Review of Edmond (2006) by Squalid J — 25 Feb 2009

I'll just print out this website's consensus, in case you didn't notice it: "A gothic fairytale that catches director Tim Burton and star Johnny Depp at the top of their games." Somebody messed up, tee hee hee etc.

But anyway, [i]Edmond[/i]. In recent years, celebrated horror-maestro Stuart Gordon has directed a trio of films straddling the paper-thin borderline between horror and black comedy. [i]Edmond[/i] is undoubtedly the weakest of the three, but since that list also includes the great [i]Stuck[/i] and the frankly magnificent [i]King of the Ants[/i], that's not a terrible insult. Since I'm not bothering with numbered ratings anymore (too definite), I should just come out and say how I feel about this film: it's okay.

Basically it's well directed and the cast, for the most part, aquit themselves well - William H. Macy is always good value for money, everyone else does their best - and Mr Gordon directs it as best he can. Like all films adapted from the plays of David Mamet, the problem lies in the writing.

To put it bluntly, David Mamet can't write dialogue for shit. Now, before everybody gets all defensive, I am aware that [i]Glengarry Glen Ross[/i] is a damn fine film, but let's face facts here, that's purely because of the cast. In a film to which every actor brings their A-game and Al Pacino - that's Al Pacino at his best - is the weakest link on display, the writing is obviously going to sound good. Doesn't mean it is.

Although some interesting ideas have been thrown at [i]Edmond[/i] (seemingly at random), the dialogue just isn't up to scratch, with the result that every five minutes you'll be reminded that you're essentially watching an inferior stage play. There's still some good moments, but it doesn't add up to anything much. Watch only if you have too much spare time.

Edit: ratings are back now. This gets a six.