A political thriller that manages to be both logical and surprising. Dialogues are smart and every character is given an important role in this military puzzle film. It shows, in an unconventional way, the hidden world of intelligence service at all its levels (the highest and the lowest). This movie was unnoticed by the general public because of its being somehow simple (with no special effect) but it's for sure genuine and of high quality; it has surprise twists, tough guys and some great action scenes. Furthermore what makes this flick special is not only the story but also the original way David Mamet chose to tell it; Val Kilmer acted in a very mature and professional manner and deserves many compliments for that.
261 Reviews
Directed well, some good acting, but certainly not flawless Mamet
Quinoa198414 March 2004
David Mamet's Spartan had me leaving the theater thinking 'yeah, it was a good movie, some things I didn't understand'. Perhaps that's Mamet's intention- he's one of the reigning rulers of writers who use calculated, cool twists in storytelling- but I felt the moments in the film where I wasn't surprised so much by the turns taken. Not to say Spartan doesn't have some surprises (a few elements, such as a couple of deaths and a revelation or two which I won't put down here), and as a visual storyteller I got involved in the tension building with Val Kilmer's situation.
Kilmer, playing both mentor to training rangers and "worker-bee" to the United States government's special op's, is put on the case of the kidnapping of the President's daughter. It needs to be solved before the media grabs it, but it may not be that easy. Kilmer's Scott is a little more distant in tone and style sometimes, thinking of things to say to people that could border on a hack's cliche, yet Mamet isn't unforgivable in all the dialog. What dissapointed me were some of his choices in shots - he's not always as subtle as you might've thought in his cut-aways and use of music. While this is different territory in subject matter (dealing with a thriller on a political, topical scale), some of the tricks Mamet was pulling seemed stagey, and more predictable than he's known for.
Should people rush to theatres to see Spartan? Depends- for fans of Kilmer there's a lingering aura of understatement, concern, of a character who has been following rules his whole life, and it's not that bad. Derek Luke is a formidable supporting presence. Ed O'Neill strikes up some dramatic credit amid his post-Married with Children days. William H. Macy could've deserved a little more screen time to emphasize his importance to the story. And Kristen Bell is believable as the torn daughter. The script isn't rapid fire Mamet in delivery and tone, so it is at a pace that will dissapoint those who are looking for non-stop thrills. Maybe my grade is un-fair- the material does seek to be seen again- but I just didn't get that it was top-shelve stuff. B
Kilmer, playing both mentor to training rangers and "worker-bee" to the United States government's special op's, is put on the case of the kidnapping of the President's daughter. It needs to be solved before the media grabs it, but it may not be that easy. Kilmer's Scott is a little more distant in tone and style sometimes, thinking of things to say to people that could border on a hack's cliche, yet Mamet isn't unforgivable in all the dialog. What dissapointed me were some of his choices in shots - he's not always as subtle as you might've thought in his cut-aways and use of music. While this is different territory in subject matter (dealing with a thriller on a political, topical scale), some of the tricks Mamet was pulling seemed stagey, and more predictable than he's known for.
Should people rush to theatres to see Spartan? Depends- for fans of Kilmer there's a lingering aura of understatement, concern, of a character who has been following rules his whole life, and it's not that bad. Derek Luke is a formidable supporting presence. Ed O'Neill strikes up some dramatic credit amid his post-Married with Children days. William H. Macy could've deserved a little more screen time to emphasize his importance to the story. And Kristen Bell is believable as the torn daughter. The script isn't rapid fire Mamet in delivery and tone, so it is at a pace that will dissapoint those who are looking for non-stop thrills. Maybe my grade is un-fair- the material does seek to be seen again- but I just didn't get that it was top-shelve stuff. B
Mamet strikes again (exciting and illogical as always)
Indyrod31 January 2005
Oh boy, where to start on this confusing convoluted thriller from ace screenwriter and director Mamet. Val Kilmer does his best to add some real spark to a story about the apparent accidental kidnapping of the President's daughter. Kilmer is a super duper special forces agent who will do anything, and I mean anything to succeed at his assignment. Accidental I say, because it turns out she was kidnapped by Middle Eastern white slave trade marketers who deals with young blonds, after a security lapse that left the President's daughter vulnerable in a sleazy Boston club. Now keep in mind, the slave traders do not know who she is, at least that's how the story goes. But wait a minute, just after we learn all of this and the evidence is pointing in that direction, a HUGE plot twist develops that puts all of that to bed. Or does it??? I'll leave the spoilers out because what I've told you is just the beginning of the movie. David Mamet is a king of twisting confusing sometimes plots, being borderline ridiculous, and this one is no exception. But Val Kilmer saves the day as he does with a lot of movies, and his performance alone is worth seeing this Mamet thriller. I'm a huge Kilmer fan and it's always a joy to see him perform, no matter how far out the role. And this IS a pretty far out role. The supporting cast includes such standouts as William Macy (one of his worst roles ever), Derek Luke as Kilmer's novice partner, cameo-like appearance by Ed O'Neill, Kristen Bell as the kidnap victim. Despite its shortcomings, I enjoyed the movie and would recommend it for thrillers that have that giant leap of logic. The ending is pretty exciting, again with logic totally turned off, but what the hell, there's a lot of action, several twists and turns and I'll take that anytime over the mindless fluff that is coming out of Hollywood lately.
'Spartan' may be the best spy movie ever made by a practicing playwright/director.
JohnDeSando17 March 2004
'Spartan' may be the best spy movie ever made by a practicing playwright/director. Director and frequent screen writer David Mamet ('House of Games,' 'State and Main,' 'Spanish Prisoner,' 'Heist,') has crafted a thriller peppered with his stylized, epigrammatic dialogue that takes on the presidency and world corruption in equal parts of vitriol and savvy. The Pulitzer Prize winner of 'Glengarry Glen Ross' shows he can keep suspense without sacrificing intelligence.
When special ops officer Scott (Val Kilmer, 'Wonderland') describes himself as no 'planner. I ain't a thinker. I never wanted to be,' I knew I was in Mamet territory, where the speeches are street-poetic, terse, and redolent of subtext. Scott eventually has to be more than just an obedient Spartan, as he moves to the conscientious soldier who begins to see much more than just the kidnapping of the president's daughter.
Mamet lets us see that this plot is much more than a potboiler about the lost daughter of a lascivious, ruthless president, for it comments on the hidden forces behind the electoral process. Typical of Mamet, there is much more than what the eye thinks it sees. In fact, I must remind myself to have students write essays about appearance and reality in Mamet's films.
Kilmer is once more a surprise--he is one of our most underrated film actors. When he played an FBI agent in 'Thunderheart,' I was impressed by his low-key interpretation of a Native American in hiding. I am slowly becoming a fan by shedding my feelings that after successfully playing Jim Morrison, he could never successfully play anyone else. As Scott he too must shed his old ways from being a 'worker bee' to being an operative affecting world politics by following his instincts rather than his orders.
Some might claim Mamet loads his dramatic dice with contrived plot twists. I claim he develops his characters with such precision and care that his plots exemplify 'distributed exposition,' where each turn is another piece of the character puzzle.
Denys Arcand must be credited for bathing me in languid prose in 'Barbarian Invasion.' David Mamet must be credited for reinvigorating me with muscular prose. Both writers outstrip David Koepp's lame attempt to reveal a writer in heat in 'Secret Window,' starring Johnny Depp as a Stephen King surrogate.
The title 'Spartan' has several possible meanings, including the Battle of Thermopylae allusion in the film. However, the one I like best is the reference to Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus, who said, 'Those who are trained and disciplined in the proper discipline can determine what will best serve the occasion.' Mamet best serves this occasion with a superior thriller about a man of discipline serving his country in spite of itself.
When special ops officer Scott (Val Kilmer, 'Wonderland') describes himself as no 'planner. I ain't a thinker. I never wanted to be,' I knew I was in Mamet territory, where the speeches are street-poetic, terse, and redolent of subtext. Scott eventually has to be more than just an obedient Spartan, as he moves to the conscientious soldier who begins to see much more than just the kidnapping of the president's daughter.
Mamet lets us see that this plot is much more than a potboiler about the lost daughter of a lascivious, ruthless president, for it comments on the hidden forces behind the electoral process. Typical of Mamet, there is much more than what the eye thinks it sees. In fact, I must remind myself to have students write essays about appearance and reality in Mamet's films.
Kilmer is once more a surprise--he is one of our most underrated film actors. When he played an FBI agent in 'Thunderheart,' I was impressed by his low-key interpretation of a Native American in hiding. I am slowly becoming a fan by shedding my feelings that after successfully playing Jim Morrison, he could never successfully play anyone else. As Scott he too must shed his old ways from being a 'worker bee' to being an operative affecting world politics by following his instincts rather than his orders.
Some might claim Mamet loads his dramatic dice with contrived plot twists. I claim he develops his characters with such precision and care that his plots exemplify 'distributed exposition,' where each turn is another piece of the character puzzle.
Denys Arcand must be credited for bathing me in languid prose in 'Barbarian Invasion.' David Mamet must be credited for reinvigorating me with muscular prose. Both writers outstrip David Koepp's lame attempt to reveal a writer in heat in 'Secret Window,' starring Johnny Depp as a Stephen King surrogate.
The title 'Spartan' has several possible meanings, including the Battle of Thermopylae allusion in the film. However, the one I like best is the reference to Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus, who said, 'Those who are trained and disciplined in the proper discipline can determine what will best serve the occasion.' Mamet best serves this occasion with a superior thriller about a man of discipline serving his country in spite of itself.
Not a waste of your time.
ryanrall2 January 2022
David Mamet directs Val Kilmer's "Spartan" experience.
Pavel-827 January 2005
David Mamet ("Heist", "The Spanish Prisoner") has a deserved reputation as a non-traditional writer/director whose singular style indelibly marks all of his work. With his latest movie, "Spartan", Mamet again proves his quirkiness with a unique mysterious thriller.
Although more ambitious than most plots, the premise is not extremely out of the ordinary. The collegiate First Daughter has gone missing, and black ops government agents must track her down before the press unearths the story that could harm her. Val Kilmer plays the soldier of the manhunt, the talented military worker bee who takes orders from a variety of recognizable faces such as William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, and Clark Gregg. In their search for the girl, Kilmer and company weave through a (perhaps too) winding maze of half-truths that have come to characterize Mamet works.
Because Kilmer, in the lead role, rarely knows more about the investigation than his direct task, the audience sits in a similar situation, never ahead of the story. This ignorance glues the viewer to the screen and causes the hour and forty minutes to zip by at a surprisingly smooth and quick pace. However that same ignorance also prevents the film from making what could have been a deeper connection. With little to no background information on virtually all the characters, there is no emotional investment in anyone. What happens is more important than to whom it happens. The fact that the film still compels despite this is a testament to Mamet's taut script.
His signature almost-but-not-quite-stilted dialogue is less dominant and more accessible than in other pictures, perhaps because of the high-strung nature of the government operations. In common situations though, Mamet's semi-formal words still shine. There is very little cliché dialogue, even in common situations, and what triteness exists is often swallowed by the surrounding originality. Kilmer occasionally falls prey to the easily entangling awkwardness, although that stumbling is not significantly out of character. The supporting cast, many of whom previously worked with Mamet, are stellar in their delivery, particularly Macy and Gregg.
"Spartan", like many of Mamet's movies, is fully entertaining but due to the slightly off-kilter nature of his work, fails to fully suck in the viewer, piquing interest without engrossing. You truly want to know what happens, but you don't care greatly.
Bottom Line: Call it 7 of 10 for a good but not great film.
Although more ambitious than most plots, the premise is not extremely out of the ordinary. The collegiate First Daughter has gone missing, and black ops government agents must track her down before the press unearths the story that could harm her. Val Kilmer plays the soldier of the manhunt, the talented military worker bee who takes orders from a variety of recognizable faces such as William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, and Clark Gregg. In their search for the girl, Kilmer and company weave through a (perhaps too) winding maze of half-truths that have come to characterize Mamet works.
Because Kilmer, in the lead role, rarely knows more about the investigation than his direct task, the audience sits in a similar situation, never ahead of the story. This ignorance glues the viewer to the screen and causes the hour and forty minutes to zip by at a surprisingly smooth and quick pace. However that same ignorance also prevents the film from making what could have been a deeper connection. With little to no background information on virtually all the characters, there is no emotional investment in anyone. What happens is more important than to whom it happens. The fact that the film still compels despite this is a testament to Mamet's taut script.
His signature almost-but-not-quite-stilted dialogue is less dominant and more accessible than in other pictures, perhaps because of the high-strung nature of the government operations. In common situations though, Mamet's semi-formal words still shine. There is very little cliché dialogue, even in common situations, and what triteness exists is often swallowed by the surrounding originality. Kilmer occasionally falls prey to the easily entangling awkwardness, although that stumbling is not significantly out of character. The supporting cast, many of whom previously worked with Mamet, are stellar in their delivery, particularly Macy and Gregg.
"Spartan", like many of Mamet's movies, is fully entertaining but due to the slightly off-kilter nature of his work, fails to fully suck in the viewer, piquing interest without engrossing. You truly want to know what happens, but you don't care greatly.
Bottom Line: Call it 7 of 10 for a good but not great film.
Contains a political dimension that shouldn't be overlooked
sarastro727 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Apparently, one either "gets" this movie or not. It's true that, on the face of it, it can seem like just another low-key thriller with not much going for it. But to call it that would be simplistic. What we have here is a well-made action thriller that you don't quite know where you've got. Is it a run-of-the-mill thing, or something more, something subtler? The gratifying answer comes at the end, with the delivery of a stunning political punch-line. What was really going on was that the liberal daughter of a right-wing politician (senator? President?) was so outspoken against her father that the Secret Service (or NSA or whathaveyou) ignored her kidnapping and her sale into Arab sex-slavery, instead faking her death in order to preserve their fanatic political agenda; in order not to jeopardize the strident policy-setting "war on terror" stance of her politician father. Whether they also orchestrated her actual kidnapping and sale is not clear, but the strange suicide of the Secret Service man who left his post just before she was kidnapped at least raises the question.
It's not a great masterpiece, but it is well-made, thought-provoking and suspenseful, with a very satisfying ending. I rate it 7 out of 10.
It's not a great masterpiece, but it is well-made, thought-provoking and suspenseful, with a very satisfying ending. I rate it 7 out of 10.
I'm going to get you out of here. You're going to get me out of here? I'm going to get you out of here.
rmax30482328 August 2005
I started watching this without knowing any of the credits. As the dialog and the anfractuous plot developed I found myself thinking, "Oh, no!" It was all so MAMET-LIKE. I assumed that David Mamet had had sufficient critical successes and box office winners that other writers and directors were shamelessly ripping him off and that he would soon be nudged sideways into the cliché-laden zone now occupied by people like Hitchcock and Quentin Tarrantino. Istantly recognizable Schtick.
In a few years our ability to suspend disbelief would be lambasted with increasingly involved special ops within cons within special ops, and we would be listening in every movie to dialog like this: Character One: "I'm going to get you out of here." Character Two: "You're going to get me out of here?" Character One: "I'm going to get you out of here." Or: Character One: "You want a cigarette now?" Character Two: "Can you produce one?" What a relief to find that David Mamet was behind this whole thing -- writer, producer, director, bricoleur. It may be Schtick, but it's Mamet's own.
The plot really IS pretty complicated and sometimes a little hard to follow because of the elliptic dialog. At the same time we can usually judge from the circumstances what it means when somebody says, "You've got to bring me into the tall corn." It's a little harder to guess what a transponder looks like but we can do that too. It's very hard, though, to understand how even the world's finest shot can with one bullet blow away a moving target on land when the shooter himself is on a bobbing fishing boat half a mile out on the misty ocean -- but let that (and several other implausibilities) glide.
It's an interesting movie, easy to get swept up in. Val Kilmer is beyond the point of prettiness, happily, and is bulkier and more believable. (From some angles he reminds one of Mickey Rooney.) His acting may not shoot out the lights but the role doesn't call for fireworks, just a nicely balanced combination of determination and creativity.
I kind of like Bill Macy better in parts that are at least slightly comic. Those goofy features, I suppose. The rest of the performers are at least adequate.
The movie was released in 2004 and probably shot in 2003. The heavies -- aside from those in Washington -- are Arabs, as far as we know. I mean, when you think of Dubai, you think Arabs, no? Although I doubt that most Americans could go to a map and put their finger on Dubai instead of, say, Qattar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, or Yemen -- or Jordan, Syria, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. A survey of high school students a few years ago revealed that the majority thought that Toronto was in Italy. I only mention this because I wonder if this film establishes precedent. Are we to have nothing but Arab terrorists and white slave traders in our future? Is this a pointed finger that I see before me? Catch it if you can. Plenty of action -- but it's used as dramatic punctuation rather than a Ding an Sich. It's there for a reason. And the narrative will keep you interested.
In a few years our ability to suspend disbelief would be lambasted with increasingly involved special ops within cons within special ops, and we would be listening in every movie to dialog like this: Character One: "I'm going to get you out of here." Character Two: "You're going to get me out of here?" Character One: "I'm going to get you out of here." Or: Character One: "You want a cigarette now?" Character Two: "Can you produce one?" What a relief to find that David Mamet was behind this whole thing -- writer, producer, director, bricoleur. It may be Schtick, but it's Mamet's own.
The plot really IS pretty complicated and sometimes a little hard to follow because of the elliptic dialog. At the same time we can usually judge from the circumstances what it means when somebody says, "You've got to bring me into the tall corn." It's a little harder to guess what a transponder looks like but we can do that too. It's very hard, though, to understand how even the world's finest shot can with one bullet blow away a moving target on land when the shooter himself is on a bobbing fishing boat half a mile out on the misty ocean -- but let that (and several other implausibilities) glide.
It's an interesting movie, easy to get swept up in. Val Kilmer is beyond the point of prettiness, happily, and is bulkier and more believable. (From some angles he reminds one of Mickey Rooney.) His acting may not shoot out the lights but the role doesn't call for fireworks, just a nicely balanced combination of determination and creativity.
I kind of like Bill Macy better in parts that are at least slightly comic. Those goofy features, I suppose. The rest of the performers are at least adequate.
The movie was released in 2004 and probably shot in 2003. The heavies -- aside from those in Washington -- are Arabs, as far as we know. I mean, when you think of Dubai, you think Arabs, no? Although I doubt that most Americans could go to a map and put their finger on Dubai instead of, say, Qattar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, or Yemen -- or Jordan, Syria, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. A survey of high school students a few years ago revealed that the majority thought that Toronto was in Italy. I only mention this because I wonder if this film establishes precedent. Are we to have nothing but Arab terrorists and white slave traders in our future? Is this a pointed finger that I see before me? Catch it if you can. Plenty of action -- but it's used as dramatic punctuation rather than a Ding an Sich. It's there for a reason. And the narrative will keep you interested.
Excellent and intelligent. Not for Bruckheimer fans.
man-man-dot-org24 April 2005
If you go by the plot, or by the casting (Val Kilmer's done his share of stupid actioners), you might well go into this expecting guns, explosions, and improbably ninja-esquire super-agents who parachute around and kill things with their teeth.
But this is Mamet, so what you get instead is a sort of weird emotional flatland for almost two hours of film, with Kilmer doing an excellent (Val KILMER? Whoa!) job of portraying what top-level soldier/drones are like: emotionally neutral, physically economical, and not always all that bright.
If you're looking for somebody hoisting a bazooka and wisecracking before he blows up the compound and saves the girl in the bikini while smashing the drug smuggling ring, this ain't your film, friend. It's very well written and extremely well acted, but also quiet, murky, and deliberately understated.
Don't expect whiz-bang excitement or crackerjack dialogue. If you can shelve that and put yourself in the frame of mind of a Kurosawa samurai movie, where contemplation and futility take equal time with action and excitement, you'll find this movie a lot more rewarding.
But this is Mamet, so what you get instead is a sort of weird emotional flatland for almost two hours of film, with Kilmer doing an excellent (Val KILMER? Whoa!) job of portraying what top-level soldier/drones are like: emotionally neutral, physically economical, and not always all that bright.
If you're looking for somebody hoisting a bazooka and wisecracking before he blows up the compound and saves the girl in the bikini while smashing the drug smuggling ring, this ain't your film, friend. It's very well written and extremely well acted, but also quiet, murky, and deliberately understated.
Don't expect whiz-bang excitement or crackerjack dialogue. If you can shelve that and put yourself in the frame of mind of a Kurosawa samurai movie, where contemplation and futility take equal time with action and excitement, you'll find this movie a lot more rewarding.
another mishap of val
petit762 September 2006
it was a murky day and i sticked the DVD in the player and started to watch the movie and i really expected a great performance from Val kilmer after all the recent stumbling actings and this movie did not really break my preconvinced notions i have been stirring up for Val the mischievous boy of Hollywood movies . In addition to the FAILING screenplay by D.Mamet the director Val's about to glimmer performance just suspended.The cliché scenario : an abducted politician's daughter and the coercion to plunge her into the adultery business and her complaints of her uncaring father and Val's restless efforts to take her back home in spite of not letting her know how many people have been killed on the track to seize her and take her back to the USA outing her from the clutches of faceless Arabic pimps selling young American girls to rich Arabic people.Besides Val uses the profanity in every single frame and even cursing the kidnapped girl while trying to impede her escape from the container he took . i would only rate this Val's harbinger of his ending movie six out of 10 .
I've seen soap leave a better film.
glennanderson111 April 2022
A thinking person's thriller
baumer16 March 2004
David Mamet first caught my attention when he did a small grifter film called House of Games. It was released three years prior to The Grifters and I am quite certain that The Grifters took a lot of inspiration from House of Games. The Grifters had a high priced cast and more money was spent on the production but it was not quite as good as Mamet's masterpiece. Later, I would learn that Mamet would go on to write some of the best dialogue in all of film with movies like The Untouchables (just like a Wop, brings a knife to a gunfight), The Heist ( everyone loves money, that's why they call it money) and my favourite Mamet film, Glengarry Glenross ( I make $900,000 a year, that's why...). Mamet has a gift for the way people sound and the way they might deliver a line. Spartan continues his trend of interesting and crisp dialogue and fascinating characters. I have to agree with Roger Ebert when he says that this is Val Kilmer's best performance since Tombstone. He nails the character Scott, to a tee. Where as many action thrillers are about guns and explosions and certain bad acting, this is more about the characters. I am not saying that dumb action thrillers aren't fun sometimes, because they are. But if you like films that treat you like you already know what you need to know, and then proceed to show you things that you don't, then Spartan, like The Bourne Identity, is a film that you should enjoy.
Val Kilmer plays perhaps a member of the Secret Service, or perhaps he is just one of those covert operatives that is so good at what he does that he is just an invisible spook who shows up to do a job that others have trouble with. Mamet has given us a character that is so exemplary and pensive and good at what he does that he is the paradigm that all others in his line of work should emulate. There is no hesitation with him. He is driven and he is serious and like The Terminator, he will not stop, ever, until he has finished the job.
In this film, that job is to rescue the president's daughter, who was kidnapped while the Secret Service agent watching over her claims he was sleeping while she disappeared. But what the real reason is we may never know. There is the possibility that her disappearance may have political ramifications that would go as high up as the President himself. It is learned that Laura Newton may have been kidnapped in a scheme that involves an international sex trade with American women. The kidnappers do not know they have the president's daughter. And that may complicate things.
What makes Kilmer's character so fascinating is the way Mamet writes him. This is a man who has seen much and done much and when the time calls for it, he does not hesitate to use whatever force is necessary to acquire information. He hunts down bar owners, prostitution ring leaders and terrorists. He kills death row inmates to get information, he roughs up middle aged women who hold keys to the case and he holds an extreme form or prejudice towards anyone who may be a link in solving the case. This is a job to Scott and he treats it like that. I think this is the fundamental difference in a film like Spartan and many other less intelligent films that try to glamorize political espionage thrillers. This film talks and sounds like you are literally witnessing what happens behind closed doors. It gives you the feeling that what are witnessing is everything that does not get reported in the papers. This is about as raw as it gets and Mamet can take full credit for writing and directing the film as beautifully as he did and Val Kilmer can be proud of what he brought to the table.
This is one of the best films of the young 2004 and while it will be forgotten soon enough, when it comes out on video, it is a film that must be seen.
9/10
Val Kilmer plays perhaps a member of the Secret Service, or perhaps he is just one of those covert operatives that is so good at what he does that he is just an invisible spook who shows up to do a job that others have trouble with. Mamet has given us a character that is so exemplary and pensive and good at what he does that he is the paradigm that all others in his line of work should emulate. There is no hesitation with him. He is driven and he is serious and like The Terminator, he will not stop, ever, until he has finished the job.
In this film, that job is to rescue the president's daughter, who was kidnapped while the Secret Service agent watching over her claims he was sleeping while she disappeared. But what the real reason is we may never know. There is the possibility that her disappearance may have political ramifications that would go as high up as the President himself. It is learned that Laura Newton may have been kidnapped in a scheme that involves an international sex trade with American women. The kidnappers do not know they have the president's daughter. And that may complicate things.
What makes Kilmer's character so fascinating is the way Mamet writes him. This is a man who has seen much and done much and when the time calls for it, he does not hesitate to use whatever force is necessary to acquire information. He hunts down bar owners, prostitution ring leaders and terrorists. He kills death row inmates to get information, he roughs up middle aged women who hold keys to the case and he holds an extreme form or prejudice towards anyone who may be a link in solving the case. This is a job to Scott and he treats it like that. I think this is the fundamental difference in a film like Spartan and many other less intelligent films that try to glamorize political espionage thrillers. This film talks and sounds like you are literally witnessing what happens behind closed doors. It gives you the feeling that what are witnessing is everything that does not get reported in the papers. This is about as raw as it gets and Mamet can take full credit for writing and directing the film as beautifully as he did and Val Kilmer can be proud of what he brought to the table.
This is one of the best films of the young 2004 and while it will be forgotten soon enough, when it comes out on video, it is a film that must be seen.
9/10
Mamet tries for action thriller
SnoopyStyle26 August 2015
Robert Scott (Val Kilmer) is a military consultant working on Delta Force recruits. Curtis (Derek Luke) is one of those recruits. The president's daughter Laura Newton (Kristen Bell) goes missing and Robert is brought in. He's given 2 days before news spreads to the media. He brings Curtis in to assist him and tracks her to an international sex ring. It's a murky world of secret and mystery.
David Mamet tries his hand on a crime mystery action thriller. I rarely ask for more introduction but I want to know who Robert Scott was before his mysterious present day job. The murky start causes confusion about the limits of his powers or simply what is his job. The suspense is pretty good as the plot keeps it moving like a machine. Val Kilmer is functional but he lacks the star power. The tension is building up to an exciting operation in Dubai but a turn in the middle stalls the movie. Instead of ramping up the tension, the movie chugs along and chugs along. I don't understand why he doesn't go to the higher ups with the information. Some of the plot points leave me a bit puzzled. I think a more accomplished action director would have been better. Also the ending is a mess of twists that are highly questionable.
David Mamet tries his hand on a crime mystery action thriller. I rarely ask for more introduction but I want to know who Robert Scott was before his mysterious present day job. The murky start causes confusion about the limits of his powers or simply what is his job. The suspense is pretty good as the plot keeps it moving like a machine. Val Kilmer is functional but he lacks the star power. The tension is building up to an exciting operation in Dubai but a turn in the middle stalls the movie. Instead of ramping up the tension, the movie chugs along and chugs along. I don't understand why he doesn't go to the higher ups with the information. Some of the plot points leave me a bit puzzled. I think a more accomplished action director would have been better. Also the ending is a mess of twists that are highly questionable.
And this was a good film because... ?
mattryan0015 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
How is it that this one has received such a high rating?
First off, I decided this film was worth seeing because of a couple recognizables in the cast and Mamet generally does cool stuff. Unfortunately, the plot was filled with holes and Val Kilmer is just a doofus, for lack of a better word. I tried to like this film, I really did. The subject matter is interesting enough too...election scandal coupled with a prostitution ring. It sounded sexy, but it definitely was not.
*Spoilers* Several points in the movie caused me to just laugh out loud. Some of the more obnoxious plot holes: Val Kilmer starts to use the word "Baby" a little too freely later in the movie. Trust me. It gets funny; Persons trying to be stealthy do so in ridiculously open view, often behind open windows; William H. Macy recites back the entire cover story just before being killed; Val Kilmer delivers his lines with a "cheese-ball" effect. It was cool when you were the Saint. It's not here.
I don't take the time to comment often. A film really has to move me, one way or the other. Sadly though, this film induced a bowel movement....I'll just leave it at that. 3/10
First off, I decided this film was worth seeing because of a couple recognizables in the cast and Mamet generally does cool stuff. Unfortunately, the plot was filled with holes and Val Kilmer is just a doofus, for lack of a better word. I tried to like this film, I really did. The subject matter is interesting enough too...election scandal coupled with a prostitution ring. It sounded sexy, but it definitely was not.
*Spoilers* Several points in the movie caused me to just laugh out loud. Some of the more obnoxious plot holes: Val Kilmer starts to use the word "Baby" a little too freely later in the movie. Trust me. It gets funny; Persons trying to be stealthy do so in ridiculously open view, often behind open windows; William H. Macy recites back the entire cover story just before being killed; Val Kilmer delivers his lines with a "cheese-ball" effect. It was cool when you were the Saint. It's not here.
I don't take the time to comment often. A film really has to move me, one way or the other. Sadly though, this film induced a bowel movement....I'll just leave it at that. 3/10
Excellent dialogue enlivens a solid, if unspectacular, thriller
bob the moo23 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Scott is a special operations soldier known for his professionalism, expertise and ability to get results. After a brief spell at a training facility, he is called in with the FBI to investigate the kidnapping of the president's daughter. Quickly it becomes evident that the kidnappers do not realize who they have and the race is on to recover her before the media and her captors realize what is happening, throwing Scott into a deadly political game.
Whether it be the world of con-men, salesmen of filmmakers, David Mamet has an uncanny ability to write sharp screenplays that generally avoid cliché and raise the level of the film by his influence and so, as writer and director here, the film appeared to have potential to be very good. While I did really enjoy it, the film did have its weaknesses but, as is often the case, these are not in the areas where Mamet is traditionally strong. The plot starts very quickly and tough and continues at such a pace that I doubted it could keep it up but, although it dipped a bit at the midpoint, it quickly picked it up again. As a solid thriller the film delivers no real surprises and it's a measure of how cynical we are as a people to say that the idea of politicians manipulating events, the media and the voters for political gain does not so much count as a 'twist' as it does a given. However, Mamet's cynicism is well timed, as it comes at a time when belief in our politicians seems to be at a low and audiences will be likely to welcome the film's message that, although truth is often the first conflict of any action, it is never the only one.
As a result of this the plot loses a lot of its impact as it pretty much goes where you expect it to even if it does it in a very effective fashion. The plot also falls down in the detail and I was a little irritated by some of the areas that were not filled out. For example I didn't understand the full background to the girl's kidnapping as some details contradicted other details within the story. Also some situations and characters are given far too little time and detail to be able to make the impact that the film demands of them William H. Macy's character being the perfect example; he is meant to be the face of the conspiracy but has few lines until the end and, even then, you'll be none the wiser as to how he fits into the whole situation.
But for my money these issues were minor niggles in a film that was very involving, very enjoyable and very cool! The plot may be the stable stuff of the genre but the writing spices it up no end. The characters talk and carry themselves the way we all wise we could the dialogue is never really trite (well, the 'she's my daughter' scene was a bit corny) and is actually enjoyable to listen to as opposed to many thrillers where dialogue is often a way of explaining the action scenes! Mamet scores a double double in my eyes because I also thought his direction was unobtrusive but also very stylish and interesting. He doesn't use darkness much but he uses a sort of half-light very well to match the material, at times gradually moving his characters from light to dark as they talk. More surprising than the impressive stylistic touches was perhaps the moments of action, which Mamet delivers with real tension and pace not bad for a playwright!
Given the dialogue to work with, the majority of the cast do very well. I'm not a big fan of Val Kilmer and this film will hardly draw the crowds based on his name alone but he is actually pretty good here. Starting the film with a cold emotional delivery, Kilmer is very much the professional he needs to be and is unrelentingly tough and cool until the film demands he struggle with his direction and even then he manages it even if he is less convincing than the first half. Luke appears to have been given a normal rookie role but he is still good and makes a significant impact. Texada is barely used considering her role in the story and she matches the majority of the support cast in the way that she delivers the dialogue well but has little character behind the sharp words. The support are therefore a mixed bunch few have any real characters of substance but generally people like Macy, O'Neil and others all spouting tough dialogue is still worth seeing.
Overall this is not the best thriller ever but it is a very enjoyable one that greatly benefited from Mamet's positive work as both writer and director. The plot may be full of gaps but generally it keeps a great pace from the start to the sombre and satisfying finale. The cast all get plenty of good dialogue to deliver, even if it is only really Kilmer and Luke who get the chance to deliver a performance and generally the film is a very enjoyable, if unsurprising thriller.
Whether it be the world of con-men, salesmen of filmmakers, David Mamet has an uncanny ability to write sharp screenplays that generally avoid cliché and raise the level of the film by his influence and so, as writer and director here, the film appeared to have potential to be very good. While I did really enjoy it, the film did have its weaknesses but, as is often the case, these are not in the areas where Mamet is traditionally strong. The plot starts very quickly and tough and continues at such a pace that I doubted it could keep it up but, although it dipped a bit at the midpoint, it quickly picked it up again. As a solid thriller the film delivers no real surprises and it's a measure of how cynical we are as a people to say that the idea of politicians manipulating events, the media and the voters for political gain does not so much count as a 'twist' as it does a given. However, Mamet's cynicism is well timed, as it comes at a time when belief in our politicians seems to be at a low and audiences will be likely to welcome the film's message that, although truth is often the first conflict of any action, it is never the only one.
As a result of this the plot loses a lot of its impact as it pretty much goes where you expect it to even if it does it in a very effective fashion. The plot also falls down in the detail and I was a little irritated by some of the areas that were not filled out. For example I didn't understand the full background to the girl's kidnapping as some details contradicted other details within the story. Also some situations and characters are given far too little time and detail to be able to make the impact that the film demands of them William H. Macy's character being the perfect example; he is meant to be the face of the conspiracy but has few lines until the end and, even then, you'll be none the wiser as to how he fits into the whole situation.
But for my money these issues were minor niggles in a film that was very involving, very enjoyable and very cool! The plot may be the stable stuff of the genre but the writing spices it up no end. The characters talk and carry themselves the way we all wise we could the dialogue is never really trite (well, the 'she's my daughter' scene was a bit corny) and is actually enjoyable to listen to as opposed to many thrillers where dialogue is often a way of explaining the action scenes! Mamet scores a double double in my eyes because I also thought his direction was unobtrusive but also very stylish and interesting. He doesn't use darkness much but he uses a sort of half-light very well to match the material, at times gradually moving his characters from light to dark as they talk. More surprising than the impressive stylistic touches was perhaps the moments of action, which Mamet delivers with real tension and pace not bad for a playwright!
Given the dialogue to work with, the majority of the cast do very well. I'm not a big fan of Val Kilmer and this film will hardly draw the crowds based on his name alone but he is actually pretty good here. Starting the film with a cold emotional delivery, Kilmer is very much the professional he needs to be and is unrelentingly tough and cool until the film demands he struggle with his direction and even then he manages it even if he is less convincing than the first half. Luke appears to have been given a normal rookie role but he is still good and makes a significant impact. Texada is barely used considering her role in the story and she matches the majority of the support cast in the way that she delivers the dialogue well but has little character behind the sharp words. The support are therefore a mixed bunch few have any real characters of substance but generally people like Macy, O'Neil and others all spouting tough dialogue is still worth seeing.
Overall this is not the best thriller ever but it is a very enjoyable one that greatly benefited from Mamet's positive work as both writer and director. The plot may be full of gaps but generally it keeps a great pace from the start to the sombre and satisfying finale. The cast all get plenty of good dialogue to deliver, even if it is only really Kilmer and Luke who get the chance to deliver a performance and generally the film is a very enjoyable, if unsurprising thriller.
Sparse Thriller worth your time
arvy19 April 2006
A sparse thriller with Kilmer (william H macy) and a bunch of people you won't have seen before.
It is worth it purely because anything Mamet does is worth a look.
The film is a based around the disappearance of the daughter of someone important. There are a number of twists; and some you find believable and some you don't.
The twists themselves are enjoyable and the way the film deviates from "cookie cutter" films and is worth it on its own merit.
There are a couple of flaws and some of the acting (and even the writing) is a little stiff in places, but definitely engaging enough for a look!
It is worth it purely because anything Mamet does is worth a look.
The film is a based around the disappearance of the daughter of someone important. There are a number of twists; and some you find believable and some you don't.
The twists themselves are enjoyable and the way the film deviates from "cookie cutter" films and is worth it on its own merit.
There are a couple of flaws and some of the acting (and even the writing) is a little stiff in places, but definitely engaging enough for a look!
A thriller that seems to know what it's talking about
rbverhoef14 December 2004
'Spartan' is an intelligent spy thriller from writer director David Mamet. In a way it seems to know so much that I had a constant feeling the film could have been something more. There are terrific parts and I was thinking that a Secret Service of a country could really work the way it did here.
Val Kilmer is Scott, an agent from the Secret Service. I am not really sure whether this is true but after a while we can assume this. The opening scenes are ingenious with the characters talking about things we have no clue about. Slowly it comes to our knowledge that a girl had been kidnapped, the daughter of the president. We learn everything at the same time or even much later than the character which makes this an interesting thriller anyway. We learn that the kidnappers probably do not even know their victim is the daughter of the president.
When Scott and a partner named Curtis (Derek Luke) come closer to the girl, suddenly the news tells them and us that the daughter has been killed in an accident. Investigation over, but we are only at one third of the movie. Curits discovers the girl is probably not dead after all and hopes for Scott to help him. From this point the movie gets more intriguing and plays to an ending that is disappointing if you consider all you have seen before that.
Never mind the ending, although it is too bad it's the last thing you see of 'Spartan', my guess is you will remind the good part. I liked Kilmer's performance and Mamet's little dialogue for him. Other dialogue from Mamet is less impressive here, but Kilmer's character seems to find the right words. I also liked the way the movie was unpredictable in its ruthless scenes and, like I said, the way the movie gives us an idea of how things could work in an organization like the Secret Service. Mamet makes sure we believe we just fall in the middle of a couple of lives, instead of watching some characters invented to serve a plot. Scott even talks this way.
The opening sequences are the best, after that things are very intriguing and therefore I am able to forgive the movie its ending. It is not really bad or even implausible, it just seems a lot weaker than everything else here.
Val Kilmer is Scott, an agent from the Secret Service. I am not really sure whether this is true but after a while we can assume this. The opening scenes are ingenious with the characters talking about things we have no clue about. Slowly it comes to our knowledge that a girl had been kidnapped, the daughter of the president. We learn everything at the same time or even much later than the character which makes this an interesting thriller anyway. We learn that the kidnappers probably do not even know their victim is the daughter of the president.
When Scott and a partner named Curtis (Derek Luke) come closer to the girl, suddenly the news tells them and us that the daughter has been killed in an accident. Investigation over, but we are only at one third of the movie. Curits discovers the girl is probably not dead after all and hopes for Scott to help him. From this point the movie gets more intriguing and plays to an ending that is disappointing if you consider all you have seen before that.
Never mind the ending, although it is too bad it's the last thing you see of 'Spartan', my guess is you will remind the good part. I liked Kilmer's performance and Mamet's little dialogue for him. Other dialogue from Mamet is less impressive here, but Kilmer's character seems to find the right words. I also liked the way the movie was unpredictable in its ruthless scenes and, like I said, the way the movie gives us an idea of how things could work in an organization like the Secret Service. Mamet makes sure we believe we just fall in the middle of a couple of lives, instead of watching some characters invented to serve a plot. Scott even talks this way.
The opening sequences are the best, after that things are very intriguing and therefore I am able to forgive the movie its ending. It is not really bad or even implausible, it just seems a lot weaker than everything else here.
Mamet raises the stakes
snake7715 March 2004
David Mamet serves up something a little different from his previous efforts. He leaves behind the world of con men (but not necessarily cons) and takes a stab at a political thriller/action movie. In my opinion no director working today delivers as consistently within his modest budgets as Mamet. This is of course due to the fact that this guy just flat-out knows how to write. You can nearly always count on good dialogue and detailed plotting in a David Mamet film.
Val Kilmer stars as a Delta-Force type soldier who is suddenly summoned by the highest powers of the US Government to find out what happened to young girl who has been kidnapped. Turns out the girl is someone very important, and things, as usual, are not what they seem. When the true nature of the situation is revealed, Kilmer and his young protégé, played by Derek Luke, begin a breathless, take-no-prisoners pursuit to find the girl before the situation gets out of hand. The movie has lots of unexpected stops and starts and surprises, and by the final scenes you begin to question all that has come before and wonder what the hell is going to happen next. In this age of mindlessly predictable blockbusters, you have to love that.
That's not to say that Spartan is perfect, or even close to Mamet's best effort. The more ambitious scale of this film compared to previous ones force a bit of awkward dialogue and some plot points that stretch credulity, but overall this film packs an undeniable punch. Much credit goes to Val Kilmer, who plays his role of icy, super efficient government operative with just the right tone. Kilmer's great talent has always been obvious, but all too often he picks projects that barely stand up around his performances. Not this time. Other actors are not quite as effective, including the usually spot-on William H. Macy, who just doesn't seem to carry the weight of his charachter.
Fans of Mamet will notice a continuation of some themes he has been kicking around for a few years. Government corruption, patriotism and personal honor are among them. In that sense this is at once a very old fashioned story and a very modern, timely movie. Despite some small flaws, I enjoyed it immensely.
Val Kilmer stars as a Delta-Force type soldier who is suddenly summoned by the highest powers of the US Government to find out what happened to young girl who has been kidnapped. Turns out the girl is someone very important, and things, as usual, are not what they seem. When the true nature of the situation is revealed, Kilmer and his young protégé, played by Derek Luke, begin a breathless, take-no-prisoners pursuit to find the girl before the situation gets out of hand. The movie has lots of unexpected stops and starts and surprises, and by the final scenes you begin to question all that has come before and wonder what the hell is going to happen next. In this age of mindlessly predictable blockbusters, you have to love that.
That's not to say that Spartan is perfect, or even close to Mamet's best effort. The more ambitious scale of this film compared to previous ones force a bit of awkward dialogue and some plot points that stretch credulity, but overall this film packs an undeniable punch. Much credit goes to Val Kilmer, who plays his role of icy, super efficient government operative with just the right tone. Kilmer's great talent has always been obvious, but all too often he picks projects that barely stand up around his performances. Not this time. Other actors are not quite as effective, including the usually spot-on William H. Macy, who just doesn't seem to carry the weight of his charachter.
Fans of Mamet will notice a continuation of some themes he has been kicking around for a few years. Government corruption, patriotism and personal honor are among them. In that sense this is at once a very old fashioned story and a very modern, timely movie. Despite some small flaws, I enjoyed it immensely.
Entertaining
kellyap715 March 2004
In spite of what some others might be saying, this IS a decent movie. Robotic acting? How about the actor is just playing the character - there was nothing robotic about it. Confusing plot? I found it refreshing, especially since you weren't spoon-fed the important plot elements like the rest of the Hollywood drivel out there. I went in with low expectations, and was rewarded with a few entertaining hours - exactly what I paid for. The action kept me entertained for the bulk of the movie, although some of the trailers give away a bit too much information. Character development was a bit weak, but this isn't really the intended genre either. If you want character development, watch something else, if you want a thriller, you'll be entertained. This is pretty much standard fare, but I can easily recommend it on a "cheap night".
As close as movies come to the world of spooks and special ops . . .
onewhoseesme23 April 2009
I've been a fan of David Mamet since The Untouchables, and a half a dozen films since, including Glengarry Glen Ross and Ronin. His writing is so exacting - it's surgical. And among the best in the Industry. It seems no writer in film exemplifies the dominant (lone) male psyche better than he does - he is one of my favorite writers. I say lone because most of the leads in his films are either solo, or if married you don't know it. Even in The Winslow Boy, which was a period piece. In his films, the Dialog is definitely the star. Realizing that is key to enjoying his films.
As a Deep Sea Diver in the U.S. Navy for many years, who spent time with the Special Boat Unit and 5 years with EOD (the bomb squad), I can tell you that he speaks the language of the military elite, and the military at large - better than anyone. In his film Spartan, we have the perfect marriage of the nuances subtleties and atmosphere of the shadowy world where special ops are used as federal assets for unofficial or non military missions. I believe Spartan is as close to capturing this as movie making ever comes.
Val Kilmer is a much better actor than many of his more famous contemporaries, and is probably the performer they wished they were. Though he's never really gained the notoriety or superstar status. I think most guys would agree that his Doc Holliday in Tombstone was the best ever, with due applause to Dennis Quaid's. Here he plays a Marine Gunny (a Master Gunnery Sergeant here) assigned to special ops (probably after Recon) and was the perfect fit for both this film and Mamet's script, which combined with his talent - was one of his best. Tom Clancy is the only other modern writer of this caliber that captures the military mindset and does it so well, but in a different way. Though the title probably refers to the Spartan ideology of one well trained man being better than a hundred who are not, there is a picture here offered of the very Spartan lifestyle lived by so many in the military of any nation and is well represented. A great film! I couldn't recommend it more.
http://fullgrownministry.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/identity/
As a Deep Sea Diver in the U.S. Navy for many years, who spent time with the Special Boat Unit and 5 years with EOD (the bomb squad), I can tell you that he speaks the language of the military elite, and the military at large - better than anyone. In his film Spartan, we have the perfect marriage of the nuances subtleties and atmosphere of the shadowy world where special ops are used as federal assets for unofficial or non military missions. I believe Spartan is as close to capturing this as movie making ever comes.
Val Kilmer is a much better actor than many of his more famous contemporaries, and is probably the performer they wished they were. Though he's never really gained the notoriety or superstar status. I think most guys would agree that his Doc Holliday in Tombstone was the best ever, with due applause to Dennis Quaid's. Here he plays a Marine Gunny (a Master Gunnery Sergeant here) assigned to special ops (probably after Recon) and was the perfect fit for both this film and Mamet's script, which combined with his talent - was one of his best. Tom Clancy is the only other modern writer of this caliber that captures the military mindset and does it so well, but in a different way. Though the title probably refers to the Spartan ideology of one well trained man being better than a hundred who are not, there is a picture here offered of the very Spartan lifestyle lived by so many in the military of any nation and is well represented. A great film! I couldn't recommend it more.
http://fullgrownministry.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/identity/
Spartan - A few details
pbouchard-224 July 2005
I liked this flick immensely, and maybe it is because the VK character was a bit wooden, just like a "Master Gunner" should be. He's not really a Secret Service Agent, he's the equivalent of a Warrant Officer in the US Marine Corps ("Master Gunner" is a warrant-like grade that establishes officer status for former senior noncoms. They have no commission and normally do not command troops-thanks, W.E.B. Griffin). He's on detached duty to some secret operational group which appears to act at the behest of the highest levels of the US government - in this case, the Secret Service.
This one was a "sleeper" I happened to catch on cable. Like "The Salton Sea" or "Wonderland", I wouldn't have ever seen this one save for my insomnia. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, if you're turned off after 20 minutes, you're probably not going to like it.
This one was a "sleeper" I happened to catch on cable. Like "The Salton Sea" or "Wonderland", I wouldn't have ever seen this one save for my insomnia. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, if you're turned off after 20 minutes, you're probably not going to like it.
Surprisingly bad movie from David Mamet
Maziun18 October 2013
I'm a fan of David Mamet's movies (both his and the ones he wrote the screenplay for) . "House of games " is one of the best movies ever made. Mamet's other contributions to cinema are great too (including "The Untouchables " and "Ronin" ). So , I was curious about this one . This time Mamet tries a political action thriller. The result ? Surprise , but a bad one.
Mamet has always been a rather weak director . I admit that . Still , his flat sense of direction worked quite well in his movies , mostly because they were very theatrical from the nature of plot. Hell , I think that's why "House of games" has surrealistic , hypnotizing feel to it. The problem with "Spartan" is this is an action/thriller . All the action scenes here lack tension. They look like they were directed by amateur. The movie also never has any sense of entertainment . There isn't a moment when you feel that time is running out for our heroes.
What is more surprising is the rather bad plot . The story is very predictable and you don't have to be a genius to figure out most of the twists. Worse , some of the twists are rather forced (the sign , the scarecrow sitting on the chair when you need it ) . There is one really good twist at the end of movie , but on the other hand Mamet also throws a rather forced deus ex machina at the end.
The dialogue is also bad , very dour , very forgettable . It's surprising , because Mamet always crafts the dialogues very carefully . He knows how to write a stylish dialogue . Here the dialogues are purely informational.
The acting is good . Val Kilmer gives a really good performance , one of best in his entire career (along with "Tombstone" and "The Heat"). He plays his character just like he should (and could) play Batman all those years ago in "Batman forever" . Silent , brooding , tough and honorable. Kirsten Bell has a small , but good role in the movie . It was good to see Ed O'Neill ("Married with children") in a convincing serious role and William Macy is pleasure as always. Overall , the acting is the best thing in the movie.
I also like the bitter mood of the movie . The story here sadly feels like something that could happen in real life and it makes "Spartan" different than most Hollywood thrillers .
It doesn't change the fact that weak screenplay , bad dialogues and crappy direction make this one a misfire in Mamet's career . I give it 4/10.
Mamet has always been a rather weak director . I admit that . Still , his flat sense of direction worked quite well in his movies , mostly because they were very theatrical from the nature of plot. Hell , I think that's why "House of games" has surrealistic , hypnotizing feel to it. The problem with "Spartan" is this is an action/thriller . All the action scenes here lack tension. They look like they were directed by amateur. The movie also never has any sense of entertainment . There isn't a moment when you feel that time is running out for our heroes.
What is more surprising is the rather bad plot . The story is very predictable and you don't have to be a genius to figure out most of the twists. Worse , some of the twists are rather forced (the sign , the scarecrow sitting on the chair when you need it ) . There is one really good twist at the end of movie , but on the other hand Mamet also throws a rather forced deus ex machina at the end.
The dialogue is also bad , very dour , very forgettable . It's surprising , because Mamet always crafts the dialogues very carefully . He knows how to write a stylish dialogue . Here the dialogues are purely informational.
The acting is good . Val Kilmer gives a really good performance , one of best in his entire career (along with "Tombstone" and "The Heat"). He plays his character just like he should (and could) play Batman all those years ago in "Batman forever" . Silent , brooding , tough and honorable. Kirsten Bell has a small , but good role in the movie . It was good to see Ed O'Neill ("Married with children") in a convincing serious role and William Macy is pleasure as always. Overall , the acting is the best thing in the movie.
I also like the bitter mood of the movie . The story here sadly feels like something that could happen in real life and it makes "Spartan" different than most Hollywood thrillers .
It doesn't change the fact that weak screenplay , bad dialogues and crappy direction make this one a misfire in Mamet's career . I give it 4/10.
Modern Spy Thriller
el1sdf18 October 2004
The excellent David Mamet returns to write and direct an entertaining spy thriller which puts fantasy fare such as the Bourne Identity to bed. Val Kilmer is good here, better than anything I can remember, but the real star here is Mamet. His direction is better here than Heist or State and Main, and the script more believable. It still crackles with Mamet's trademark dialogue but in this genre it seems to fit better. Excellent support cast all round, notably 'the girl' and Said Taghmaoui, the latter being one of my favourite character actors at present. The ending does seem abrupt, but by no means out of place. Critics argued that the plot is too complicated/ clever and that the lead is truly "Shallow Val" but this is selling the actor and the audience short. This was entertaining, with overtones of conspiracy which makes great viewing for people with similar tastes to myself. 10/10
Spartan is spot on
jmbwithcats1 November 2004
I watched Spartan again last night after having seen it nearly a year ago now, and I enjoyed it even more so then I did originally. A film about a special forces master gunner, Val Kilmer has always done his job. Ask no questions, just get it done. Feelings aside he did his job. But, this time he will have to do more then that. He will have to evolve, live by a new credo. "There are no bad men, only good men who do nothing". And he does. And he does it amazingly well.
Mamet hits us with perfect scenes, not too simple, not too complex, and full of emotion. One who enjoys this movie may be haunted by a few last words we hear Kilmer utter twice in this film; once about himself, and secondly concerning the daughter Laura, he vowed to protect. I got home, I only took the long way back.
I was moved by this film, and even though Macey's role was predictable, it did not detract from my overall enjoyment of the film. With good pacing, dialog, and energy, Val Kilmer shows he can deliver once again, as he does every single time. Kilmer is a man who is very picky about the roles he takes, and he picks the well.
Val Kilmer researched for the part by training with former military special operations personnel.
I give Spartan a 9
Mamet hits us with perfect scenes, not too simple, not too complex, and full of emotion. One who enjoys this movie may be haunted by a few last words we hear Kilmer utter twice in this film; once about himself, and secondly concerning the daughter Laura, he vowed to protect. I got home, I only took the long way back.
I was moved by this film, and even though Macey's role was predictable, it did not detract from my overall enjoyment of the film. With good pacing, dialog, and energy, Val Kilmer shows he can deliver once again, as he does every single time. Kilmer is a man who is very picky about the roles he takes, and he picks the well.
Val Kilmer researched for the part by training with former military special operations personnel.
I give Spartan a 9
Did I miss something?
alex-27830 October 2004
I did not get this picture.
TO say it was awful is an understatement. Now I could have been drunk, or it could be that the story was inane, the dialogue dirge("yes sir"), the editing bizare, or a it was just a bad story and I imagined everything else.
None of the characters were properly established and there was next to zero empathy for the.
I eventually fast forwarded to the end, to see if it got any better, but alas it did not. What was the bit set in London at the end? What was the point?
How did William Macey accept such a poor role and he looked totally out of place. He is too good for these types of parts.
TO say it was awful is an understatement. Now I could have been drunk, or it could be that the story was inane, the dialogue dirge("yes sir"), the editing bizare, or a it was just a bad story and I imagined everything else.
None of the characters were properly established and there was next to zero empathy for the.
I eventually fast forwarded to the end, to see if it got any better, but alas it did not. What was the bit set in London at the end? What was the point?
How did William Macey accept such a poor role and he looked totally out of place. He is too good for these types of parts.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
