The Osterman Weekend (1983)

People are voting emotionally.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

Would someone tell me what the hell is going on ? Peckinpah's films tend to improve with age. They also get better the more often you watch them. For these reasons I'm reluctant to award this film fewer than 8 stars, but I don't think I can manage more than six. Those initial jump-cuts have me guessing.Critics such as Ebert, Kehr and Canby wrote that it "made no sense whatever"; "the structure is a mess"; "incomprehensible" and "hallucinatory". First time through, without prior preparation, I could hardly understand any of it. However, Wikipedia came to the rescue with a painstaking explanation of what was going on, and I now see that there may have been some deeply submerged pattern to the story's narrative. The surface explanation is that this is Fassett's extremely complicated way of getting his own back on his boss, for killing his wife, a seemingly pointless exercise in the first place, the motivation for which was not clear to me at all. The boss, Burt Lancaster, didn't seem to be aware of having committed the murder, and even if he was, he didn't appear to link Fassett, John Hurt, with her in any case. Not according to his subsequent dealings with Hurt, anyhow.I'm already confused. The confusion is not simplified by the multiple closed circuit television set-ups spying all over the place, some of which didn't seem to be off any public radar, and were being publicly broadcast nationwide. Anyway, after murdering some of his friends and their girlfriends, and crowing "then there were two", the perpetrator, Fassett/Hurt, finally gets shot by Rutger Hauer, who rescues his kidnapped wife, his son and his dog, whose death had previously been faked. It is difficult to understand why Fassett aimed to murder Hauer/Tanner's friends, including Tanner himself, and his family. What happened to Lancaster/Danforth, after he was exposed on television ? We should have been told. I'll just have to watch this film again, a number of times. I believe the book is good: there just doesn't seem to be a close or adequate marriage between the visuals and the script. Having now watched it twice, it becomes distinctly better. In fact, it is positively good. Terminally professional. Two more stars.One thing: like many of Peckinpah's films, it is prophetic, in view of recent political events in the USA. It points out how we are increasingly manipulated by the programmes on television, which is truer today than 40 years ago. Switch off, if you can. You can do it, if you try. 40 years ago ! Remarkable.

*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.

The poster reads; "What would you do if a total stranger proved to you that your three closest friends were Soviet agents?" Then you see that this is based on a Robert Ludlum bestseller. Then you see a to-die-for cast and the director of all this is Sam Peckinpah. Still, "The Osterman Weekend" doesn't gel all that well.It's very confusing all the way. Stylistically, this flick is all over the place, with some trademark Peckinpah visuals that really feel out of place. The characters are total bores, each and every one and when the audience doesn't care for them it's hard to empathize with their plight.The actors are pretty solid though. John Hurt is appropriately crazy as the villain, Craig T. Nelson pretty effective as the no-nonsense leader of the pack (Osterman himself) and Helen Shaver is good as a drug addicted nymph. Others are OK but sadly Hauer is miscast as the hero, he's simply so much better at playing villains.Ironcially, the story behind "The Osterman Weekend" is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This was Peckinpah's last feature and he went through a lot to finish it, only to have his version somewhat altered by studio execs. Peckinpah's version can be seen by way of a horrible VHS transfered copy but the difference isn't all that huge.Still, there's something about the flick that begs repeat viewings. Everyone has a few guilty favorites and "The Osterman Weekend" is one of mine. There's something about the isolated setting, the cat and mouse game (although not played to it's full potential) between Hauer and Hurt and the pool scene is just terrific. Also, the scene where Hurt pretends to be a weatherman is simply hilarious.Plus the sight of Meg Foster with that crossbow is the coolest poster I've ever seen.