Edmond (2006)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

I decided to give this movie a try because I am a tremendous fan of Julia Stiles. And William H. Macy can be entertaining. I think Julia Stiles was totally wasted in this movie. I do not have any idea why Julia Stiles agreed to be in Edmond unless maybe it was a "contract" issue. I found the movie to be disjointed. If the movie was supposed to be portraying a person degenerating into malevolence and one would like to see this I recommend Falling Down (1993) staring Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall. I think the movie, Edmond, would be better if the movie had not been made.

Edmond is a film maker's experiment that focuses on dialogue and character at the expense of plot and logic. The themes of societal conformity as well as sex and happiness are explored with varied success and this makes for an overall poor film with some redeeming qualities. This is based off a play of David Mamets', best known for dialogue centered films such as Glengarry Glen Ross, and directed by Stuart Gordon best known for the mediocre Pit and the Pendulum. If a film that is effectively small dialogue filled rants by David Mamet sounds appealing, then this may be your film, but for any casual film watcher this film is a disappointment. William H. Macy plays Edmond a regular 'Joe' who hits a breaking point and journeys on a descent into darkness as he becomes increasingly more sex crazed and violent. Each step is a separate vignette featuring an array of big name actors from Denise Richards to Bai Ling and Bokeem Woodbine, and many lesser known, industry talents such as Jeffery Combs. These actors are sometimes brilliant, but often bad, and rarely are their characters any more than a back drop for William H. Macy. At first I thought the always good Macy was doing a particularly poor job in this film. The character is one of the least likable movie heroes (or anti-heroes) in my memory. He is rude, thoughtless, crass, sexist and racist, and particularly cheap. Some great acting has allowed these characteristics to be likable, but not in Macy's case – Edmond is not endearing or redeemable. However, soon I realized he is actually doing a great job of making Edmond so unlikeable. It is hard to be so despicable. A good comparison would be Michael Douglas in Falling Down. However where we sympathize with Douglas as the world is slowly corrupted around him, Macy is simply a jerk who does not deserve our empathy. We as an audience find it hard to be engaged with Edmond and his fall from sanity is sudden and unrequired. This I am sure is somewhat intentional, but is hard to watch as an audience. The directing is poor, and maybe that is partly the source material, but the loose 'plot' of the movie is severely limited. There are clues and symbols that are left unexplored, and the themes are left unbalanced and unexplored. This movie may be some 3rd year film maker's dream, and may speak to some people who applaud Macy for his acting or Mamet for his brave dialogue, or an array of other actors for their brave performances, but as a film it fails.

Most writers wish more than anything that they could develop their own distinctive voice, like famed playwright David Mamet has done. The problem with people recognizing the way you say things, though, is that it makes it really damn obvious when you've got nothing to say. Edmond is an empty, meandering, quizzical and fairly self-involved bit of blather. If this script didn't have Mamet's name on it, it likely would never have been produced and certainly wouldn't have attracted such a talented cast.Based on a stage play, this movie follows the journey of upper middle class New Yorker Edmond (William H. Macy) as he decides to leave his wife and sets out across the city to get himself laid. He humorously haggles over price with several strippers and whores, bangs a pretty young waitress, gets beaten up by some streetside hustlers, beats the ass of a deceitful pimp, commits a senseless murder and alternately rages and pontificates about predestination, social graces and the racial and societal preoccupations of upper middle class New Yorkers.The first observation to make about this film is that Edmond and the waitress he picks up for a one night stand are the only characters to have actual names. Everyone else goes unnamed during the movie and is listed in the credits as "Matron", "B-Girl", "Whore", "Interrogator", etc. It's my experience that when characters in a story don't have real names, it's usually a sign of either lazy writing or affectation. Either way, it's a bad sign and indicates what you're watching or reading is excessively contrived. That's true of Edmond, where unreal people say and do unreal things. They're never living their lives, only playing parts and mouthing dialog that isn't nearly as clever as Mamet believes and isn't at all insightful or thought-provoking.When you look deeper into this movie, you discover that there's no reason for anything that happens in it. Why does Edmond leave his wife? Why is he bitter and frustrated? Why is he so cheap when it comes to paying for sex? Why does he commit murder? There's no explanation for any of it other than "just because". Now, Mamet may have been attempting to make the randomness of human behavior the point of his story. That purpose still wouldn't make it interesting or entertaining.One of the jumble of things this film throws against the wall is white racism. It's nothing more than William H. Macy and Joe Mantegna spouting off bigotry both malevolent and condescending, only to see Edmond wind up seeking salvation from the late-night services of a black Baptist congregation. Again, Mamet may have been trying to say something about the clueless racial pretensions of white folk, but that intent doesn't produce anything meaningful or revealing.If you've ever watched good Mamet before, it'll be easy to recognize this as bad Mamet. Edmond has the same rhythms, tone and verbal ticks and habits being applied to an idea that doesn't go anywhere because it has nowhere to go. It's a bit like listening to a great singer belt out an awful song. Imagine Celine Dion doing a rendition of some nonsense rap song about women's butt cheeks. It would only be enjoyable as parody or satire, which this movie clearly isn't trying or intended to be.Edmond is blessedly short at just over 80 minutes long. That's still 80+ minutes that would be better spent doing something besides watching this film.

I kept expecting this film to get better but it never did. The film starts off in a promising manner but meanders in all sorts of irrelevant scenarios. Although Mamet is known for his use of language/words above all else, his language, ideas and concepts couldn't save this movie from being an incredible bore. Save your time-watch something else. William Macy is wasted in this film. I spent 1/2 the time trying to figure out where the movie was filmed. Sometimes it reminded me of the same city presented in Eyes Wide Shut and other times it seemed as if the film took place in some gritty part of Los Angeles. Try Mamet's House of Games instead.