufficient to make us believe in the character she plays here. How, exactly, is she so very different from Campbell Scott, or from Steve Martin, who, everyone will surely concede, gave the performance of his life? This just isn't the kind of story suited to emoting-while-pretending-not-to acting. All of the characters must dissemble in front of at least one other of the characters (THAT gives nothing away, trust me), and all of them are just a little bit unsettling.

I'll close by putting in a word for Carter Burwell's score. The music consists of a single labyrinthine tune, which twists about until we THINK we've caught it, and then stops: it provides a perfect thumb-nail sketch of the film as a whole. Also like the film as a whole, it's simply fun. Unlike so many directors Mamet doesn't act as if he's working in a disreputable genre, in which it's somehow bad form to allow the audience to have too good a time.

Strangely effective crime-thriller with a dash of B-film vibe

[Horror-yo · 6/10 · 23 January 2017]

As I inspect the review department, I pick up a lot of "masterpiece" or "excellent subtle great...etc thriller" opinions, which is definitely very odd. And not just the common fans, even "pro" critics. I think movie-goers have put the emphasis on the crime-mystery plot and figured it was well put together and suspenseful til the very end ?

But rather than focus too much on what everybody else is saying, I'd say this. The film is very slow to finally get started and REALLY does feel like a B film even about 30min into it. I felt awkward/embarrassed towards the others having picked this one for the night. The delivery of the lines, the atmosphere, that slowness overall or even the filming/irregularity in sound from scene to scene felt very amateurish...

I indulged into it and waited for the plot to finally open up show its quality. If anything, this had an almost David Lynch element to it in how distinctly atypical it felt, lead actor Campbell Scott being such a cold distant, distinguished almost a bit eerie protagonist with a Kyle MacLachlan springing to mind, sort of on the border of being a 'bad actor' but not really at the same time.

So this is one of these super convoluted mystery-thrillers where the protagonist somehow finds himself into some deep crud and he can't be sure who to trust anymore and tensions switch sides every time ... it's well done in how it keeps the suspense going til the very end.

In the finer details, there are those facts of the film that seem too convenient but we understand need to happen to stick to the plot...

Eh. Not bad though. 6.5/10.

Brilliantly Clever Mystery within a Thriller

[Enrique-Sanchez-56 · 10/10 · 30 June 2002]

What is so clever about this movie?

First: The dialogue is so wonderfully quirky and packed full of nuances. It was a delight to wait for the next round of words in each scene. The character played by Rebecca Pidgeon offered the best delivery of all the actors. Her vocal cadences were sheer fun to experience.

Second: It perfectly paced right down to the wonderfully offbeat and unexpected ending. It is NOT a slow moving film. Even if the drama unfolds methodically:

**WHAT is wrong with audiences today? WHY must every movie go faster than the Can-Can scene in "Moulin Rouge"? I get ill when I read yet another review which reveals the impatience and lack of concentration skills of the viewer. You want slow pace? Try Theo Angelopoulos!

Third: The cast is perfect for every role. Campbell Scott, Steve Martin, Rebecca Pidgeon, Felicity Huffman, Ben Gazzara and Ricky Jay. Each of them bring a special character to each performance.

Fourth: Movies like this, that don't feed you every morsel of the plot expectation in the first 15 minutes are a welcome breath of fresh air every time they are released.

Congratulations on a most memorable movie to Mamet and company.

Not Bad, But Needed A Bit More Spark

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 13 August 2006]

A thinking person's film - that's one label for this movie with basically starred unknown actors. Campbell Scott plays the lead. I read where one well-known critic labeled his acting as "wooden," but I didn't find that. He was okay as was the female lead, Rebecca Pigeon. Both played very low-key characters.

Pidegon has an interesting face and was new on the film scene when this came out. She's made a couple of films since that are recognizable but I can't say the same for Scott. Also making smaller appearances here are "name" players, Steve Martin and Ben Gazzara.

The story is about an elaborate con job perpetrated on Scott. The problem with it is that it gets too confusing in the last half hour. Despite that, I still found this movie intriguing, even though it may not be one I would watch more than once, possibly twice. There's an "edge" or something that's missing here, to make this a more entertaining film. Even though I enjoyed it, I am not surprised that it wasn't a hit.

An intelligent masterpiece made by the hands of genius film maker David Mamet

[ed56 · 10/10 · 16 January 2005]

I remember watching this film in 1998 at the theater and it became one of my favorites ever since. I have since watched every Mamet film I ran into, they were very good, but I believe this one's his best film yet. The story follows Joseph Ross (Campbell Scott), a salaried mathematician who's invented some truly valuable system that will make a fortune for his company. We meet him as he goes on vacation and befriends with a seemingly multi-millionaire who calls himself Julian "Jimmy" Dell (Steve Martin). Ross is then drawn into a big conspiracy surrounds his valuable "system". I won't go into the details so that i won't spoil the surprises and there are many. All the actors involved gives their best, most notable are Rebecca Pigeon as Susan, Joseph's pretty and sophisticated secretary and for Steve Martin, who was very refreshing to see in a serious role. The film has some unique and intelligent dialogs often appear in David Mamet's works. The twists are very surprising but MAKE SENSE, something that a lot of film makers have to learn these days. Overall an intelligent gem of a film you will not forget easily. Thumbs up and 10/10. Highly Recommended.

Huge disappointment

[Andy-296 · 6/10 · 2 January 2001]

This film starts well, but with every plot twist our interest wanes, and by the ending we just don't care anymore about what's happening. Now, the plot is totally unbelievable (SPOILER AHEAD) since Steve Martin would have to anticipate the way that Campbell Scott would react to every situation. Finally, Campbell Scott and Rebecca Pidgeon might be the least charismatic screen couple ever. Their total lack of chemistry is the final nail on the coffin of this movie.

A Thinking Person's Movie

[Mr.Caca · 10/10 · 29 December 1998]

This movie wasn't filled with sex, violence, filthy language or anything like that. It relied on solid characters, an awesome story and excellent directing, something totally unheard of in Hollywood today. It makes me cry to think that no one has heard of this great thriller, but Crap-fests like "Armageddon" make trillions of dollars at the box office. If you haven't seen it yet, don't listen to anyone's opinion, don't read any summaries of the plot. The less you know, the better it will be. The Spanish Prisoner was the first movie in a while to make me THINK. Go see it if you like thought provoking mysteries. This show is awesome.

I watched this for the first time in 2022

[kderuy-82422 · 6/10 · 21 September 2022]

Overall, the story is a fun little mystery. But the year 2022 was the first time I watched this film. And it was something......different.

I am astonished that people accepted this acting style back then. It is very, 'straight forward, no emotion'. I'm not saying it is bad, but if you were to put this movie on some random night, I promise, you will be taken aback by the acting and direction. It is very distinct and awkward.

That being said, eh, give it a watch if you like mystery movies with a few fun twists. A few known actors pop up randomly and David Mamet wrote it. Just beware the delivery.

Oh! How I Miss IMDb Forums

[view_and_review · 5/10 · 13 November 2020]

I was not terribly impressed with this movie.

The main character, Joe Ross (Campbell Scott), developed a "process" for his company that was worth a fortune to it. The "process" was left undescribed as well as what it was worth, which was fine because those details were truly immaterial. What was important was that the process was secret, proprietary, and worth a lot of money.

Joe was determined to be properly compensated for developing this process, but his company was constantly evasive about compensation. He became hyper-aware of his company's slow-footing with compensating him after having a conversation with Julian "Jimmy" Dell (Steve Martin), a fat cat who pretended to have no interest in Joe's line of work. Eventually, Joe found out that he was being conned by Jimmy, but how big was this con and how many were in on it? Think "The Sting."

The movie is clearly low budget. The sound and editing was poor. They cut from scene to scene so slowly and awkwardly it was like a T.V. show with the commercials edited out. And Campbell Scott left a lot to be desired from a main character. Whether it was by design or not, he came off like Egon in "Ghostbusters" and it didn't work. He was so dry, monotone, and impassive, but not as though he was supposed to be because even in scenes where you'd expect some type of emotional response there was none.

Ignoring all of that I still have questions:

If Joe was so brilliant, why did he bring the real "process" with him when instructed by the FBI (it was a fake FBI, but he didn't know that)? He could just as easily have created a fake "process" and no one would've known the difference.

When he was initially arrested, what was he charged with? The assumption is that he was arrested for stealing the "process" which, I'm assuming, was company property since he worked for the company when he developed it, but the "process" was always in his possession. Furthermore, that would hardly be a local cop issue, which is what the interrogating officers looked like.

Since when does the U.S. Marshals use tranquilizer darts for armed criminals? At the very end Joe was saved by a U.S. Marshal who shot Jimmy with an extremely fast-acting tranq dart. For that I call BS.

Firstly: how and why the U.S. Marshals were in on the sting at the behest of Joe's boss is beyond me.

Secondly: U.S. Marshals aren't using tranquilizer darts for an armed person about to kill someone! That was wholly absurd and unrealistic.

Back when there was IMDb forums I would've posted these questions there reserving my review strictly for a review of the movie, where I would've also been ruthlessly criticized for my lack of intelligence. But alas, due to the absence of IMDb forums I have to post my questions and complaints in my review, thereby not getting a clever answer to my question and also not getting brutally lambasted. Oh! How I miss IMDb forums.

Fabulously written but lacking the fireworks needed to make it a big hit

[bob the moo · 10 April 2004]

Joseph Ross is a researcher for a major corporation. He is in the Caribbean for a business trip to discuss his invention with the heads of the firm - a formula that stands to make the company very, very rich. While on the trip he meets the charismatic Jimmy Dell who he does a favour for and gradually befriends. As Joe starts to realise that his employers are trying to squeeze him out for his just deserves, Jimmy starts to offer him understanding and legal help to secure his end.

I first discovered this film on late night sky about 5 years ago now and was very taken by it. Later I got to see it again when I had a free weekend of FilmFour (this weekend in fact!) and I was happy to see it again. The film is a con, from start to finish it is what the tagline claims - never what it seems. The whole audience know this and therefore are ready for twists and turns and it is to the film's credit that the twists are still gripping and enjoyable even if we expect it. The film has a very slow pace and is quite unshowy all the way.

In one regard this is to it's detriment but it does create a film that is unassuming and all the more surprising for it. However the lack of fire works also meant that it never got the audience it deserved. I believe that, if it had gone more dramatic and tense that it would have played better in multiplexes and drawn in less patient audiences.

In a rare (at the time) serious role, Martin is actually very good. He may not have a great character but he does a really good job with the two sides of his performance - even if the darker side is more revealed through Joe's fate than it is through his performance. Scott is good but is forced to play a rather bland simple man - meaning that his performance was rather bland at times. The support cast is good and features several Mamet regulars including the charismatic and distinctive Ricky Jay. Talking of Mamet, he is great as writer and director and this is yet another film that justifies his reputation in my mind.

Overall this is a great film that will engage you and entertain you with it's twisty and enjoyable plot. It may lack the fireworks or heavy slick style of other films of the genre but it is all the better for it. Criminally under seen and deserves to be discovered.

looks like a movie, sounds like a play

[vernoncoffee · 6/10 · 8 May 2007]

If you've seen any trailers, you already know this film is about a confidence-game. Yes, the basic concept is pretty clever and the cast is good. Like the Oceans series, most viewers will be distracted enough by the action not to notice numerous plot flaws which I will discuss in a later; however, there is something else which bothers me.

In Roger Ebert's review he describes Mamet & Tarantino as two writers whose dialog is distinctive. While that may be true, I found most of the characters occasionally sounding as if they were speaking lines in a play. The exact repetition of phrases, the hesitations, sounded like a stage actor speaking for effect, rather than a regular person talking. The writing/directing, both by David Mamet, was just too theatrical.

Yes… it was too theatrical. And so, I would fall out of the film thinking, that exchange sounded like a play; it sounded just like a play. You can see the problem. I mean… what is a discerning viewer to do? What exactly is a discerning viewer to do? **spoiler alert** Now for those plot issues: 1. As Joe is leaving the hotel for the airport, Jimmy Dell gives him a small package to give to Joe's sister who also lives in NY. Most people would slip the small package into their carry-on bag right away so it won't get lost, not Joe. At the ticket counter he is still clutching the package. After confirming his reservation, most people who hadn't already, would slip this package into their carry-on bag so their hands are free to do the boarding rigmarole, but not Joe; while seating in the plane, we see him clutching the little package in his hot hand. At this point, most people who hadn't already, would slip the little package into their carry-on bag in the overhead compartment, but not Joe; he slips it into the elastic pocket on the back of the seat in front of him. Why all this unnatural behavior? Well, the package has to be readily available for a crisis of belief. Some viewers might call this heavy handed. Then I begin to think about the entire concept, remember this is a con game flick. Let's imagine weeks before Jimmy talking to his gang during a planning session: "OK, we want to build trust with the mark. Anyone have any ideas, George?" "You could go boozing and womanizing together." "OK, boozing; Susan?" "You could take him for a ride in your seaplane." "Seaplane, good; Shawn?" "You could have someone pretend to mug him and you come along in the nick of time and save him like what happened to Sandra Bullock in The Net." "Pretend mugging, good, Henry?" "You ask him take a package to your fake sister and he won't put it into his luggage because that's just the kind of guy he is. Then the secretary will spook him with mule stories and in a panic he'll open the package in the toilet. When he finds it's legit, he'll be embarrassed at himself for doubting you." "Henry, you've been working on that mystery novel again, haven't you. Come on, admit it. OK, anyone else?" 2. Joe has been stood up by Jimmy Friday night. Saturday morning he is out walking and sees Jimmy's assistant/body guard on the street going into a large commercial garage. Instead of hailing him, math geek Joe decides to follow him in. The garage belongs to a dealer of classic older cars where Jimmy has an appointment with a salesman. Now lets look at this realistically, this is an either/ or situation. Either the entire garage is a scam set, full of borrowed fancy cars and fake sales people, which is going to cost a lot of money and effort to set up, for what; Joe's 65 seconds in the garage? Or it is a real company near Joe's apartment, and the scam team just happened to set an appointment when all the real employees were away and when Joe just happens to be walking, and just happens to see Jimmy's assistant on the street. Is either one plausible? 3. Joe visits Jimmy's posh condo. Jimmy has just come out of his personal indoor swimming pool in the next room to say hello and then leaves Joe to wait while he dresses. Joe is going to sit for 20 minutes reading old magazines and not take a peak around the corner to see what a personal swimming pool looks like? 4. After the scam goes down Joe goes to the local police to report it. Since the scammers were impersonating the FBI, wouldn't you consider going to the FBI? 5. The NYPD bunko squad investigate the scam and immediately have facts they couldn't have had? The entire Swiss Bank acct. business would require them to know which bank to question, which they wouldn't know. They also wouldn't have known to go to the Venezuelan Consulate to ask for information; the consulate would most likely not given them confidential information, and they certainly would not have given them an official document.

6. We have a fake girl-friend on the island, plus a fake personal staff at the condo, plus a fake maitre d', waiters, cooks, and a room full of fake guests at the restaurant; we have a fake car dealer staff and a fake tennis club staff and a fake FBI team. Not only is this getting costly, the more people involved, the more chance for mistakes, leaks or double crosses. I don't think a real scam would have a cast of thousands.

But other than these things, it's a pretty good scam/comedy.

Whom to trust?

[lost-in-limbo · 8/10 · 30 May 2006]

Joseph Ross is a young man who's employed by a major corporation to come up with an important formula that could make his company and including himself - incredibly wealthy. On an Caribbean holiday along with his business partners he meets the very likable Jimmy Dell and over time they become friends. But things start getting really worrying for Joseph, as he feels that his employers are trying to take all the credit for what's about to come. So Joseph turns to Jimmy for advice on the matter and Jimmy gladly lends a helping hand.

Now, "The Spanish Prisoner" has got to be one of the most undeservedly, overlooked small-scale thrillers of the last decade. The only reason I can think why; is because it's really a glum and quite subdue film that relies on a well-written story to keep you mesmerized and rather bamboozled. There's nothing overly stylish about it, but it's such an elegant and easy going exercise that's professionally handled all round, despite the elementary factors. So don't be expecting a pot-boiler with plenty of fast-paced thrills from this one. For me it's up there with another under-appreciated 90s thriller "Arlington Road". These were two films I knew nothing about, but when I accidentally came across them I was more than impressed in what I saw.

The shady, paranoid premise is standard stuff for films of this ilk with it being cluttered with the usual cunning double crossings and misleading revelations. But while you might pick up on the web of deceit with it's twists and turns, it's just that the complicated story is far more cerebral in its patterns that you are just compelled by it all. The further along the story goes, the more interesting it does get with the spontaneous structure flowing with concise dialogues and underling sharp wit. Just who can you trust? What are their true intentions? Are they who they say they are? Money, Money, Money? Well, we are talking about high fliers here ;). This sorely thorough cloud hangs high that it will have you thinking. Some twists and bluffs you might see coming, but really you are never quite sure how its entirely going to pan out. Also I couldn't shake the feel of old style crime thrillers from the glass like texture that was manufactured here. The film's location had an atmospheric strong-hold that got swept along with its softly, moody music score.

The performances were very good. Steve Martin was more than efficient as he played a unconventional role where he had to provide a real mystic edge and a laid-back attitude to his character. Campbell Scott was satisfactory in a pretty bleak role as Joseph. That's not because of the performance, but that was the character in the story and it's a real important element on how things played out. The support roles were strong by the likes of Rebecca Pigeon, Ben Gazzara, Ricky Jay and Felicity Huffman. Director / writer David Mamet has provided a tight and quite entertaining thriller that's a puzzle to work out.

A vividly, ingenious thriller that plays it rather patiently.

Here's a serious Steve Martin for ya.

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 2 March 2006]

Usually known for his zany roles, Steve Martin gets a non-comic role in "The Spanish Prisoner", focusing on a con game. I don't know how much I can tell about this movie without giving it away. But I can tell you that all the cast members do a neat job, especially Campbell Scott in the lead role of a man forced to betray the secret process that he invented (or is he?). David Mamet really does have a special affinity for this kind of topic, which he also visited in 1987's "House of Games". Another good con game-related movie is "The Game", which came out right before this one. All that I can say is, if you've seen "Mulholland Drive", you might have an idea of what to expect. Maybe.

I confess, I'm stumped as to when the "con" happened

[smsc22 · 10/10 · 24 June 2007]

I love this movie. I've poured over every frame to see exactly what happens when, but there are two things that totally confuse me:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

First Puzzle: When Joe signs the paper to apply for the Club, the top clearly says "Club Membership Decree." How, then, did that paper have Spanish writing on it later? The way most of these cons work is that the people use their hands to hide what the victim is signing. But we can definitely see the English on the top of the paper. So how did the Spanish paper get signed?

Second Puzzle: When did the book containing the process actually get switched? Once again, in a real con, there would be some sort of stumble or moment when the book would be switched. But from the moment Joe shows the book to the FBI man, the red book is in each frame or in Joe's sight. So when exactly did the swap happen?

I ask these questions because Mamet was really careful to follow all the rules of a con in House of Games, but breaks them here. Or am I wrong?

one of the best Mamet movies

[dromasca · 7/10 · 29 February 2008]

This is one of the best Mamet movies, a director who made many interesting films starting with 'House of Games' but also disappointed me with films like 'Homicide' and 'Spartan'.

Here we have a more classical game of minds story, with a gang of criminals putting together quite a sophisticated plan in order to steal from an inventor his discovery. In the process he is getting to learn that almost everybody around him is not what they seem to be, and that nobody can really be trusted. Without being brilliant the intrigue builds pretty well, there are enough turns and surprises to keep the interest for the almost two hours the movie lasts, and all is done in a relaxed and entertaining manner. Despite being made ten years ago this film is still a good piece of entertainment to watch today.

one of the year's best films

[epitone · 9/10 · 13 August 1998]

"The Spanish Prisoner" comes closer to Hitchcock than anything I've seen in a long, long time. The cast is excellent; I haven't seen Campbell Scott in a movie since he was much younger, but he really turned in a great performance, loaded with nuance and subtlety. Steve Martin is truly outstanding--I think it's fair to say that this is one of his career's best performances. The only clunker is Rebecca Pidgeon; her character is poorly written, and she's not much of an actress. Just between you and me, I think she only got the job because she's sleeping with the director (she's Mamet's wife). Ed O'Neill even shows up halfway through the film with a nice cameo.

I don't want to give away much about the story for those who haven't seen TSP, but it really is amazing. Many of the plot twists actually made me laugh--not because they were ridiculous, but because they were so ingeniously crafted and actually plausible. Since he wrote AND directed the movie, though, David Mamet let himself get away with a few bad lines and one or two hokey plot devices. In the greater context of the movie, however, they're forgivable.

"process"

[FilmSnobby · 7/10 · 15 August 2005]

Campbell Scott and his "process"! David Mamet always makes me laugh. You've gotta love Mamet. You gotta love that his plot device is given the portentous name "the process". (It would've been only slightly less funny if he had called it "the McGuffin" or perhaps "the plot device".) "The process", by the way, is in Scott's tightly-clutched red leather-bound diary. For all I could tell, it appears to consist of calculus equations -- handwritten! Purportedly, these scrawls will be worth billions to any corporation who possesses them. Total global dominance, or something. Maybe Scott has finally unearthed the secret of alchemy, or maybe his equations provide a precisely-calculated comfort ratio for the number of troops required to illegally occupy an Arabic country measured against shrinking approval-ratings at the Home Front. The movie doesn't say.

Well, it turns out that Scott's math homework is the key to SOME sort of wildly complicated scam involving industrial espionage. The "company" (unnamed, natch) for which Scott works claims proprietary rights to "the process", but Scott, who has invented the precious "process", begs to differ. He wants to be fully compensated. He has not threatened to take "the process" to another unnamed company, but when boss Ben Gazarra sics a pair of corporate lawyers on him, Scott wonders what his legal options truly are. His new acquaintance, the mysterious and obscenely wealthy Steve Martin, offers to help.

And I'm leaving the plot synopsis there, because a detailed recount will ruin *The Spanish Prisoner* for the viewer. For this movie, despite its McGuffins and Joe Normal hero, is fundamentally different from the usual Hitchcock movie, in that we, along with Scott, have absolutely no clue as to what is really going on. Mamet withholds precisely the same information from us as he withholds from his hero. Though, indeed, there are a few indicators that something is amiss early on. For instance, Rebecca Pigeon's secretary is just a little too weird. (Paraphrase that catches the general tone: "Hello! Nobody is what they seem! Want a cookie?" etc.) I suppose that, on a surface level, the plot twists don't bear up under scrutiny: as Mr. Maxwell aptly pointed out in the review below mine, much depends on the con-artists being able to predict exactly how Scott is going to act. How do they KNOW that he'll take the FBI calling-card from Pigeon's scrapbook? I would add to Mr. Maxwell's example a few more (like, how does a man not notice what is written on his boarding pass?), but I'm not going to ruin anyone's fun.

But that's just it, though! -- Mamet, it becomes clear upon reflection, has scammed US as well, leading through his maze of bogus booby-traps. NONE of this nonsense bears up under scrutiny, and weren't we as naive to fall for Mamet's scams as Scott was to fall for Steve Martin & Co.'s scams? But do we care? The PUZZLE is what counts, as well as our own enjoyment at being puzzled. Those who quibble about the "realism" of such-and-such event in *The Spanish Prisoner* are really missing the forest for the trees. And those who gripe about the stylish (i.e., "unrealistic") dialog and performances just aren't my kind of people, I guess. Personally, I find Mamet's total disdain for Method acting (a fancy term for another form of posing) to be a breath of fresh air. Look, it's a MOVIE: why should artificiality somehow be against the law? Call it Mamet's "process", if you must.

7 stars out of 10. By the way, nice score by ace-composer Carter Burwell, who often works with the Coens. Will Burwell ever get the credit he deserves? All of his scores are memorable: from *Rob Roy*, to *Miller's Crossing*, to *Fargo*, to *The Spanish Prisoner*, on and on. He's one of the best in the business.

Probably not a film for the average person, but if you are patient, it's a good drama in the end

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 10 June 2007]

This is a film I probably never would have seen in the first place. However, I was on an airplane with nothing to do and this was the in-flight film, so I reluctantly watched. The first thing that really struck me was that Steve Martin was a prominent character but the film was in no way a comedy. Second, and this really hooked me, was that the writing was very good and quite creative--something I would have expected had I known the film was by David Mamet. Because the film has many twists and turns and surprises, I won't even try to explain the plot--just watch it for yourself. About the only negatives were a few of the twists seemed a tad difficult to believe and Campbell Scott wasn't the most compelling actor in the world as the lead. Still, the film was well-written and unique--and I liked that enough to watch the film again--something I very rarely do.

Stylish but flawed

[keithhooker · 7/10 · 14 April 2003]

This is such a stylish, smart, fun ride that the implausibility of the conclusion and the Rube Goldberg machinations that were supposedly behind all the action can almost be forgiven.

Mamet never condescends to his audience with a lot of expository material -- you have to figure it out as you go (like the hero in the film) and that's a lot of fun.

The ending is a real Deus ex Machina mess, a quick explanation that explains nothing. If you try to imagine the Justice Department staff meeting where this plot within a plot within a plot was proposed and accepted you just laugh out loud.

But even that feeling is almost cured by the final, odd exchange between two of the central characters as one is loaded into a police van. Once again David Mamet's strength for fascinating characterization asserts itself.

Very disappointing!

[tassost-60057 · 4/10 · 6 August 2016]

I love a bit of Steve Martin. So I was very enthusiastic while looking through his movies when I found this one. A nice high-rated crime/mystery/thriller from David Mamet with Steve Martin! Sounds great!

But, unfortunately, it was probably one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever watched. Predictable, with plot holes, indifferent directing and naive scenario.

***Spoilers*** (Even though the whole movie was a big spoil)

Just to name a few cringe moments: - why is Susan throughout the movie actively trying to convince the "hero" that Jimmy Dell wasn't actually on that hydroplane? She's in on it... you'd think she'd want to keep quiet about it.

• why did Susan help him escape the police from the NY airport and drove him to Boston, only to then slip him a gun so he'd be arrested by the police.

• The airplane ticket she had was a return ticket from St. Estephe back to NY... in her name. And he would use that ticket to fly himself from Boston back to St. Estephe. Its an airplane ticket not a refund coupon for Walmart.

• If everything was setup by his boss Mr. Klein why did he bail him out, not press charges and beg him to return the book? Ridiculous!!

• The worst of all... why are con artists still around chasing Joe on the airport and boat scene? They have the book... they've setup everything to accuse Joe... it's over. They need nothing else from him. Just leave and you're home free. But they hang around for some reason and chase him. Even though they want nothing from him. Monumental idiotic!

And just think about it for a minute... The con artists didn't really need anything from Joe. They had the second key from Mr Klein, so they had the book at any time they wanted. They could setup everything to frame Joe without him even getting involved. What was all the other silly nonsense about? Creating a fake sister, a fake FBI agent, a fake apartment, club etc. All that to make him bring the book... which they had access to all along. Pathetic!

And just to mention few completely silly and embarrassing moments:

• the woman shouting at the baby "You got your FINGERPINTS all over the BOOK" two or three times! Yes yes!! We got it!! We got it half an hour ago!!

• Joe painfully asking Susan a few times why she was a criminal. "Why"? Wow... talk naive scenario.

They could however fix this whole movie with adding just one punchline. And I offer this free of charge for the "director's cut" version of the movie. When the US Marshals van leaves and he's left all alone on the pier at the end of the movie he could just turn towards the camera and say "Gotcha Suckers!". Then all the Steve Martin fans would understand this movie is actually a parody from Bowfinger productions!