User reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mamet work that is a lot closer to House of Games than to Glengarry Glen Ross (which used up all the swear words; there's none here). If you're okay with Mamet's way with dialogue and line reading, then the only real complaint is the terrible ending.

What is so clever about this movie?

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations on a most memorable movie to Mamet and company.

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

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

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

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

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

Eh. Not bad though. 6.5/10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A vividly, ingenious thriller that plays it rather patiently.

Joe ross (campbell scott) is an employee of a large company, and knows the company secret, which could make them millions. He meets dell (steve martin), on a business trip, who seems to be a nice guy. But probably isn't. Granted, this was filmed prior to 9/11/2001, but even back then, we were told never to accept packages from strangers going abroad. Everyone in the film is a little extra mysterious, and they seem to quote writers a more than your average guy on the street. We can tell that dell is up to no good. For people claiming to be with the fbi, they talk about a lot of things that an fbi agent shouldn't be saying. Danger, will robinson. But poor joe ross isn't paying attention. It's a little frustrating, since ross never reads anything before he signs it... half the trouble he's in is his own fault for not paying attention. Co-stars felicity huffman, ricky jay. Ed o'neill, the dad from married with children. Written and directed by david mamet; nominated for wag the dog and verdict.also wrote glengarry glen ross. It's okay, as long as you don't mind being in the dark for most of the film. Reminiscent of a film from the 1940s with the same plot.

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

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

Covid days, and this is as comforting as movies get. I'm ready to declare this Mamet's best picture. I love everything here, from the weirdly old-timey spin on Mamet's hyper-stylized dialogue ("Dog my cats, indeed.") to how straight-and-narrow, square-jawed Campbell Scott is-characters here often refer to him as a boy scout-and the way this unfolds into a larger and larger plot that envelops everything. Mamet is having fun here with the plot mechanics that are just as preciously constructed as a Wes Anderson set. And the performances: Scott is compelling as Hitchcockian leading man, but it's the supporting cast that really makes this work. Steve Martin plays serious with charm, and then good grief is Rebecca Pidgeon operating on another level here-it's incredible, oddly-pitched sometimes and I can't be the only one who finds her alluring, right? An all-timer, innit?

If the story in this movie had been presented in a straightforward manner, it would have been much better. It's a good plot with a lot of twists that'll keep you trying to figure it all out after the movie is over. However, the combination of too much phony-sounding dialogue and uninspiring characterization is off-putting. The dialogue is sometimes just plain strange, and once in a while it's goofy enough to make you chuckle (like one of Ross's last comments to his "secretary" at the end). The way these people talk and act, they never seem like real people, so you can only care so much about what happens to them. If the story had been given more real -seeming characters with more realistic dialogue, it would have been much better.