Had to abort halfway through.
I just couldn't stomach hearing the word "leads" spoken ad nauseam coupled with the incessant yelling/arguing/bickering. I'M OUT! 0/10
sharePut your mouse and keyboard DOWN!
share
MovieChat Forums > Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) Discussion > Had to abort halfway through.
I also left halfway through, simply because THE LEADS were weak!
sharePepe gets NO coffee!
shareIt’s a movie about salesmen, so of course they’re going to talk about leads. Leads are who you sell to.
shareA movie like this needs a certain amount of adjustment on the part of the viewer. It’s almost a different dialect to typical Hollywood fare - there’s no protagonist to root for, everyone is a scumbag or weakling, the typical 3 Act story structure is nowhere to be seen.
Think of it as a museum piece, make yourself watch it, appreciating the fine qualities (like the writing and performances) and reflect on what it says about the human condition and the sales industry.
It’s become a cult classic. Many people love it, and with another viewing you might, too.
Interestingly, the Alec Baldwin scene was added for the movie only, it was not in the original play and never has been. I have seen the play quite a few times.
And as others have said, this is not your typical movie with heroes, bad guys, love stories action sequences etc. It's a filmed stage play that takes place primarily in one location...something that's been done many times before.
David Mamet also writes very distinct, naturalistic dialogue. People in that environment will argue, talk over each other repeat themselves etc.
I think its a shame that some people cannot appreciate it for what it is, because it has some of the best ensemble acting you will ever see.
"David Mamet also writes very distinct, naturalistic dialogue."
I agree with distinct. Not so much naturalistic.
I liked this movie for the most part, but I often found the dialogue distracting, mostly because of the tendancy of the characters to talk over each other. Often they were just talking to themselves, not each other, i.e. not a dialogue, but two simultaneous monologues.
I've seen other movies written by Mamet. This is the only one where this sort of conversation occurs.
I assume it was because of its origins as a stage play. Or maybe it was a deliberate decision by the director?
It's an interesting thing, turning a play into a movie. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This one...isn't the best but it's not bad. Comparing with Amadeus, A Few Good Men, maybe I'm Not Rappaport, Bronx Tale, and quite a number of Shakespeare adaptations which hardly count since they aren't contemporary plays.
But I like the movie although I find it a bit long. So partial agreement with OP, but not 0/10. Maybe 6/10.