Watch The Osterman Weekend For Free

People are voting emotionally.

Memorable, crazy movie

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

Peckinpah's swansong 'The Osterman Weekend' at first appears as a political thriller but gradually as the story gets more complex, the layers unfold as the surprise is gradually revealed. It may have a dated look mostly because of the technical props that are obsolete today. But, the main theme of the story is ahead of its time.The movie is shot in a voyeuristic fashion. The viewer is given intimate glimpses into the lives of the characters, even during their private moments such as when they're having sex. At the same time, the editing could have been tighter had it not focused a little too much on the sex and drugs themes. Peckinpah does an excellent job in building tension and catching the viewer by surprise. The film gets a tad confusing but once the major twist is revealed, it's easy to get back on track.All the actors, John Hurt, Rutger Hauer, Dennis Hopper, Helen Shaver, Cassie Yates and Chris Sarandon do a good job. Craig T. Nelson is adequate. His performance in the latter half suffers due to the poor lines he's given to deliver. Lalo Schifrin's score works. The action sequences may not look as sophisticated as they do in today's spy-thrillers but they're quite fun to watch.Even though 'The Osterman Weekend' is confusing at times, it does work as a suspense thriller. It has its flaws but in my opinion, it is not half as bad as many have made it out to be.

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.

The last hurrah of legendary maverick director Sam Peckinpah was a cynically interesting, but unsatisfying accomplishment. Taken off Robert Ludlum's novel, and penned by Alan Sharp. This tight and calculated adaptation on the intrusiveness of media manipulation and surveillance for personal gain effectively exposes the dark corrupted underbelly, and the paranoia that follows it within the Cold War era. It's quite a topical subject. The complex script can feel convoluted, but the lean and nervous layout pulls you in. Appearances can deceive, and it becomes a real relationship tester between the characters on just who's behind the puppet work. The drama within these moments work well, and draw you in as the characters begin ask questions about each other, and their motives. Although the more I think, and concentrated on the plot details. The more I seemed to question the story's progression, and outcome. Sure it compels, but it leaves some niggles.Leading the way is a very solid showing by the ensemble cast of character actors. Rutger Hauer' superbly uneasy, but patriotically brave lead performance heads up the cast. John Hurt builds quite a good turn, in getting you suspicious about his CIA character. The three men that are under the microscope are brilliantly played by a twitchy Dennis Hopper, hasty Chris Sarandon and a spiritually calm Craig T. Nelson. Showing up in strong support are the ladies too. Meg Foster ably holds her own with a hard-nose turn. Her eyes are beautifully striking. Helen Shaver is lively seductive and lewd, as Hooper's cocaine addict wife and Cassie Yates is prominently good. Burt Lancaster's small, but controlled performance lends well too.Peckinpah's structured direction features a lot of his recognizable staples. Like his precisely polished set-pieces of slow-mo (no one else does it better) to the kinetic camera-work and the poetic-like violence. It's beautiful to watch, and quite suspenseful. However sometimes it just felt like an uneven balance between what the writer wanted, and Peckinpah visualised. Technically the film was competently executed, but seemed a little cold. Lalo Schifrin's fantastic music score is experimentally saucy, and eerie with some delicate acoustic touches.Intellectually too smart for its own good? Maybe, but this paranoia political thriller does keep one watching until the end.