One thing I can't stand are cynical critics who no longer take joy in the simple delights of cinema. Sadly, most critics were unfairly harsh with David Mamet's HEIST, another addition to the recent wave of "heist" movies currently doing the rounds at the local cinemas and video shops (others include OCEAN'S 11, DECEPTION, and THE SCORE). Despite the hackneyed storyline, the film offers much reward to viewers prepared to sit through it. For a start there's the witty, almost comedic script which focuses on wordplay and fleshes out characters to a point where realism is at an all time high. Then there's the plot, which twists and turns so many times with double, even triple crosses, that you can never quite guess what will happen next. One casualty as a result of these twists is that some of the situations seem a little unbelievable and there are one or two obvious holes in the plot, but these are easy to dismiss as inconsequential when there's so much else to enjoy. Watching a film with this much attention to detail and intelligence in the scripting and direction is a delight and a rare treat in modern cinema.The casting is also excellent with uniformly good performances. Of course, the older, veteran performers are light-years ahead of their younger counterparts. Leading the way is Gene Hackman who seems thirty years younger in the part, more evidence that this underrated actor is a force to be reckoned with. I believe Hackman is past seventy these days but still going strong; his acting here is as good as ever and his sympathetic criminal makes the film worth watching. His foil is Danny DeVito, a long way from his earlier 'comedy' roles in the likes of TWINS, here playing a ruthless gangster with all of the loathsomeness he can fathom. Finally Delroy Lindo is on hand as a loyal aide, giving another of his brooding portrayals with some occasionally startling outbursts of violence. Ricky Jay has a small but sympathetic role whilst newcomer Sam Rockwell is suitably slimy as a creep.The various set-pieces are superbly staged and I love how the actual heists are planned down to the smallest detail (take for example the opening gamble, which is cinema at its best in my opinion). The plane robbery is also highly suspenseful and Mamet keeps tension running high throughout the film. The finale is a rewarding shoot-out which is superbly choreographed and graceful, and provides some fitting – not to mention hilarious – payoffs for some of the villainous characters. Just about everything is great about this movie. Although there are no really big surprises and some of the twists are obvious (the concluding twist is just a joke, really) for the most part this is gripping stuff. Watch it and see.

his name was David Mamet..stimulating the natural flow of saliva in my mouth..firstly and foremost; this is not an attack on Mamet himself but more so a indication that people overextend sometimes in life. I felt this was an overextension of Mamet's abilities as a director and as a piece of writing; it felt rushed. I wont go into how and what the movie is about because the name alludes to it but I will say personally I wouldn't waste my time. I will point out several problems I encountered to support my opinion. the plot had more holes than fishnet tights, characters had zero depth, it felt to me that the 'job' had about as much risk as stealing a pen at work. positives would be the casting and the film's length - any longer and I would have given it the boot.it's worth noting that I don't usually review films because I wouldn't contribute in any meaningful way and I normally don't read reviews because the medium of film is completely subjective however if you encounter my 'review'; don't take my word for it because what movie have I directed/written?.. I have however watched many films and I am qualified to say this film is, as my best friend would say when he sees a unpleasing woman - a stinker. this movie also proves something of a theory of mine. Mamet wasn't God but a Man after all.go watch House Of Games instead.to finish with quoting the great Mamet - "You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention"

This isn't about any heist plot but who gets to keep the girl.Actually the problem is that it puts all its energy into being the first which is merely passable because we've seen something like it so many times, glossing over the second which is the real narrative engine that drives the story, the girl emblematic of a life with her far away from all the crap of 'normal' life with its bartering and betrayal. The aging conman has built a deep bond with her but will it last or snap? The young accomplice hungers for her. All the switcheroos, conning and acting roles about this tension over the viewer: do we think she's gone over? Does she have control of what she feigns or is she being swept?Alas this appears in the film as 'subtext' instead of the main study.The ending has a wonderful bit of ambiguity. Did he have everything planned to the last possibility of betrayal? Or did he luck out by the dumb chance of not having finished painting over all the gold bars? Hackman knows he must look torn and numbed by this uncertainty as he leaves, unsure himself if driving off with the ability to buy a new life but not the girl to share it with is in the end either much luck or plan worth having planned.

This is a review of "Heist" and "Spartan", two unconventional thrillers by David Mamet. Both films mark the beginning of Mamet's crypto-fascist period, in which he slid from angry left-winger to right-wing caricature. Henceforth his scripts would become obsessed with the aesthetics of toned bodies, knife-fights, semi-naked wrestlers, and US special agents who excel at taking down Arabs and head-shotting bad guys ("Spartan" would later be worked by Mamet into "The Unit", a TV series which follows a US Spec-Ops group).On the flip-side, working within the confines of genre (the heist movie in "Heist", the action movie in "Spartan") allows Mamet to perfect the kind of blunt functionalism he's been working toward throughout his career. And so both films feature extremely parred down dialogue, narratives which are barely told, professional characters who worship at the altar of efficiency, and minimalist dialogue which moves with a distinctly staccato, or almost perfunctory rhythm.Both films are also explicitly cinematic con jobs. Mamet, of course, has long been a director who approaches storytelling as an elaborate card trick, his films oft about magicians, hucksters or con artists. In this regard, both "Heist" and "Spartan" constantly defy audience expectations. Watch how Mamet very subtly subverts and plays with genre tropes, uses dialogue to mask and misdirect, how he approaches scenes from odd angles, every sequence always just a "little bit off", and watch how he continues his trend of casting comedians in serious roles. This mirrors the philosophy of both films' heroes, who rely on doing the unexpected. Take one scene in "Spartan", in which our hero repeatedly asks "Why's the TV on?", the nonsensical, repeated phrase designed to misdirect and scrabble the mind of his opponents. Such tactics result in an interesting hybrid: films which feel at once generic and off-kilter.Mamet is clearly more interested in professional mastery - a trait which his heroes share - than in the production of masterpieces. Indeed, after "Homicide", Mamet would write a book in which he explains his new film-making philosophy. From this point onwards he would strip his films down drastically. The result: simple lighting, direct dialogue, unfussed camera work and minimal music.Consider this line from Mamet's book: "Acting should be a series of simple physical actions. If the actor wants to know how he should walk to a door in the scene, the director should tell him, 'Go to the door,' and, if the actor presses on: 'Go to the door. Quickly.' Don't act. Don't emote. No motivation. No back-story. No character arc. No discovery. These are indulgences that cannot possibly be manifested physically. Just go to the door. Quickly. Cut. Print. Go home." Mamet's new found philosophy – which he calls "heightened logic" - perhaps offers an understanding into why his films are so mannered, why his stories all revolve around elaborate cons and why he's drifting toward pulpy genres.If on the surface Mamet's films tend to be about con-jobs, covertly they're all about Mamet's true passion: language. Language is often – if not inherently - selfish. To talk, especially in the way that Mamet's characters talk, is to con. Stunted half sentences and droning repetitions aren't there just for the fun of it. They are successful and less successful attempts at persuasion.In this way, you might say Mamet's films are all about words and syntax (his "Oleanna" stage-play would be about a kind of "word rape"). Post "Homicide", however, his directing style evolved in such a way as to eradicate everything that detracts from his words. By removing music, cinematography, acting, sound etc, you've essentially cancelled out the director's "vision". And after you've cancelled out a director's "vision" and an actor's "interpretation", nothing remains but the writer's prose.Elsewhere, Mamet's later films tend to be preoccupied with a kind of Zen like professionalism, a trait which he himself shares as a writer (his scripts are attempts to perfect the "word", to hone and purify one's personal skills). As such, his later films often feature an antagonistic bond between mentor and protégé, Mamet's younger characters always striving for the professionalism represented by the older mentor. We see this in both "Heist" and "Spartan", both films revolving around wise old timers who have neither the time nor the inclination to school the less-seasoned buffoons around them. "Spartan", incidentally, is a loose remake of Mamet's script for "Ronin". Both films are "named" after ancient warriors, and feature highly skilled, lone wolf heroes. In "Spartan" we have Val Kilmer as a machine-like guy hell bent on finding a kidnapped girl ("Where is the girl?" he repeatedly says, his phrase uttered like dispassionate machine code), and in "Ronin" we have Robert DeNiro as an ex special forces agent determined to retrieve a mysterious case.Unfortunately, both "Heist" and "Spartan" end with unimaginative shoot outs. Such routine endings are somewhat common in Mamet's work.8.5/10 - Worth multiple viewings.