The Osterman Weekend


Action / Drama / Thriller

IMDb Rating 5.9 10 7011


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 501 times



John Hurt as Lawrence Fassett
Rutger Hauer as John Tanner
Dennis Hopper as Richard Tremayne
Burt Lancaster as Maxwell Danforth
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
807.59 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 43 min
P/S 0 / 1
1.64 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 43 min
P/S 0 / 6

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by NateWatchesCoolMovies 5 / 10

Does not make a whole lot of sense

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.

Reviewed by gavin6942 7 / 10

Great or What?

The host of an investigative news show is convinced by the CIA that the friends he has invited to a weekend in the country are engaged in a conspiracy that threatens national security in this adaptation of the Robert Ludlum novel.

I guess when this film came out, it was not well-received and people thought that Sam Peckinpah ended his career on a low note. Over time, opinions have improved. Now, I wasn't reviewing movies when this came out, but I suspect that one reason the reviews improve is because of the cast -- this is Meg Foster, Chris Sarandon and Craig T. Nelson before they really broke. Add Rutger Hauer and Dennis Hopper to that, and you have a fun film.

Based on the DVD I watched, what would make the film even better is a nice re-scan. I have to believe the film could look better than the version I saw. The plot is a bit strange, too, but I think it is still driven by the characters and could be re-evaluated and re-appreciated if a decent release existed.

Reviewed by chaswe-28402 8 / 10

A revenge far-fetched

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.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment