NateWatchesCoolMovies Sam Peckinpah's The Osterman Weekend is so strangely plotted, so illogical and hard to understand, that not even John Hurt providing a play by play from an ever present TV monitor can seem to make sense of it. It's not that it's a bad film, parts are very well done and there's that nostalgic Cold War vibe that 80's espionage thrillers always have, it's just that somewhere along the way, whether in the editing room, the shot list or scheduling, someone quite literally lost the plot. It's enjoyable, well acted and supplies some of that classic Peckinpah grit he's known for, but it's just one massive loose thread that no one bothered to pull taut, which is a shame when you look at the talent involved. The film opens with the murder of a beautiful woman, the wife of a CIA spook (Hurt). Now, this inciting incident is what spurs on the rest of the plot, but the how and the why seem to be missing, and the matter of his wife doesn't come into play again until all is almost said and done, and seems to have not a lot to do with the entire rest of the film. The bulk of it focuses on controversial talk show host John Tanner (Rutger Hauer), a man who lives to rub people the wrong way and put men of power on the spot with provocative, candid questions, all from the safety of his brightly lit studio. He's forced to get his hands dirty though when Hurt contacts him, informing him that his three friends he's planned to spend the weekend with (Craig T. Nelson, Dennis Hopper and a sleazy Chris Sarandon) are in fact soviet spies in hiding. Forced to bug his weekend home and play host to Hurt as he watches them all via hidden cameras, tensions arise as they try to smoke the three out and figure out... something. But what? It's anyone's guess what three potential traitors have to do with a murdered agent's wife, and I'm sure the novel by Robert Ludlum on which this is based covers that a little more pointedly, but this film is just all over the place. It drags where it should glide, and skips hurriedly over scenes with potential to be great. Nevertheless, they achieved some level of class at least, with a crackling on-air conclusion that cathartically weeds out some corruption and provides almost a glimmer of an answer to what's going on. There's a fight scene between Nelson and Hauer that's excellently choreographed, the performances are committed and engaging, and I'm always a sucker for cloak and dagger theatrics. But the thing just can't seem to cohesively pull itself together and present a story that makes sense. It's not even that it doesn't make sense in a Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy sense, because I'm sure that if I sat down and watched that film like five times in a row, id get it, it has a plot buried under all of it. This one though, it's like there's pieces missing, and the ones that are left are either out of order, or from a different puzzle entirely. Close, but no cigar.

Maziun *SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*This is the last movie of famous movie director Sam Peckinpah ("The Wild bunch" , "Bonnie and Clyde" ) . Unfortunately , this one belongs to his weaker movies . Too bad , because it had some real potential . The movie is based on Robert Ludlum novel with the same title . From what I've heard the screenplay was heavily rewritten, so in the end the movie isn't exactly too loyal to the book. Nevertheless it's the screenplay which is the biggest problem of the movie. I've seen this movie two times and I wasn't able to find the answers for my questions. I think "The Osterman weekend" has some big plot holes that destroy the movie. If Hurt was only interested in Hauer then why all the trouble ? Wasn't it much easier for him to kidnap his family and blackmail him ? After all he only wanted the interview . The murder of Hurts wife also doesn't makes sense . They really wanted to convince Hurt that her death was natural ? That she died from heart attack ? There was blood bleeding from her nose and they left a huge trace of needle on her nose , for God's sake. The actions of Hurts henchman are also idiotic. Hurt needs Hauer alive , but they doing everything they can to kill him. But the most stupid thing is the ending . The movie BETRAYS THE TWIST TO THE AUDIENCE that Hauer isn't in the studio while the interview is on TV. And how did Hauer find out where Hurt is ? He did used some kind of heat sensor , but how did he knew that he should go to the port (or wherever Hurt was hiding ) ?Peckinpah was sick while he was making "TOW" and it shows . The pacing is rather bad . The movie never seems to catch any kind of rhythm . Also , the slow motion scenes that Peckinpah is known for ( for modern audiences probably less than John Woo) here are looking absolutely awful . Very cheesy , with no dynamic and beauty. Bad montage . The music by Lalo Schifrin is also strangely inadequate. There is some impressive cast here : Rutger Hauer ( "Blade runner") , John Hurt ("1984") , Burt Lancaster ("Birdman of Alcatraz") , Dennis Hopper ("Blue Velvet") and Craig T. Nelson ("Poltergeist") . None of them fails . They all give really solid performances , especially Hauer and Hurt . Hauer doesn't quite fit the role of a TV journalist , but in the end I didn't mind it. There is some violence and nudity here . It's also interesting that both Ludlum and Peckinpah are showing us some kind of reality show before the idea of reality show even appeared. This is also the most intriguing part of the movie , when Peckinpah was able to create some true psychological tension between the characters.Still , this one was a disappointment . Not a total failure , but definitely below the expectations. I give it 4/10.

badcommand The Robert Ludlum book of the same name is excellent, very tense and very well written. I waited ages for this film to come along at the right price (25p off ebay, ha ha), but how disappointed I was when I finally saw it. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad film if it wasn't based on a book, but it is, and a great book at that. Therefore, I have to compare the film with the original as the two can't be separated. Relative to the book, the film is, frankly, rubbish I'm sorry to say. I had such high expectations, but the film bore such little resemblance to the book that had I not known it was called "The Osterman Weekend", I would never have guessed that it was based on the book of the same name.I gave this film 5/10 simply because I made it through to the end (and Rutger Hauer and John Hurt have done some great stuff), but it was more out of morbid curiosity as to how much more they could butcher the book than for any entertainment value. This was a film that was a product of its time (replete with cheesy music and bad acting) and it hasn't aged well. I'm glad I bought it for 25p because any more and I would've considered it a waste of money.If it comes up on TV and you have 90 minutes burning a hole in your life, watch it - it isn't dreadful, but it's certainly not great. If you've read the book and are hoping to see it brought to life, or think that you're about to watch another Sam Peckinpah classic, give it a miss, it really isn't worth it.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews This is only the second of Peckinpah's works I watch... the first being Convoy(yup, I sure do seem to pick 'em, don't I?), and I'm definitely intrigued. The first thing that struck me as interesting in this was the use of the medium of television, and the act of watching... there is a lot of playback. There are some very memorable scenes herein. The plot is well-written. I was confused at times, which I can't quite say at this point for sure who that has more to do with, Ludlum or already mentioned director(or even one of the script-writers). The pacing is quite good. There is considerable tension at points(Sam certainly knows how to create that), and the use of slow-motion, and to relatively negligible extent, his strong violence(don't get me wrong, though, this is pretty disturbing viewing) that I've been told of, I did see. There's not an awful lot of action, but it's well-done when there is, engaging and exciting. There is some language, and a nominal amount of nudity and sexuality. The acting is great(not sure I've cared for T. Nelson in anything else), Foster displays a wider range of emotion here than in They Live(and Hurt I'm not sure is actually capable of not giving solid performances). Effects are nicely done. The editing is marvelous, and there are some remarkably effective bits. This film is worth watching. The commentary track is worth a listen, featuring some of those who studied the director. I recommend this to fans of Sam Peckinpah, Robert Ludlum and/or spy movies. 7/10