mattkratz This was a military thriller about a man (Val Kilmer) who has to rescue a kidnapped lady. (Kristen Davis.) Of course, he learns that nothing is what it seems and encounters plenty of conspiracies along the way. I think it gives a decent performance and I liked the action scenes, but it kind of drags a bit. I think Val Kilmer was good in the lead, and the supporting cast was good. (Ed O'Neill, William H. Macy, Davis, etc.) It was worth it for that and the action scenes. I admit it was loaded with clichés, so you won't see too many surprises coming, but you might like it if you are into this sort of movie. I could recommend it for that.** out of ****

g-bodyl If you like intelligent, slow-moving thrillers, than Spartan is just the movie for you. It's not by any means the best thriller out there, but it's a realistic and captivating movie. This isn't one of those action-packed, explosive-heavy films, even though the plot will beg to differ. Speaking of the plot, the pacing can be a little tedious especially in the first half-hour, but thankfully the film begins to pick up steam and it finishes with a bang.One can see this is totally a David Mamet film because of his flair for out-of-the-ordinary dialog. Mamet directed a film with a rather straightforward plot. This is about a ranger who always get the job done, so he is assigned to find the kidnapped daughter of a high-up political person.The acting is pretty good, better than I was expecting. Val Kilmer has been slipping of late and he actually does a decent job here. Derek Luke is decent as the rookie cop and William H. Macy has several good scenes as a political insider.Overall, Spartan is good enough to be a watchable political thriller and it has several unexpected twist and turns. As a warning, sometimes the film may not make sense and the plot may seem illogical at times, so this is a film to pay attention to if you want it to make sense. There is great dialog here and we can thank Mamet for that. I rate this film 8/10.

wikipediacabal I enjoyed the film thoroughly. It is plot driven and still finds an emotional reality for almost all characters. The action choreography is believable and engaging. But something I have always admired about Mamet's scripts is their plausibility. My favorites, like "Glengarry Glen Ross", could be taken directly from life. It was pretty enough to not shock the mainstream public but stayed true to Mamet's world. The number of people involved is small and this supports character development as well as the inevitable deceptions and twists. Even a criminal crew might perpetrate a careful plan as in "Heist".Here, as on his TV show "The Unit", Mamet steps into Jason Bourne or 24 size conspiracies and cover ups that don't pass my smell test. Don't get me wrong, conspiracies and secret murders are real, but I couldn't swallow this one in contemporary America. Although every detail is not spelled out, it seems that in the story, a gigantic rogue element of the US Secret Service decides that the politically expedient thing is to fake the accidental death of the President's teenage daughter while at the same time arranging for her to disappear overseas as a sex slave. Not completely clear is whether some of these events were unplanned. It is felt that since the daughter hates her father, she must vanish for him to be reelected. Then why not simply kill her in an apparent accident or suicide? And the plan goes off seamlessly, if not for one incorruptible super soldier plus a couple of short-lived idealistic assistants. This is wacko stuff like the Clinton murder theories and 9/11 conspiracies. It takes me out of immersion. The mere clear definition of bad and good guys ruins some of the Mamet magic. Your opinion may vary.By Hollywood spy action standards, it's still relatively realistic. It doesn't insult the viewer like a Mission Impossible or James Bond. That's a good thing. And maybe Mamet felt he had to up the ante in order to get the kind of budget that an action movie requires.Unfortunately it was no box office hit. I suspect that Kilmer's name didn't help even though it's one of his very best performances. And this was very much a film for adult men, limiting its marketability. It maybe broke even after DVD sales.I was so much more convinced and therefore engaged by Mamet's next film, Redbelt. Check that out by all means. Chiwetel Ejiofor was mesmerizing before his breakthrough "12 Years A Slave" turn. Sadly Redbelt also failed to find an audience and lost a lot of money. Maybe Mamet, like some of my other favorite directors Todd Solondz and the Duplass brothers, does best with ultra low budget outings that can turn a profit while grossing less than $5M domestic box office. I would hate to see Mamet unable to get projects made due to financial performance. His earlier work like House of Games and Spanish Prisoner looked cheap but they are mesmerizing and bear repeat viewing. I have to think they stand up better in the back catalog.

Maziun I'm a fan of David Mamet's movies (both his and the ones he wrote the screenplay for) . "House of games " is one of the best movies ever made. Mamet's other contributions to cinema are great too (including "The Untouchables " and "Ronin" ). So , I was curious about this one . This time Mamet tries a political action thriller. The result ? Surprise , but a bad one.Mamet has always been a rather weak director . I admit that . Still , his flat sense of direction worked quite well in his movies , mostly because they were very theatrical from the nature of plot. Hell , I think that's why "House of games" has surrealistic , hypnotizing feel to it. The problem with "Spartan" is this is an action/thriller . All the action scenes here lack tension. They look like they were directed by amateur. The movie also never has any sense of entertainment . There isn't a moment when you feel that time is running out for our heroes.What is more surprising is the rather bad plot . The story is very predictable and you don't have to be a genius to figure out most of the twists. Worse , some of the twists are rather forced (the sign , the scarecrow sitting on the chair when you need it ) . There is one really good twist at the end of movie , but on the other hand Mamet also throws a rather forced deus ex machina at the end. The dialogue is also bad , very dour , very forgettable . It's surprising , because Mamet always crafts the dialogues very carefully . He knows how to write a stylish dialogue . Here the dialogues are purely informational. The acting is good . Val Kilmer gives a really good performance , one of best in his entire career (along with "Tombstone" and "The Heat"). He plays his character just like he should (and could) play Batman all those years ago in "Batman forever" . Silent , brooding , tough and honorable. Kirsten Bell has a small , but good role in the movie . It was good to see Ed O'Neill ("Married with children") in a convincing serious role and William Macy is pleasure as always. Overall , the acting is the best thing in the movie.I also like the bitter mood of the movie . The story here sadly feels like something that could happen in real life and it makes "Spartan" different than most Hollywood thrillers .It doesn't change the fact that weak screenplay , bad dialogues and crappy direction make this one a misfire in Mamet's career . I give it 4/10.