Things Change

A comedy by David Mamet - it seems like a contradiction in terms... This sparkling film bristles with life. There is absolutely nothing in common with other dialog-oriented films by writer-directors that quickly become talkathons. This film presents its "message" from the beginning and its pace doesn't let up until the end. It's funny all right - not explosive, rolling-on-the-floor humor but humor of a much gentler kind - and everything is wonderfully written and realized. If I had to use a word to describe it, "balletic" comes to mind. The timing and the movements are in perfect synchronization. What a delightful surprise!

Curtis Stotlar

Mamet is not an unalloyed mastermind in my book. He hits and misses.

Here, he (and Shel Silverstein) crafted a story that explores a few clever plot concepts, such as the vaguely "Inspector General"-style false-identity gimmick. No spoiler, there: It kicks in pretty early on and dominates things for most of the flick. Most of the comedy/tension of the flick revolves about that idea.

The truly touching stuff involves the ensemble work, and it's worth taking the flick in of an evening just for that.

Other than that, the structure/storyline of the flick is about 80% good, but about 20% sprinkled with confusing side-events that don't quite seem to mesh.

Mamet and Silverstein tried to engineer a truly compelling denouement, but it doesn't feel quite whole and organic and... compelling, to me. It's merely adequate, in my book.

But if you want to see truly inspired acting, driven by adequate direction, check it out.

"Things Changes" is a light-hearted look at what happens to an old Italian shoe shiner (Ameche) who's a naive patsy for the mob when a mafia flunky (Mantegna) takes them two of them to Tahoe for a last blast. This Mamet film has a lot of pluses not the least of which is Mantegna and Ameche together in one of Ameche's last films. The story is a cute comedy with a kind of sentimental "feel" to it. The kind of movie that's hard not to like.

I loved this picture. Mantegna and Ameche are so opposite and I really can't share the view of other people that Ameche is performing a "Being There." Ameche is much smarter, he realizes from the start something is wrong. First he declines the offer but he knows perfectly well these people will shoot him (remember the scene with the smoking lady). Then, the movie starts, and he's in charge, and he keeps in charge, he accepts a luncheon with a Don in LA., he finds money to get back to Chicago, he uses his coin to call the Las Vegas mob.

Nice, entertaining, two and a half stars. I laughed quite a bit. Must be my Italian roots.

Mamet is intrinsically the classical playwright. Things may change in life but the classical playwright begins the story with a shoe shine setting up his corner in the cobbler's shop and ends the story with a shoe shine. Even the mid-point of the film, when the 3 day dream is about to end, there is the short lecture on how to shine shoes.

Though all the actors provide commendable performances, the flow of the story is absorbing. There is a layer of human values and honesty that permeates the world of murders and mafia thugs. Mamet is able to use such contradictions to great effect--threats stated with considerable politeness, women who are apparently in charge (the woman overseeing the arrangements for the meal at the house, the mafia wife/moll in blue) and yet play no significant role, teasing the viewer as it were, use of hats and newspapers to cover faces that seem ridiculous as the story unfolds..

The epilogue makes you wonder if things do change. Change for one may not be change for another. Change for one may come in economic terms, for another in friendship.

Early Mamet's work seems to neglect women characters. I wonder why this is so evident.