Nonureva Really Surprised!

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Clone42 Edmond is a deeply introspective work exploring divorce, racial bias, and sexuality, all swirling around 'Edmond' - A white, urban, working "house husband", who suddenly leaves his long term marriage and all of its tired trappings due to a coincidence at a fortune teller.If you haven't been deeply hurt, if you haven't been blindsided, if you haven't questioned your place in the world without your long-term partner beside you, then you have absolutely no place commenting on this film.Edmond has a 'mixed' reputation because of this. Many couples, snuggling up with their junior high lovers on Netflix, leave 5/10 reviews (the lowest it could possibly receive, given the film's knock-out performances from an all-star cast). If, however, you are among the suffering, Edmond will speak to you.It's no wonder that Edmond had to be produced independently, and received no mainstream exposure, despite the A-list actors: It is racist, it is explosive, it is offensive. It puts academy award winning films to shame. What an embarrassment for the 'industry', that a powerhouse film like this could be made outside of Hollywood. It shows what Hollywood has become: A watered down, lowest-common-denominator paddle-pool (Who wants more Marvel!? Happy meals for everyone!!!). The cast is proof enough that many "professionals" believed very strongly in David Mamet's writing.Mamet wrote the script through the lens of divorce, and through this lens it is best seen. If you don't know the pain and rejection of divorce - the unreality and loneliness that it suddenly abandons you in - then leave your clean shoes at the door. Edmond has no place in your life.For me, and others like me, it is essential.

the_prince_of_frogs 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.

tieman64 This is a brief review of "Edmond" and "Glengarry Glen Ross", two films written by David Mamet.The lesser of the two, "Edmond" revolves around a businessman (William H. Macy) who has grown tired of the stresses and pressures of modern life. Trapped in an existential rut, and finding no love, purpose or satisfaction at work or at home, he breaks up with his wife and sets off for a night on the town. Here he hopes to hire a prostitute, but things don't go as planned, and pretty soon he's being arrested for a violent murder. The film is remarkably brisk (79 minutes), Mamet obsessed with modern emasculation and violent resentment, but weak direction by Stuart Gordon undermines his screenplay's better qualities.Capitalism as a slow train to hell, "Glangarry Glen Ross" is merely an ensemble version of "Edmond". Here the businessmen are a group of real estate agents who struggle to cope with deadlines and targets. They're fired by their company and given a ruthless ultimatum: sell or you won't be rehired. Eventually the pressure of meeting targets proves too much and one salesman commits a shocking crime.Filled with meaty dialogue and lengthy monologues, "Glengarry" is elevated by several bombastic moments by actors Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin and Jack Lemmon. It's a joy to watch these actors chew scenery, even if the film ultimately amounts to a group of middle class, middle aged men, moaning about the drudgery of their 9 to 5 lives.7.5/10 - Worth one viewing.

gavin6942 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.