The incredible William Macy gives us a glimpse into real madness in EDMOND, a sort of FALLING DOWN for the new millennium. Macy's life begins to unravel, and he ends up falling into an urban hell where he encounters and sometimes gets rough with, or roughed up by, various seedy characters (this is supposed to be New York, but was shot in Hollywood). Macy is magnificent as this increasingly nutty human being, and nothing any actor has done before can touch it, including Michael Douglas playing a similar role in FALLING DOWN. He is the whole purpose of watching this movie, and the camera stays tight on his anguished face in many shots. Adapted from a play by the great David Mamet, EDMOND is must-viewing by a mature audience. Legendary horror director Stuart (RE-ANIMATOR) Gordon gives EDMOND a bloody touch or two or three, much like fellow horror director Reny Harlin did with DIE HARD 2. Interesting to note: Gordon regular Jeffrey Combs is among the cast, and both Combs and Macy will appear in Gordon's next RE-ANIMATOR sequel. Macy will try pretty much anything, I guess. And he rarely fails. He can go from playing a lovable but aging salesman to a gun-toting villain out to kill the president's daughter. Amazing.
129 Reviews
The story of one man's journey into the emptiness of his own soul
Craig_McPherson24 July 2006
At first glance, horror meister Stuart Gordon would not seem the obvious choice to direct an emotional psycho-drama cinematic rendering of a David Mamet play, yet with Edmond, he displays a deft touch for the material and allows the actors to carry the day.
Originally penned as a stage play, Edmond tells the story of namesake Edmond Burke (William H. Macy), a mundane white collar worker who has spent his entire life being a faceless cog in the big industrial machine. The rescheduling of a business appointment to 1:15 (a number which re-occurs in the film) propels him to idle away his time with a visit to a tarot reader who tells him he's not where he's supposed to be. From there he begins a slow spiral into depravity and insanity that begins with telling his wife he's leaving her and progresses to an outback-like dreamwalk into New York City's seedy underbelly of bars pimps and prostitutes.
Written in the wake of a divorce, Mamet infuses the script with racial discourse and epithets that are stunning in their caustic vulgarity as Edmond pours out years of pent up hatred on one of his muggers revealing a window into his shallow soul that only becomes more intensely evident as the movie reaches its conclusion.
In the scene where Edmond tells his wife their marriage is over, he explains to her that she hasn't satisfied him spiritually or emotionally for quite some time. Yet, after watching his progression trough the course of the story, it becomes clear that spiritually he has no soul, and emotionally he's a shallow but volatile cauldron of disjointed thoughts.
The film is a tour-de-force for Macy, who is in every scene and morphs from a character of Caspar Milquetoast proportions to unhinged bigoted psychopath and back again by the movie's end. Along the way he's complimented by solid performances from Joe Mantegna, Julia Stiles, Mena Suvari and Bokeem Woodbine. As if in a wink and nudge to his own work, Gordon even manages to insinuate longtime stalwart Jeffrey Combs into a small but telling scene during Edmond's descent into insanity.
By the time Edmond arrives at the end of that journey, however; at that place where he ought to be; I couldn't help but think he had merely wasted his life catching up to where his soul was long ago.
Originally penned as a stage play, Edmond tells the story of namesake Edmond Burke (William H. Macy), a mundane white collar worker who has spent his entire life being a faceless cog in the big industrial machine. The rescheduling of a business appointment to 1:15 (a number which re-occurs in the film) propels him to idle away his time with a visit to a tarot reader who tells him he's not where he's supposed to be. From there he begins a slow spiral into depravity and insanity that begins with telling his wife he's leaving her and progresses to an outback-like dreamwalk into New York City's seedy underbelly of bars pimps and prostitutes.
Written in the wake of a divorce, Mamet infuses the script with racial discourse and epithets that are stunning in their caustic vulgarity as Edmond pours out years of pent up hatred on one of his muggers revealing a window into his shallow soul that only becomes more intensely evident as the movie reaches its conclusion.
In the scene where Edmond tells his wife their marriage is over, he explains to her that she hasn't satisfied him spiritually or emotionally for quite some time. Yet, after watching his progression trough the course of the story, it becomes clear that spiritually he has no soul, and emotionally he's a shallow but volatile cauldron of disjointed thoughts.
The film is a tour-de-force for Macy, who is in every scene and morphs from a character of Caspar Milquetoast proportions to unhinged bigoted psychopath and back again by the movie's end. Along the way he's complimented by solid performances from Joe Mantegna, Julia Stiles, Mena Suvari and Bokeem Woodbine. As if in a wink and nudge to his own work, Gordon even manages to insinuate longtime stalwart Jeffrey Combs into a small but telling scene during Edmond's descent into insanity.
By the time Edmond arrives at the end of that journey, however; at that place where he ought to be; I couldn't help but think he had merely wasted his life catching up to where his soul was long ago.
Edmond awakens to reality
jotix10020 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Edmond looks like a man that is not in touch with reality, when one first meet him. He is leaving the office and is told an appointment has been rescheduled for 1.15pm and it's handed a piece of paper with those numbers. The next thing he knows is he is standing in front of a fortune teller shop that has the same number on the door. As the cards are read, it appears Edmond is doomed. Those digits will prove fateful when he sees again that number 115.
Edmond Bruke is a man that has not dealt with reality for quite some time. After leaving his wife, he tries to assert himself with dismal results. He has no clue of what's going on in the seamy world of sex clubs. His reaction toward the price of drinks at the Allegro club, that was recommended to him by a man he has met before, shows an individual that has no clue as to what is going on. Edmond will try to bargain the price with other people he encounter, something strange from a man that one assumes has been a law abiding citizen all his life.
It's hard to realize that Edmond will be naive enough not to think the three card Monte players are just plain hoodlums, as they blatantly cheat him, then proceed to rob him and beat him. Edmond keeps going in his pursuit of getting sex in the wrong places, with the wrong people. His encounter with a hustler makes him snap out of his old self and assume a new, more aggressive personality. This proves fatal during his encounter with the sweet Glenna, a waitress who should have known better than to have anything to do with this loose cannon.
At the end, Edmond is caught in the same web he spun around him; he is reduced to being a victim once again because his black partner will make him rethink all his prejudices when he is rendered helpless against a formidable foe. Since no one will listen to him, he joins the list of the people he resented before. His ranting and raving about who he hated before is made useless by what he has to endure at the end.
Stuart Gordon, the director of "Edmond", has done an amazing job in bringing David Mamet's play to the screen. It's typical Mamet dialog, terse and to the point. The only thing about the main character is disbelief in the transformation this sad man undergoes right before our eyes. Edmond appears to be a victim of the same society in which he lived before oblivious to people other than himself and his circumstances. That comes into question as he decides to try his luck among people that are completely opposite of what he is. Edmond, in the end, has to pay for his own mistakes in ways that abase him and his manhood.
The obvious reason for watching this film is to catch a magnificent actor in action. William H. Macy has been associated with David Mamet for many years and it shows he is the man to translate that language for us. There is no false movements in his amazing performance. One cannot think another actor who could have done better justice to Edmond Burke the way Mr. Macy has. The other actor that comes close to perfection is Joe Mantegna, whose brief appearance in a pivotal role enhances the film. Both Mr. Mantegna and Mr. Macy are worth the admission price to the film. Bookem Woodbine, Julia Stiles, Debi Mazar, and the others in the cast do what they can, but they're overshadowed in their scenes with Mr. Macy.
The great jazzy musical score by Bobby Johnston plays well within the context of the film. Denis Maloney's inspired cinematography shows the streets of Los Angeles, that are supposed to be seen as Manhattan's shabby side, in all its tacky seediness. Stuart Gordon shows great affinity to the work of David Mamet as shown in the finished product.
Edmond Bruke is a man that has not dealt with reality for quite some time. After leaving his wife, he tries to assert himself with dismal results. He has no clue of what's going on in the seamy world of sex clubs. His reaction toward the price of drinks at the Allegro club, that was recommended to him by a man he has met before, shows an individual that has no clue as to what is going on. Edmond will try to bargain the price with other people he encounter, something strange from a man that one assumes has been a law abiding citizen all his life.
It's hard to realize that Edmond will be naive enough not to think the three card Monte players are just plain hoodlums, as they blatantly cheat him, then proceed to rob him and beat him. Edmond keeps going in his pursuit of getting sex in the wrong places, with the wrong people. His encounter with a hustler makes him snap out of his old self and assume a new, more aggressive personality. This proves fatal during his encounter with the sweet Glenna, a waitress who should have known better than to have anything to do with this loose cannon.
At the end, Edmond is caught in the same web he spun around him; he is reduced to being a victim once again because his black partner will make him rethink all his prejudices when he is rendered helpless against a formidable foe. Since no one will listen to him, he joins the list of the people he resented before. His ranting and raving about who he hated before is made useless by what he has to endure at the end.
Stuart Gordon, the director of "Edmond", has done an amazing job in bringing David Mamet's play to the screen. It's typical Mamet dialog, terse and to the point. The only thing about the main character is disbelief in the transformation this sad man undergoes right before our eyes. Edmond appears to be a victim of the same society in which he lived before oblivious to people other than himself and his circumstances. That comes into question as he decides to try his luck among people that are completely opposite of what he is. Edmond, in the end, has to pay for his own mistakes in ways that abase him and his manhood.
The obvious reason for watching this film is to catch a magnificent actor in action. William H. Macy has been associated with David Mamet for many years and it shows he is the man to translate that language for us. There is no false movements in his amazing performance. One cannot think another actor who could have done better justice to Edmond Burke the way Mr. Macy has. The other actor that comes close to perfection is Joe Mantegna, whose brief appearance in a pivotal role enhances the film. Both Mr. Mantegna and Mr. Macy are worth the admission price to the film. Bookem Woodbine, Julia Stiles, Debi Mazar, and the others in the cast do what they can, but they're overshadowed in their scenes with Mr. Macy.
The great jazzy musical score by Bobby Johnston plays well within the context of the film. Denis Maloney's inspired cinematography shows the streets of Los Angeles, that are supposed to be seen as Manhattan's shabby side, in all its tacky seediness. Stuart Gordon shows great affinity to the work of David Mamet as shown in the finished product.
No, that's too much
Edmond
jaredmobarak2 June 2007
We have here a night of debauchery, violence, anger, and hate which could only be delivered by David Mamet's lyrical prose and the horror background of director Stuart Gordon. Think Scorsese's After Hours, but dead serious and shrouded in pitch black darkness. Much like Mamet's Oleanna, also based on his own play, Edmond features a tour de force performance from lead actor and real life friend William H. Macy. His character awakens to the mundane existence he has been a part of for 47 years and decides to go on an adventure to live life in the moment. You have not seen a crisis of identity lead a man to the depths of the hell within himself like you do here.
Gordon shoots the film with a bit of an off-kilter unease, showing the audience how fragile each moment is. At any time Macy's Edmond could fall in lust, partake in bigoted conversation, get mugged, find God, and even kill. Macy delivers an emotional clinic as he falls deeper and deeper into insanity or maybe just plain indifference. He is the star of the show and is on screen every second of the film just trying to give wisdom and take some for himself, not realizing the crazed malice infused in his face as he spouts his philosophy. The film is definitely not for the weak of heart, and not because of any real overdoing of blood and nudity, but because of the script itself. Each character is a racist and bigot of some sort, exposing their prejudices with candor. Edmond is on a journey of acceptance for who he really is. Where that trail ends may be surprising and also fitting at the same time, but if nothing else, it is the place he has been searching for his entire life.
This is definitely Macy, Mamet, and Gordon's film, but it wouldn't be as successful as it is without an abundance of name actors in extremely small roles helping to keep the adventure going. Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon is great as always playing the wife Macy leaves; Mena Suvari and Julia Stiles are believable as two of the women he crosses paths with, both of whom are introduced as one thing but eventually allow their true colors to come through; and Joe Mantegna once again shows that he became an actor only to show the world how Mamet's words should be spoken. No one does it like Mantegna and no film penned by Mamet should be without him.
Edmond is a strangely intriguing film to experience. It is dialogue heavy and contains a strong lead turn from Macy. Everything that transpires does so as a result of what he has experienced beforehand. Macy would not end up where he does if all that happened this night of self-reflection did not occur in exactly the order that it does. Straight from the note his secretary gives him at the beginning, to the tarot reading soon after, the planets aligned and fate led him to his salvation/destruction. There are moments in which the story grinds to a bit of halt and takes a little to get back on track, but overall the experience is one not to be shaken easily from your consciousness.
Gordon shoots the film with a bit of an off-kilter unease, showing the audience how fragile each moment is. At any time Macy's Edmond could fall in lust, partake in bigoted conversation, get mugged, find God, and even kill. Macy delivers an emotional clinic as he falls deeper and deeper into insanity or maybe just plain indifference. He is the star of the show and is on screen every second of the film just trying to give wisdom and take some for himself, not realizing the crazed malice infused in his face as he spouts his philosophy. The film is definitely not for the weak of heart, and not because of any real overdoing of blood and nudity, but because of the script itself. Each character is a racist and bigot of some sort, exposing their prejudices with candor. Edmond is on a journey of acceptance for who he really is. Where that trail ends may be surprising and also fitting at the same time, but if nothing else, it is the place he has been searching for his entire life.
This is definitely Macy, Mamet, and Gordon's film, but it wouldn't be as successful as it is without an abundance of name actors in extremely small roles helping to keep the adventure going. Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon is great as always playing the wife Macy leaves; Mena Suvari and Julia Stiles are believable as two of the women he crosses paths with, both of whom are introduced as one thing but eventually allow their true colors to come through; and Joe Mantegna once again shows that he became an actor only to show the world how Mamet's words should be spoken. No one does it like Mantegna and no film penned by Mamet should be without him.
Edmond is a strangely intriguing film to experience. It is dialogue heavy and contains a strong lead turn from Macy. Everything that transpires does so as a result of what he has experienced beforehand. Macy would not end up where he does if all that happened this night of self-reflection did not occur in exactly the order that it does. Straight from the note his secretary gives him at the beginning, to the tarot reading soon after, the planets aligned and fate led him to his salvation/destruction. There are moments in which the story grinds to a bit of halt and takes a little to get back on track, but overall the experience is one not to be shaken easily from your consciousness.
a hardboiled, sharp-edged, loud-mouthed catharsis
samseescinema21 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Edmond
reviewed by Sam Osborn
rating: 3.5 out of 4
Edmond is a hardboiled, sharp-edged, loud-mouthed catharsis. Pure, unabashed emotion spilled onto the screen. It's daring, provocative, and beautifully offensive. It's as if screenwriter David Mamet vomited the words onto the pages, expulsing them from his heart and guts in a gushing release.
Many wonder why Mamet himself, being a highly respected rated-R filmmaker, didn't direct his own work. Edmond's director, Stuart Gordon, stated that it was because the film would probably strike too close to home for him. Mamet wrote the screenplay immediately after breaking up with his wife in New York City. The actions seen in Edmond are clearly the manifestations of the rush of emotions he felt at that time in his life. But as all skilled writers do, he expands the personal experience into a universal experience. The extreme feelings he releases are felt by every member of the audience open-minded enough to see past their vulgarity. Many people deal with the same controversial thoughts as Edmond does (racism, bigotry, homophobia, chauvinism), but are too timid to voice them. Like Chuck Palaniuk's Fight Club, Edmond explores a kind of masculine catharsis. And like Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, his repression eventually leads to explosive violence.
The film begins with Edmond Burke's (William H. Macy) split with his wife. Getting up from bed he announces he's leaving. Not just for the night, but for good. At first not taking the news seriously, Edmond's wife plays along as if it was a joke. But Edmond insists that, yes, he's really leaving her for good. Exploding, his wife bounces around the room in a shocked rage, announcing that, no, he's not leaving her, but she's leaving him. And he's not welcome to come home. Of course, that's fine with Edmond because, in his words, he's been bored with his wife for a few years now.
He then begins his night on the streets of New York City, first meeting with a man at a bar (Joe Mantegna), who essentially has the lifestyle Edmond's looking to lead: something with girls, power, and money, and he supposes that's all. And so upon leaving the bar, Edmond sets out to settle the first part of his new life: girls. Prowling the night clubs, strip joints, and "masseuse" parlors, Edmond takes a businessman's approach to it, negotiating each financial commitment to the women.
From there, it'd be unfair to reveal Edmond's moves. It's too little to call it a downward spiral, a description that reminds me of something you'd see on the Lifetime Channel. No, Edmond's night leads to much larger happenings; some problematic and some eye-opening. But with each step he takes, there's a twinkle of imagination going off in the back of our minds saying, "do you think the film will actually make him do that?" And unlike other films that, no, wouldn't take their character that far into oblivion, Stuart Gordon seems to have no problem doing so. Each step is exponentially farther than the last, leading somewhere that we initially don't expect, but later realize to be entirely right and satisfying.
Along with the screenplay and directing, some incredibly daring acting work is featured in Edmond. William H. Macy, as we've come to expect, steals the show. Instead of relying solely on his sad-dog face he's so irritatingly known for, Macy takes this performance through a dizzying range of emotions. Julia Stiles makes an appearance in one of the finest and most shocking performances in the film. Also, Joe Mantegna as the man in the bar does well as the pivotal spark to Edmond's catharsis. Every actor actually deserves mention for daring to work on this highly controversial film. That also goes for the producers. Stuart Gordon said before the screening that "one of the biggest laughs in the film is when the credit for all the production companies comes up." The list is so long it really does evoke laughter.
reviewed by Sam Osborn
rating: 3.5 out of 4
Edmond is a hardboiled, sharp-edged, loud-mouthed catharsis. Pure, unabashed emotion spilled onto the screen. It's daring, provocative, and beautifully offensive. It's as if screenwriter David Mamet vomited the words onto the pages, expulsing them from his heart and guts in a gushing release.
Many wonder why Mamet himself, being a highly respected rated-R filmmaker, didn't direct his own work. Edmond's director, Stuart Gordon, stated that it was because the film would probably strike too close to home for him. Mamet wrote the screenplay immediately after breaking up with his wife in New York City. The actions seen in Edmond are clearly the manifestations of the rush of emotions he felt at that time in his life. But as all skilled writers do, he expands the personal experience into a universal experience. The extreme feelings he releases are felt by every member of the audience open-minded enough to see past their vulgarity. Many people deal with the same controversial thoughts as Edmond does (racism, bigotry, homophobia, chauvinism), but are too timid to voice them. Like Chuck Palaniuk's Fight Club, Edmond explores a kind of masculine catharsis. And like Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, his repression eventually leads to explosive violence.
The film begins with Edmond Burke's (William H. Macy) split with his wife. Getting up from bed he announces he's leaving. Not just for the night, but for good. At first not taking the news seriously, Edmond's wife plays along as if it was a joke. But Edmond insists that, yes, he's really leaving her for good. Exploding, his wife bounces around the room in a shocked rage, announcing that, no, he's not leaving her, but she's leaving him. And he's not welcome to come home. Of course, that's fine with Edmond because, in his words, he's been bored with his wife for a few years now.
He then begins his night on the streets of New York City, first meeting with a man at a bar (Joe Mantegna), who essentially has the lifestyle Edmond's looking to lead: something with girls, power, and money, and he supposes that's all. And so upon leaving the bar, Edmond sets out to settle the first part of his new life: girls. Prowling the night clubs, strip joints, and "masseuse" parlors, Edmond takes a businessman's approach to it, negotiating each financial commitment to the women.
From there, it'd be unfair to reveal Edmond's moves. It's too little to call it a downward spiral, a description that reminds me of something you'd see on the Lifetime Channel. No, Edmond's night leads to much larger happenings; some problematic and some eye-opening. But with each step he takes, there's a twinkle of imagination going off in the back of our minds saying, "do you think the film will actually make him do that?" And unlike other films that, no, wouldn't take their character that far into oblivion, Stuart Gordon seems to have no problem doing so. Each step is exponentially farther than the last, leading somewhere that we initially don't expect, but later realize to be entirely right and satisfying.
Along with the screenplay and directing, some incredibly daring acting work is featured in Edmond. William H. Macy, as we've come to expect, steals the show. Instead of relying solely on his sad-dog face he's so irritatingly known for, Macy takes this performance through a dizzying range of emotions. Julia Stiles makes an appearance in one of the finest and most shocking performances in the film. Also, Joe Mantegna as the man in the bar does well as the pivotal spark to Edmond's catharsis. Every actor actually deserves mention for daring to work on this highly controversial film. That also goes for the producers. Stuart Gordon said before the screening that "one of the biggest laughs in the film is when the credit for all the production companies comes up." The list is so long it really does evoke laughter.
an uncomfortable time to spend in a downward spiral, but hard to look away
Quinoa198422 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It's tempting to just give all of the credit (or all of the blame, or both) to David Mamet for this adaptation of his play about a regular businessman in a complete downward spiral in one night, Edmond. And why not? He wrote the screenplay, too, and nearly every scene where characters speak, even the ones that seem perfunctory like with the peep-show hooker, screams the voice of the man. And oddly enough, from what I've heard about the play (not seen or read by me) is that it's actually not one of his best, or not at the maturity that one saw in his best bilious and wordy-ranty work like Glengarry Glen Ross. But one must not also forget that it's a Stuart Gordon film too, and it bears some of his signatures as well, whatever those may be.
Perhaps one of those is a harrowing and truly dark view of people, of not just the main character but the supporting players Edmund meets on his journey into a (self-imposed) Dante circle. At the least, to give Gordon his due, it doesn't always come off like a stage play. That is because of its various locations (think Falling Down meets After Hours set in Mamet and Gordons' home turf of Chicago), and its in-and-out characters, and its fine camera-work, that it's not stagey... for at least most of the time. And another thing Gordon is good at, which one finds out surprisingly enough of all places on the DVD documentary for Re-Animator, is getting really good work from actors via rehearsal. For this material, I think you'd have to, if nothing else to get the beats of Mamet right. For what it's worth, Edmund is a well directed film, never fussy and moving at a brisk pace for 82 minutes.
But then why the gripe? Why then should a movie not totally work when it's got William H. Macy almost outdoing the everyman-going-nuts saga of Michael Douglas in Falling Down- possibly Macy going so deliciously but sadly off the edge that his Jerry from Fargo looks well-composed by comparison- and the great scenes he has with walk-on players Julia Stiles and Joe Montegna and (yes, wow) Mena Suvari? Well, sadly, most of this can be put on Mamet, and his tendency to overwrite scenes or, particularly when Edmund is in jail, to keep talking past the point of something being grounded in reality for the character to leap off into rant-mode about the state of fear and death and human existence. Maybe Gordon could be at fault for not cutting it as well, or being so precious with Mamet's words (albeit they're more than likely good theater friends).
Edmund is precisely bleak and scary and a view of people that doesn't sugar-coat things. There's a moment in the scene between Edmund and the waitress he picks up in the bedroom that is quite amazing where we see that she isn't entirely a sympathetic victim and until a certain point in the conversation the two could get along well as bigoted and jaded viewers of society. Maybe that's the point of Mamet's story and the film, that there's some ills in society and people should (or in some cases should definitely not) take a harder look. If only it all gelled together without the pretension and the weak ending.
Perhaps one of those is a harrowing and truly dark view of people, of not just the main character but the supporting players Edmund meets on his journey into a (self-imposed) Dante circle. At the least, to give Gordon his due, it doesn't always come off like a stage play. That is because of its various locations (think Falling Down meets After Hours set in Mamet and Gordons' home turf of Chicago), and its in-and-out characters, and its fine camera-work, that it's not stagey... for at least most of the time. And another thing Gordon is good at, which one finds out surprisingly enough of all places on the DVD documentary for Re-Animator, is getting really good work from actors via rehearsal. For this material, I think you'd have to, if nothing else to get the beats of Mamet right. For what it's worth, Edmund is a well directed film, never fussy and moving at a brisk pace for 82 minutes.
But then why the gripe? Why then should a movie not totally work when it's got William H. Macy almost outdoing the everyman-going-nuts saga of Michael Douglas in Falling Down- possibly Macy going so deliciously but sadly off the edge that his Jerry from Fargo looks well-composed by comparison- and the great scenes he has with walk-on players Julia Stiles and Joe Montegna and (yes, wow) Mena Suvari? Well, sadly, most of this can be put on Mamet, and his tendency to overwrite scenes or, particularly when Edmund is in jail, to keep talking past the point of something being grounded in reality for the character to leap off into rant-mode about the state of fear and death and human existence. Maybe Gordon could be at fault for not cutting it as well, or being so precious with Mamet's words (albeit they're more than likely good theater friends).
Edmund is precisely bleak and scary and a view of people that doesn't sugar-coat things. There's a moment in the scene between Edmund and the waitress he picks up in the bedroom that is quite amazing where we see that she isn't entirely a sympathetic victim and until a certain point in the conversation the two could get along well as bigoted and jaded viewers of society. Maybe that's the point of Mamet's story and the film, that there's some ills in society and people should (or in some cases should definitely not) take a harder look. If only it all gelled together without the pretension and the weak ending.
It's the politically incorrect version of "Crash".
shaaronie20 December 2006
This movie makes most people uncomfortable. It's not an easy movie to watch. Its like watching a gruesome accident but not being able to stop. Edmond is a middle age man going through a crisis. His life is meaningless and boring but he is content to plod along until a series of chance encounters leads him to the decision that he must leave his life, including his wife behind. Having hidden his true nature all of his life, he suddenly releases his pent up frustrations and in doing so, takes himself down a path, not of redemption but one of degradation. He is searching for something or someone to fill a void in his life and with his new purpose of self, he becomes in fact dangerous. The transformation of Edmond from mild mannered and dutiful citizen to an angry, rebellious zealot is fascinating. I immediately went out to buy this movie after purchasing it from Redbox. I am not surprised that this movie was never released widespread. It would surely have caused a huge ruckus in our politically correct society. I know I am being vague. But if you want to watch a movie that is totally different from the standard fare, then see this movie. The big surprise at the end is the actor Bokine Woodbine, who plays a significant but very small role, that puts a fitting end to this thoroughly entertaining, disturbing and engrossing movie. William H. Macy, is superb, and who knew that he actually has a great body for a man his age.
A Descent into Hell That Combines Elements of "Falling Done" and "Taxi Driver"
zardoz-137 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Prepare to be unnerved and racked to the very fabric of your soul. "Re-Animator" director Stuart Gordon has helmed a powerful, provocative film entitled "Edmond" with William H. Macy, Denise Richards, Julia Stiles, and a line-up of other familiar faces. The title character is a 47-year old white businessman that has a nervous breakdown and embarks on the odyssey of a lifetime. He abandons his wife because after they argue about an antique lamp being broken because he claims that she no longer turns him on either spiritually or sexually and he descends into a Dantesque inferno of whores, pimps, pawnbrokers, thieves, and murderers. Imagine the vintage Michael Douglas movie "Falling Down" crossed with the Robert DeNiro thriller "Taxi Driver," and you'll have an idea, but what "Edmond" delivers in its mere 82 minutes will blow your mind. The issue of racism gets batted about like a tennis ball until you wonder if under all of the leading character's racist statements that he really loves African-Americans and is a closet homosexual.
When the movie starts, Edmond (William H. Macy of "Sahara")learns that his boss has rescheduled a meeting with him after the weekend on Monday at 1:15 PM. As Edmond heads home, he passes a storefront business whose address matches the time of his future appointment with his boss and enters on a whim. A wizened, gray-haired, old woman (Frances Bay) reads Tarot cards and advises him the he "does not belong." Consequently, after he eats diner at home, Edmond abandonws his sexy wife (Rebecca Pigdeon of "Heist") and heads off for a drink at a bar. Everything that can go wrong for Edmond does, and he endures a 180 change of character. The profundity, violence, racism, and philosophizing is top drawer stuff courtesy of Chicago playwright David Mamet who wrote "The Untouchables" as well as the CBS-TV series "The Unit." Believe me, you've never see the likes of "Edmond." This is NOT a mainstream movie, and it is often quite offensive because it peels back layers and layers of hate and hypocrisy. One thing that "Edmond" is not is predictable and formulaic. Director Stuart Gordon usually specializes in colorful, over-the-top, low budget horror schlock, but "Edmond" is a movie where performances are special effects. The dialogue is typically Mamet with its poetic repetition that might drive some people up the wall. "Edmond" is guaranteed to make you forget any movie that you saw before "Edmond" and it will make most movies after you see "Edmond" seem like Diet Coke for the mindless. I got my copy from Movie Gallery in Aberdeen for three bucks. Wow, was it worth it. I cannot recommend it highly enough, but at the same time, it is for people who don't travel in the Hollywood rut.
When the movie starts, Edmond (William H. Macy of "Sahara")learns that his boss has rescheduled a meeting with him after the weekend on Monday at 1:15 PM. As Edmond heads home, he passes a storefront business whose address matches the time of his future appointment with his boss and enters on a whim. A wizened, gray-haired, old woman (Frances Bay) reads Tarot cards and advises him the he "does not belong." Consequently, after he eats diner at home, Edmond abandonws his sexy wife (Rebecca Pigdeon of "Heist") and heads off for a drink at a bar. Everything that can go wrong for Edmond does, and he endures a 180 change of character. The profundity, violence, racism, and philosophizing is top drawer stuff courtesy of Chicago playwright David Mamet who wrote "The Untouchables" as well as the CBS-TV series "The Unit." Believe me, you've never see the likes of "Edmond." This is NOT a mainstream movie, and it is often quite offensive because it peels back layers and layers of hate and hypocrisy. One thing that "Edmond" is not is predictable and formulaic. Director Stuart Gordon usually specializes in colorful, over-the-top, low budget horror schlock, but "Edmond" is a movie where performances are special effects. The dialogue is typically Mamet with its poetic repetition that might drive some people up the wall. "Edmond" is guaranteed to make you forget any movie that you saw before "Edmond" and it will make most movies after you see "Edmond" seem like Diet Coke for the mindless. I got my copy from Movie Gallery in Aberdeen for three bucks. Wow, was it worth it. I cannot recommend it highly enough, but at the same time, it is for people who don't travel in the Hollywood rut.
Stuart Gordon's most potent horror film is very violent and honest
fertilecelluloid12 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Stuart Gordon was a shrewd choice to direct David Mamet's twenty year old stage play because what we're dealing with here is pure fear and thick dread. In other words -- horror. William H. Macy is "Edmond", a man who comes to the conclusion that his life has been a terrible waste and it's time he did something about it. What he does is extreme, funny, bloody, very violent, and honest. Some scenes in this little number left the audience stunned. The language is deliberately salty and provocative and the dialog, typical of Mamet, is to the point and beautifully delivered by a very strong cast. There are elements of "Taxi Driver", "God's Lonely Man", "I Stand Alone" and Scorsese's "After Hours". Though penned two decades ago, the film is more relevant today than it was then, and in a city such as Los Angeles, where I just caught it and it was shot, it has a frightening resonance because though the population here is close to fourteen million, it is one of the loneliest, most disconnected places on Earth. Certainly Stuart Gordon's most potent horror film yet and a courageous, cold slice of harsh reality (something like being slammed in the face with a bloody fist) Highly recommended.
Provocotive though at times detached
oneloveall22 September 2006
Interesting, if not altogether captivating slice o' night and consequences of one Edmond Burke; a man who is driven to the edge, and all areas after, following his decision to essentially walk away from everything due to feeling unfulfilled in life. Working from this always relate-able premise, Mamet crafts a more intelligent, more realistic version of last decade's controversial but safe Falling Down, and in turn offers some of the year's best societal release. Problems arise however when the actions slow down and the talking speeds up, where monologues and even back and forth dialogs seem to be coming from the writer's mouth instead of the characters. This all goes south in the second half, where Macy's sermonizing kills some of the script's authenticity and integrity, due to the long-winded, self righteous, and ultimately distracting and uninvolved nature of his lines. For a film that approaches a gritty New York night with style and ease, with a scriptwriter as esteemed and knowledgeable as David Mamet, it was a shame to see some of the later scenes become a pulpit for Mr. Mamet to talk through instead of more subtle suggestion, but it is still far from making this movie avoidable. With some of William H Macy's most powerful work, Edmond is still a triumph of a character based thriller, leaving me satisfied with it's profound conclusion.
A fascinating journey of a man masterfully directed
hofzinser19 March 2006
Who says Stuart Gordon is just a horror movie director? He's a true filmmaker and here, working with the screenplay by David Mamet (adapted from his play) proves that. William H. Macy again shows how good he is as the title character, a guy who blows a fuse and looks for his place in the world wandering the city streets at night. Gordon, Mamet and Macy (along with all the cast made of famous actors) tell a tale in just 76 min. filled with thoughtful moments and great monologues. This is a true movie that leaves the spectator thinking about his own life and his conformism. "Edmond" follows this guy and what he says is so crazy but consistent in his own terms that makes you wonder about a lot of things. You won't believe all the actors that are here, no more than one scene each, especially Julia Stiles, a truly gifted actress with a soothing voice and deep composition.
"Falling Down" for the thinker
lynchallands14 October 2006
This movie is similar to "Falling Down" in its plot, and "Crash' in the way it deals with lives spinning our of control because of racism and other intolerance, but I thought it was far more believable and had a more satisfying end than both. I have watched "Edmond" three times over the last two days (it only goes for 74 minutes) and I was very happy to have hired the DVD rather than to have seen it at the Cinema as I was able to go back and watch the scenes that did not sink in as profoundly the first time round. The first time I watched it alone and found I missed a lot of important dialog and imagery that was crucial to the story because I was thinking about the previous scene...so when the end hit me, I found my head was spinning and I couldn't believe what I was seeing and thought I must have missed something. Wasn't this man a homophobic, racist, bigoted, atheist?...So i watched it again and saw that I had (my fault not the films)in fact missed some crucial but minute facts. So, the second time I was able to fully get my teeth into it and because I knew the outcome I could concentrate on the brilliant, realistic performances of the actors and direction without thinking about what had just happened or worrying about what would happen next. No one could fail to notice the extreme brilliance of William Macy. I knew he was an amazing actor but I think this is better than some of the best academy winning performances that I have ever seen and I cant believe it was overlooked by the academy! Also Julia Stiles performance was fascinating...Even though Stiles role is only short it is the turning point of the film. Macy goes from a mild mannered, suburban business man, in what he feels is suddenly a monotonous, loveless, one sided marriage, living a very white, middle-classed existence to a manic, explosive, violent, bigoted, homophobic, 'grass must be greener on the other side', racist before you know whats hit you. Even when he smiles it is in the most inappropriate places. Also, watching Stiles the second time I realized that she wasn't just a silly, wanna be actress trying to be cool and politically incorrect, but a person who was deeply struggling with the fact that the stranger she has stupidly and casually brought home with her may well end her life...So, what does she do? Go against him or agree with him? Does she say what he wants to hear or stay true to herself? You will not be able to take you eyes of the rawness and brutality of this scene for one second. The third time I watched it with my husband, who was as blown away with it as I was, but I found myself pointing out stuff to him so he wouldn't have to watch it twice to get it as I did...although, I realized everyone gets something different out of a film, so I was wrong to do so, and so I wont do that here either or it may spoil your own experience. Watch this film with an open mind. I know this parallel, seedy, underbelly of life does exist, so far removed from my sheltered, secure, tolerant, safe world, made up of the downtrodden, abused, rejected, masses who don't know how else to act as they have never known love, safety or security (and sadly, probably never will). As well as the actors performances themselves, I take my hat off to the brilliant direction and music of this wonderful film adaption of an equally wonderful play. It is like a book you cant put down...you just have to watch it to the end without distraction. I believe these are the roles actors wait for all of their lives and will happily do for nothing.
Gordon's a genius
luc_oli_wood25 July 2006
I saw that movie as a Canadian premiere at Fantasia film festival and and I was fascinated. Stuart Gordon is not a legendary filmmaker without a good reason. Once again, he showed us his "savoir-faire" and his talent. David Mamet's screenplay is profound and psychologically complex. It's a kick in the ass for the American culture that must be seen, especially with the subject treated. What major studios refused to push forward, Mamet and Gordon doesn't give a sh** to show it. You don't like it, fine. But please, don't say that it's a movie to avoid. If it's the case, there is something you didn't understand... As Gordon says, William H. Macy is the Fred Astaire of acting. He's sincere and astonishing as the rest of the cast. In fact,I have no bad comments on this movie
The madhouse of man's neuroses
Jonny_Numb12 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Edmond," by default, is going to earn comparisons (both positive and negative) to such 'white-guys-at-war-with-the-world' films as "Taxi Driver," "Falling Down," and possibly "Death Wish." As directed by Stuart Gordon (most renowned for his H.P. Lovecraft adaptations), the film is very detached from reality--yet this very detachment is what gives the film its oppressive verisimilitude. David Mamet's bruising script (based on his play) is simultaneously deranged and realistic.
As we observe the characters and the ways they interact, and the way some simply fall out of the film after only a minute or so (Jeffrey Combs' flamboyant flophouse manager; Denise Richards' pushy stripper), we realize that the urban world of "Edmond" is a vacuum, laying out the best and worst for our beleaguered 'hero,' and leaving his decisions to fate alone.
On the strength of an omen, Edmond Burke (William H. Macy) gets his fortune told, with the teller concluding that he's not where he belongs. Taking this prophecy as truth, he quickly walks out on his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon) and enters into an urban landscape of crooked card-dealers, murderous pimps, an unlikely sympathizer (Joe Mantegna, who gives a brief yet compelling speech early on that frames the remainder of the film), strip clubs, high-priced hookers ("It's too much," is Edmond's pathetic refrain), and a beacon of hope coming in the form of pure-looking waitress Glenna (a very impressive Julia Stiles).
The irony of Edmond is his white-bread cluelessness in the seedy underbelly of society--there should be something humorous about his attempts to integrate himself into decadence, but Gordon's direction holds any potential comedy at bay. Macy is absolutely brilliant in the role of an upper-class whom we meet as a Tabula Rasa, eventually filled in by his chance encounters (Mantengna's opinions eventually come to reflect his own). When he is vilified by the one person he truly thought understood his position, his sudden savagery comes out of nowhere, but is entirely believable within "Edmond"'s twisted alternate universe.
David Mamet's sharp script has a down-to-earth distinction that fits well with Gordon's interpretation of a world that borders on a bad dream. An uneasiness stirred in my stomach as I watched "Edmond," not out of any physical objection, but the way in which the film steers (sometimes stagey) dramatics into a whole new hybrid of 'horror,' something the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remakes could only dream of achieving.
7.5 out of 10
As we observe the characters and the ways they interact, and the way some simply fall out of the film after only a minute or so (Jeffrey Combs' flamboyant flophouse manager; Denise Richards' pushy stripper), we realize that the urban world of "Edmond" is a vacuum, laying out the best and worst for our beleaguered 'hero,' and leaving his decisions to fate alone.
On the strength of an omen, Edmond Burke (William H. Macy) gets his fortune told, with the teller concluding that he's not where he belongs. Taking this prophecy as truth, he quickly walks out on his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon) and enters into an urban landscape of crooked card-dealers, murderous pimps, an unlikely sympathizer (Joe Mantegna, who gives a brief yet compelling speech early on that frames the remainder of the film), strip clubs, high-priced hookers ("It's too much," is Edmond's pathetic refrain), and a beacon of hope coming in the form of pure-looking waitress Glenna (a very impressive Julia Stiles).
The irony of Edmond is his white-bread cluelessness in the seedy underbelly of society--there should be something humorous about his attempts to integrate himself into decadence, but Gordon's direction holds any potential comedy at bay. Macy is absolutely brilliant in the role of an upper-class whom we meet as a Tabula Rasa, eventually filled in by his chance encounters (Mantengna's opinions eventually come to reflect his own). When he is vilified by the one person he truly thought understood his position, his sudden savagery comes out of nowhere, but is entirely believable within "Edmond"'s twisted alternate universe.
David Mamet's sharp script has a down-to-earth distinction that fits well with Gordon's interpretation of a world that borders on a bad dream. An uneasiness stirred in my stomach as I watched "Edmond," not out of any physical objection, but the way in which the film steers (sometimes stagey) dramatics into a whole new hybrid of 'horror,' something the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remakes could only dream of achieving.
7.5 out of 10
Macy gives a "Tour de Force"
jaydezspot15 July 2006
William H. Macy is nothing short of spectacular in this film, as was every other actor that graced the screen. The performances were a real credit to both the actor's creativity and the masterful direction of Stuart Gordon. Not to mention a pretty interesting, yet, twisted script by Mamet. This is a film that very easily could've fallen apart, being an adaptation of a stage play and all, yet Stuart Gordon weaves it all together masterfully, with yet the smallest and finest of threads. Mamet is not an easy guy to do. However, the entire cast and crew associated with "Edmond" all do it masterfully.
NYC Filmmaker
NYC Filmmaker
Potent and affecting
christopher-underwood19 February 2008
Yes, as others have said, Taxi Driver, Falling Down and Crash all come to mind, but this devilish little number is one big, awkward, mind numbing, son of a bitch to get out of your head. I was reeling as I watched William H Macy's character self destruct before my eyes and I was still reeling the next morning. Potent and affecting, this is a magnificent piece of writing from Mamet and amazingly well directed by Stuart Gordon, who manages to extract miraculous performances from everybody. If the central character seems a little naïve at first we are very quickly brought to heel and thrashed about with the sexist and racist outpourings as we stare, agape at a terrifying and extremely violent disintegration before our very eyes. Ten out of ten, of course, because it is a perfect film. Perfectly terrible, but perfect all the same. I think it is what the much over used word 'awesome' is really suited to.
For better or worse, pure Mamet
deadbull-9517115 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Mamet is such a distinctive writer. His dialogues have a strange stilted repetitive stagey cadence that stand alone. Movies become theatric exercises.
People sound like they are reading off cards.
Macy and Montegna are always there, much like Scorsese uses his troop constantly. These plays are always very earthy and are always about people involved in cons or conning themselves. Yet the earthiness is always twilight-zone off somehow, as though we are in a special zoo designed for humans on a different planet, a theme I have seen covered in several other movies.
The actors are here but they aren't here at all in their heads. The off center ideation and skewed plotlines, enhanced by the stilted dialogues, create this effect.
Edmond is another tone piece. A frustrated man dumps his wife and heads out into the city with nowhere to go, and gets sucked more deeply into a violent nothingness. It concludes with the stated speechy idea that our fears conceal our deepest wishes, what we fear is what we devoutly want, that perhaps animals are the alien godlike guardians sent here to protect us, and before crawling into bed with his prison other-race omni-sexual bunkmate, who threatened to kill him on first meeting, they now exchange a tender goodnight kiss.
This will remind some of you of After Hours, Scorcese's odd 1985 film. Or maybe Rosenfield's Twenty Bucks, based on a film from the 30's I forget the name of.
It's surprising lack of predictability is an asset, and if you are into the Mamet, Macy, Mantegna thing, you've got your cup of tea. Bokeem Woodbine brings an interesting presence to this creation.
I always check out Mamet stuff because I think he's brilliant, a sort of modern Franz Kafka. Glengarry is my favorite. This may be his most derivative movie, but possibly also his strangest.
People sound like they are reading off cards.
Macy and Montegna are always there, much like Scorsese uses his troop constantly. These plays are always very earthy and are always about people involved in cons or conning themselves. Yet the earthiness is always twilight-zone off somehow, as though we are in a special zoo designed for humans on a different planet, a theme I have seen covered in several other movies.
The actors are here but they aren't here at all in their heads. The off center ideation and skewed plotlines, enhanced by the stilted dialogues, create this effect.
Edmond is another tone piece. A frustrated man dumps his wife and heads out into the city with nowhere to go, and gets sucked more deeply into a violent nothingness. It concludes with the stated speechy idea that our fears conceal our deepest wishes, what we fear is what we devoutly want, that perhaps animals are the alien godlike guardians sent here to protect us, and before crawling into bed with his prison other-race omni-sexual bunkmate, who threatened to kill him on first meeting, they now exchange a tender goodnight kiss.
This will remind some of you of After Hours, Scorcese's odd 1985 film. Or maybe Rosenfield's Twenty Bucks, based on a film from the 30's I forget the name of.
It's surprising lack of predictability is an asset, and if you are into the Mamet, Macy, Mantegna thing, you've got your cup of tea. Bokeem Woodbine brings an interesting presence to this creation.
I always check out Mamet stuff because I think he's brilliant, a sort of modern Franz Kafka. Glengarry is my favorite. This may be his most derivative movie, but possibly also his strangest.
Disturbingly good, irritatingly true!
ceyleno14 November 2006
Its a great movie. So exciting! Usually cruel in telling the truth. It gets you in, ties your arms and legs, and at the end, hits you real hard. There is good quality black humor served as rare cooked conversations. Important little details and the declaration of looserness inside the movie is amazing. But of course the casting has a lot to do with it. The general flow of the events and conversations are about life, its dynamics, relationships and social tendencies. But what the movie is really all about, you find it out at the end.
Definitely worth watching. But not with kids around; not when you are in a negative mood neither. :)
Definitely worth watching. But not with kids around; not when you are in a negative mood neither. :)
The Angry White Man
nycritic21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Urban horror or David Mamet's unique vision of New York City from the point of view of one hapless white man named Edmond? I'm not sure, but you have to be rather sorry for this man who is clueless about his surroundings and inexorably marching to his own doom (or bliss, judging by where he winds up). It's as if somehow, some vital piece that would make Edmond a functional part of society had ceased to exist. Edmond (William H. Macy) allows a cryptic number (115) and a reading by a psychic (played by Frances Bay in her usual creepy old lady mode) take over and drive him to suddenly leave his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon), seek enjoyment in gentleman clubs and sleazy peep shows, where he gets conned again and again by the women whom he encounters (Denise Richards, Mena Suvari, and Bai Ling), have increasingly violent encounters with street thugs and finally lose it when a waitress (Julia Stiles) fails to acknowledge his crazy demands. Some of the things that happen to him seem contrived to excessive lengths. Where a rich man like Edmond would penny pinch for ten dollars a hooker owes him, or be unable to negotiate money with another is beyond plausibility, but it happens here like this sort of thing happens on a daily basis to quite a bit of upper crust white men who live in snazzy penthouse apartments in Manhattan. Harder to imagine is why Julia Stiles would on the spur of the moment agree to leave her job and bring this clearly crazy man to her apartment and fail to see just how deeply insane he is. Even if he had looked like Daniel Craig, I can't see this man being a believable character one second. David Mamet is obviously a great playwright but this is a very dated play that belongs in a New York closer to the late Seventies where it wouldn't be out of place. And even then, the joke is squarely aimed at poor Edmond -- he can't have a normal relationship with a woman. The only relationship he acquiesces to is that with another man (Bokeem Woodbine) -- a black inmate, for that matter, as an irony of ironies (since for the most of EDMOND he's been attacking blacks and gays alike). That the last scene has reduced both men to frills and sewing and discussing karma and why we are here and what does all this mean is the final emasculating thing that could happen to any man, but this is exactly what happens in EDMOND. Happy ending? I'd say David Mamet must have read something from Jean Genet and decided to take the most indirect approach to the subject.
Disturbing but great
searchanddestroy-119 July 2022
Not for all audiences anway and an unforgettable role for William Macy, for me the new Elisha Cook Jr Yes, William Macy makes me think about Elisha Cook Jr. I don't know why... So about this feature, it is a so terrific, moving, character analysis and so realistic too. This kind if situations hapen every day and no one talks about them. Surprisingly good from a horror film director, who will give us KING OF THE ANTS. This one, I don't know KING, is written by David Mamet, I guess this explains that. The quality of screen writing I mean. Yes, it is disturbing and very unusual to show such a character in such situations. I warn you, but be brave and try it.
Misfire
mockturtle17 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Written in Chicago, set in New York, filmed in LA; written in the early 80's about a man seemingly out of the 1950's and now set in the present day. You'd think the director of "Reanimator" would be ideal for this Frankenstein but instead it's all abby-normal parts that aren't alive.
There are few surprises: Macy simmers, Mantegna is a better actor of Mamet than he is of anything else, Julia Stiles and Denise Richards can't act at all, Bai Ling is gloriously crazy, Rebecca Pigeon wouldn't have a career if she wasn't married to David Mamet (sorry, but it's true), Dule Hill isn't tough, George Wendt looks funny when you put him in a funny wig and give him an accent. There are cheesy slo-mo's, lame jump cuts, 80's music in the background, toughs out of central casting, three-card Monte (!), wide variances in price for proffered services, references to West 79th Street and 14th street while exteriors read "Western Avenue" in Los Angeles, the strip of souvenir shops around Hollywood Boulevard near Little Armenia and an exterior of the Seventh Veil strip club on Sunset near La Brea (also seen in the credit sequence of "Entourage"), and then the number of the escort service is an 847, meaning the north suburbs of Chicago (too far away for it to have been even in the original play, 773 is at least 15 minutes by car, 847 is a long winding 30-45). Perhaps the movie should have been moved back to the 50's where Edmond's utter cluelessness about three-card Monte and ATM machines might be believable, or back where sex was treated like the shocking taboo it is here, or back where casual racism wouldn't have been commented upon, here it is all too much and breaks under the strain of its own incredibility. In a New York where dinner at a restaurant with a bottle of wine runs $100, the prices in this movie are ludicrously low.
The film's climax and nadir are concurrent: the scene between Julia Stiles and Macy. In a rare miscalculation Macy is too manic to be charismatic throughout, overplaying his hand (you see people do this when they're playing Jerry in "The Zoo Story" a lot, they shuffle on drooling and Peter would be out of there before the play had a chance to start). The actress is a complete cipher, so you don't get a feeling that she is mistaking his mania for liberation, and it makes her feel free to declare her own prejudices; she doesn't seem thrilled by the release from convention in his fictional account of the murder of a would-be mugger, instead she just feels dull and screwed-up, we never feel any exhilaration or excitement from her, she manages to croak the equivalent of "wow, that's cool." She gets through both scenes without making a single choice. The sudden "American Psycho" POV of him bearing down on her is jarring in the wrong way, and subverted by Stile's aimless overacting. Have I mentioned she's an awful actress? How many chances do these people get? Don't get me wrong, William H. Macy is a wonderful actor, but I hope he doesn't win anything for this one. There isn't enough to the character and to be honest it isn't his best performance.
Some of the points of the play still hold up, like how nobody really listens to each other, making Edmond's "Remember that somebody listened" pretty hilarious. Perhaps the main problem is that the suspension of disbelief you get in the theatre you do not get in a film. In a film incongruity sinks the whole ship. Maybe that Edmond was so entirely from another planet was believable in the early 80's when the Reagan ship was setting sail, but in this day and age where you're as likely to meet a Marxist in the boardroom as at a street protest it just doesn't work. "Falling Down" made this work obsolete.
There are few surprises: Macy simmers, Mantegna is a better actor of Mamet than he is of anything else, Julia Stiles and Denise Richards can't act at all, Bai Ling is gloriously crazy, Rebecca Pigeon wouldn't have a career if she wasn't married to David Mamet (sorry, but it's true), Dule Hill isn't tough, George Wendt looks funny when you put him in a funny wig and give him an accent. There are cheesy slo-mo's, lame jump cuts, 80's music in the background, toughs out of central casting, three-card Monte (!), wide variances in price for proffered services, references to West 79th Street and 14th street while exteriors read "Western Avenue" in Los Angeles, the strip of souvenir shops around Hollywood Boulevard near Little Armenia and an exterior of the Seventh Veil strip club on Sunset near La Brea (also seen in the credit sequence of "Entourage"), and then the number of the escort service is an 847, meaning the north suburbs of Chicago (too far away for it to have been even in the original play, 773 is at least 15 minutes by car, 847 is a long winding 30-45). Perhaps the movie should have been moved back to the 50's where Edmond's utter cluelessness about three-card Monte and ATM machines might be believable, or back where sex was treated like the shocking taboo it is here, or back where casual racism wouldn't have been commented upon, here it is all too much and breaks under the strain of its own incredibility. In a New York where dinner at a restaurant with a bottle of wine runs $100, the prices in this movie are ludicrously low.
The film's climax and nadir are concurrent: the scene between Julia Stiles and Macy. In a rare miscalculation Macy is too manic to be charismatic throughout, overplaying his hand (you see people do this when they're playing Jerry in "The Zoo Story" a lot, they shuffle on drooling and Peter would be out of there before the play had a chance to start). The actress is a complete cipher, so you don't get a feeling that she is mistaking his mania for liberation, and it makes her feel free to declare her own prejudices; she doesn't seem thrilled by the release from convention in his fictional account of the murder of a would-be mugger, instead she just feels dull and screwed-up, we never feel any exhilaration or excitement from her, she manages to croak the equivalent of "wow, that's cool." She gets through both scenes without making a single choice. The sudden "American Psycho" POV of him bearing down on her is jarring in the wrong way, and subverted by Stile's aimless overacting. Have I mentioned she's an awful actress? How many chances do these people get? Don't get me wrong, William H. Macy is a wonderful actor, but I hope he doesn't win anything for this one. There isn't enough to the character and to be honest it isn't his best performance.
Some of the points of the play still hold up, like how nobody really listens to each other, making Edmond's "Remember that somebody listened" pretty hilarious. Perhaps the main problem is that the suspension of disbelief you get in the theatre you do not get in a film. In a film incongruity sinks the whole ship. Maybe that Edmond was so entirely from another planet was believable in the early 80's when the Reagan ship was setting sail, but in this day and age where you're as likely to meet a Marxist in the boardroom as at a street protest it just doesn't work. "Falling Down" made this work obsolete.
A Stuart Gordon Film For Hardcore Fans Only
gavin694213 April 2010
Edmond Burke (William H. Macy) has grown frustrated with his life, and after a visit to a tarot reader, he has decided to start a new life. And that new life is going to start with some sexual fantasy and a bit of violence... where will it go?
While I have no interest in talking poorly about writer David Mamet, this film is much like "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas, another white-collar man who goes through a mental break. Sadly, the difference is in style: this film is more artistic, and "Falling Down" is more gripping. Where Douglas can be fierce and menacing, Macy can only come off as nervous... even his most violent moments do not have the emotional sincerity that Douglas exudes.
Anyone who wants to rent this should be warned in advance, the back cover of the DVD is riddled with lies. It claims to "star" Mena Suvari, Denise Richards and Julia Stiles. That is a lie, as only Stiles has a scene of more than three minutes. You could just as easily say George Wendt or Jeffrey Combs star. The box also claims this is "a first rate mystery", but there is no mystery to be found in this film. None.
Likewise, the film is a bit hard to categorize... it's something of a violent drama. Hollywood Video called it horror, and the box calls it a thriller. The thrills are minimal (this is a slow-paced film) and it is not horror in any traditional sense. Stuart Gordon is a great director and a very nice man, but fans should be aware that this falls more in line with "King of the Ants" or "Stuck" than it does with any of his more well-known horror masterpieces.
I will not discuss the philosophical aspects. Edmond believes that "every fear hides a wish", and he has constructed an interesting racial theory. The viewer can take these however they like, I do not know if there is an overarching meaning behind any of it... I found they fleshed out Edmond's character but had little value beyond the film itself. The deleted scenes, a mere six minutes, add a bit of intrigue and should probably have remained, especially with the film running only 82 minutes.
Stuart Gordon or David Mamet fans should see this one. It's not going to blow you away, and beyond little thrills like a Jeffrey Combs cameo and some semi-nudity from Julia Stiles, it is not the most memorable. But Gordon's career is best understood in its complete vision, and this is outside the scope of his better-known work.
While I have no interest in talking poorly about writer David Mamet, this film is much like "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas, another white-collar man who goes through a mental break. Sadly, the difference is in style: this film is more artistic, and "Falling Down" is more gripping. Where Douglas can be fierce and menacing, Macy can only come off as nervous... even his most violent moments do not have the emotional sincerity that Douglas exudes.
Anyone who wants to rent this should be warned in advance, the back cover of the DVD is riddled with lies. It claims to "star" Mena Suvari, Denise Richards and Julia Stiles. That is a lie, as only Stiles has a scene of more than three minutes. You could just as easily say George Wendt or Jeffrey Combs star. The box also claims this is "a first rate mystery", but there is no mystery to be found in this film. None.
Likewise, the film is a bit hard to categorize... it's something of a violent drama. Hollywood Video called it horror, and the box calls it a thriller. The thrills are minimal (this is a slow-paced film) and it is not horror in any traditional sense. Stuart Gordon is a great director and a very nice man, but fans should be aware that this falls more in line with "King of the Ants" or "Stuck" than it does with any of his more well-known horror masterpieces.
I will not discuss the philosophical aspects. Edmond believes that "every fear hides a wish", and he has constructed an interesting racial theory. The viewer can take these however they like, I do not know if there is an overarching meaning behind any of it... I found they fleshed out Edmond's character but had little value beyond the film itself. The deleted scenes, a mere six minutes, add a bit of intrigue and should probably have remained, especially with the film running only 82 minutes.
Stuart Gordon or David Mamet fans should see this one. It's not going to blow you away, and beyond little thrills like a Jeffrey Combs cameo and some semi-nudity from Julia Stiles, it is not the most memorable. But Gordon's career is best understood in its complete vision, and this is outside the scope of his better-known work.
a great piece of work
shirleyyujest12 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm shocked and amazed to hear this film referred to as "slice o' life"(?) and compared to Falling Down.
Edmond is not a film about a repressed schmuck who one day, just flips out and decides he isn't going to take it anymore. Instead, it is about a repressed schmuck, who, totally without awareness, begins on a pre-destined course that ultimately leads him to the life he was meant to live.
This carefully scripted film is about the pre-destiny that lived within Edmond, and what happened when it was activated. When Edmond is handed the post-it with "1:15" on it, it speaks to him in some unconscious way. Every single detail of what happens to him from then on, is part of his journey to his destined life.
The fun thing is that it is all happening on some unconscious level, and that Edmond only has glimpses of why and what is going on. All throughout the film, Edmond appears to be as confused as the viewer, as to why he is acting out the way he does.
This demonstrates itself perfectly when he cannot answer the question of why he murdered Glenna, and again when he suggests to his wife that it must have been from drinking too much coffee, or perhaps because there are just too many people on earth. Poor Edmond, he knows there is a reason, but just can't put his finger on what it is.
The reason is, of course, that this was what had to be done, to get where he needed to be.
In the end, he finds his soul mate and is where he belongs. Real cute ending. I love the contented smile on Edmond's face!
Edmond is not a film about a repressed schmuck who one day, just flips out and decides he isn't going to take it anymore. Instead, it is about a repressed schmuck, who, totally without awareness, begins on a pre-destined course that ultimately leads him to the life he was meant to live.
This carefully scripted film is about the pre-destiny that lived within Edmond, and what happened when it was activated. When Edmond is handed the post-it with "1:15" on it, it speaks to him in some unconscious way. Every single detail of what happens to him from then on, is part of his journey to his destined life.
The fun thing is that it is all happening on some unconscious level, and that Edmond only has glimpses of why and what is going on. All throughout the film, Edmond appears to be as confused as the viewer, as to why he is acting out the way he does.
This demonstrates itself perfectly when he cannot answer the question of why he murdered Glenna, and again when he suggests to his wife that it must have been from drinking too much coffee, or perhaps because there are just too many people on earth. Poor Edmond, he knows there is a reason, but just can't put his finger on what it is.
The reason is, of course, that this was what had to be done, to get where he needed to be.
In the end, he finds his soul mate and is where he belongs. Real cute ending. I love the contented smile on Edmond's face!
Are any of us where we really belong?
Hey_Sweden2 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Screenwriter David Mamet, in adapting his stage play, takes us on a deliberately discomfiting journey along with a character who is both easy to understand, in one sense, and impossible to completely sympathize with. That makes this appropriate cinematic material for the late, celebrated cult filmmaker Stuart Gordon, who sometimes told stories where the sense of morals could be skewed. With the balance of the film taking place mostly during one long night, it ends up asking some serious questions of all of us and the world in general. What DOES it all mean?
William H. Macy is exceptionally good in the lead role. Edmond Burke leads a dull nine-to-five life, working in an office building. One night after work, he decides to visit a fortune teller (Frances Bay) who simply tells him "you are not where you belong". That night, he makes the fateful decision to turn his back on his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon, a.k.a. Mrs. David Mamet) and his life, and wanders the seedy underbelly of the city. In the process, he becomes both victim and victimizer. And yet, as time goes on, he actually begins to be more content with how things have unfolded.
A steady parade of familiar faces turn up, some of them quite briefly. Standouts are an appealing Julia Stiles as a waitress / actress, and a typically fine Joe Mantegna as a stranger in a bar. But make no mistake: this is Macy's film, and he really takes the bull by the horns here. Edmond is determined to "let it all out" for the first time in his life, and the character is obviously going to be a major bone of contention for some viewers. Admittedly, it can be difficult following the progress of this kind of person when they can be prone to say and do vile things. But Macy makes this man compelling, and believable. (He was also in good shape for a man of his age.)
If you're a fan of Macy, Mamet, or Gordon (and are particularly interested in checking out Gordons' non-horror work), then check this one out. You'll find that it's an experience not easily forgotten.
Seven out of 10.
William H. Macy is exceptionally good in the lead role. Edmond Burke leads a dull nine-to-five life, working in an office building. One night after work, he decides to visit a fortune teller (Frances Bay) who simply tells him "you are not where you belong". That night, he makes the fateful decision to turn his back on his wife (Rebecca Pidgeon, a.k.a. Mrs. David Mamet) and his life, and wanders the seedy underbelly of the city. In the process, he becomes both victim and victimizer. And yet, as time goes on, he actually begins to be more content with how things have unfolded.
A steady parade of familiar faces turn up, some of them quite briefly. Standouts are an appealing Julia Stiles as a waitress / actress, and a typically fine Joe Mantegna as a stranger in a bar. But make no mistake: this is Macy's film, and he really takes the bull by the horns here. Edmond is determined to "let it all out" for the first time in his life, and the character is obviously going to be a major bone of contention for some viewers. Admittedly, it can be difficult following the progress of this kind of person when they can be prone to say and do vile things. But Macy makes this man compelling, and believable. (He was also in good shape for a man of his age.)
If you're a fan of Macy, Mamet, or Gordon (and are particularly interested in checking out Gordons' non-horror work), then check this one out. You'll find that it's an experience not easily forgotten.
Seven out of 10.
You don't see a movie like that everyday ...
phobator15 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Wow I just watched 'Edmond' and I'm pretty shocked both positively and negatively. William Macy and the rest of the actors did some great acting. W. Macy plays a mid-aged man who is fed up with his life. Then one day a fortune-teller says to him that he doesn't live where he belongs. He decides change his life in a drastic way. Having been protected against all threats of urban life for over 47 years he has no idea what he has to expect. As he encounters one bad situation after another his view on the world and life changes and his life goes into a whole new direction. This is an awesome movie. I makes you think about life, destiny and free will. On the one hand it shocks you and on the other hand it fascinates you because you may come to think: could that be me? This movie really made me think about my life and the route I am taking. I recommend this movie to everyone who takes everything for granted and isn't aware of what luck means for him or her.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews