A very interesting mystery thriller which unfortunately completely falls apart in the last third.
Mantegna, playing a Jew, behaves in an increasingly absurd, unconvincing, and baffling way in the last third; he suddenly becomes a proud Jew who wants to fight for "the cause" and even blows up a Nazi owner's store to make his older, new Jewish acquaintances accept him as a brothers-in-arms Jew. Then there is that scene with him and Rhames which just lacks realism. But the most disappointing thing about the movie is just how totally illogical the final twist is; the ending basically throws the entire movie's events upside-down on its head, and absolutely nothing adds up! Apparently he was set up by the secret Jewish organization in order to... what? It isn't clear at all.
Let's start from the beginning: Mantegna totally coincidentally stumbles on a murder case with an old Jewish lady, and in no time is he re-assigned from an old case to that Jewish-murder case by powerful, rich New York Jews. He is then, as we find out at the end through that silly twist, lead on by the family of the dead Jewish lady to believe that someone is trying to kill them from a roof, where they evidently put a man to play a killer, and where they planted a piece of paper with a pseudo-name of Hitler's written on it, implying an anti-Semitic plot. Mantegna is then, once again, set up by the Jews - in a library - where he is fooled into discovering a secret Jewish military base in an old building. The old Jews tell him to give them a piece of paper; a list of names. After he says he can't because it's a piece of filed-away police evidence, they get all sulky and annoyed by his lack of "Jewishness". This gets Mantegna to feel so extremely guilty that he wants to make it up for them: he finds a Jewish woman he met previously and somehow knows before-hand that she is also involved. How the hell did he know that?! Absurd. Then she leads him on to blow up the Nazi owner's store, but it is he who volunteers to do it. How did "they" know he would volunteer? Shaky credibility there. And then the Jews blackmail him with photos of him blowing up the store if he doesn't give them that list.
So what's the story here??!... The Jews set him up so that he would blow up the store? And why?: because that would force him to give them the list. There is only one problem with that: he wouldn't have had the list in the first place if the Jews hadn't given him the murder case! The movie makes no sense at all. It turns out that the murderers of the old lady were some black kids, and that Mantegna was set up. That's all we ever find out. What we don't ever find out is: 1) was there a Jewish terrorist group? 2) If they did exist then why frame Mantegna? 3) How would they possibly know how Mantegna would think, act, or react in a SERIES of different situations and discoveries during his research of the case? 4) Above all, how the hell did they know he would be a Jew who would develop extreme feelings of guilt in such a short period of time for "neglecting" his Jewishness? Mamet has totally screwed up with the logic this time. While the other two movies I saw were sometimes far-fetched, they never lacked logic and a credible conclusion. This time around, however, Mamet leaves so many loose ends that the viewer can only finish the movie feeling confused and somewhat disappointed.
Mantegna, playing a Jew, behaves in an increasingly absurd, unconvincing, and baffling way in the last third; he suddenly becomes a proud Jew who wants to fight for "the cause" and even blows up a Nazi owner's store to make his older, new Jewish acquaintances accept him as a brothers-in-arms Jew. Then there is that scene with him and Rhames which just lacks realism. But the most disappointing thing about the movie is just how totally illogical the final twist is; the ending basically throws the entire movie's events upside-down on its head, and absolutely nothing adds up! Apparently he was set up by the secret Jewish organization in order to... what? It isn't clear at all.
Let's start from the beginning: Mantegna totally coincidentally stumbles on a murder case with an old Jewish lady, and in no time is he re-assigned from an old case to that Jewish-murder case by powerful, rich New York Jews. He is then, as we find out at the end through that silly twist, lead on by the family of the dead Jewish lady to believe that someone is trying to kill them from a roof, where they evidently put a man to play a killer, and where they planted a piece of paper with a pseudo-name of Hitler's written on it, implying an anti-Semitic plot. Mantegna is then, once again, set up by the Jews - in a library - where he is fooled into discovering a secret Jewish military base in an old building. The old Jews tell him to give them a piece of paper; a list of names. After he says he can't because it's a piece of filed-away police evidence, they get all sulky and annoyed by his lack of "Jewishness". This gets Mantegna to feel so extremely guilty that he wants to make it up for them: he finds a Jewish woman he met previously and somehow knows before-hand that she is also involved. How the hell did he know that?! Absurd. Then she leads him on to blow up the Nazi owner's store, but it is he who volunteers to do it. How did "they" know he would volunteer? Shaky credibility there. And then the Jews blackmail him with photos of him blowing up the store if he doesn't give them that list.
So what's the story here??!... The Jews set him up so that he would blow up the store? And why?: because that would force him to give them the list. There is only one problem with that: he wouldn't have had the list in the first place if the Jews hadn't given him the murder case! The movie makes no sense at all. It turns out that the murderers of the old lady were some black kids, and that Mantegna was set up. That's all we ever find out. What we don't ever find out is: 1) was there a Jewish terrorist group? 2) If they did exist then why frame Mantegna? 3) How would they possibly know how Mantegna would think, act, or react in a SERIES of different situations and discoveries during his research of the case? 4) Above all, how the hell did they know he would be a Jew who would develop extreme feelings of guilt in such a short period of time for "neglecting" his Jewishness? Mamet has totally screwed up with the logic this time. While the other two movies I saw were sometimes far-fetched, they never lacked logic and a credible conclusion. This time around, however, Mamet leaves so many loose ends that the viewer can only finish the movie feeling confused and somewhat disappointed.