Rating: 
Summary: Bad (insert any aspect of film here)
Review: Bad acting, bad casting, bad script, bad set, heck, even the titles were bad. Unbeliveable plot and unsympathetic characters. Where DID they get these actors? I wish there was one positive thing to say about this film to contrast it with the near infinite negatives. I'd ask for my money back even if I got to see this for free.The only successful con in this movie is how they can steal people's time and money and still look at themselves in the mirror.
Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding
Review: ...An excellent film about a con game/sting. Unfortunately, it gets a little too complicated and baffling for me later in the plot. Steve Martin does very well in a non-comedy role. ...High marks on the entertainment barometer...almost a must see...
Rating: 
Summary: MY FAVORITE MOVIE
Review: I can't understand how anyone can give such a low rating on this, unless they don't use their brains.
This is the first movie I watched that is newer, and that I love it more and more each time I see it.
You don't always know what can happen. Some things can sound good that are good, while others may sound good when bad, visa versa.
I think so many poeple want to see hollywood special effects, girls, and the other dirty stuff, that this film may appear boring.
Same with the original "Haunting" 1963. They said it was bad, because there were no special effects, and that the people seemed lifeless. Well, of course they will be lifeless. Would you be all cheery and happy if you were lonely, in a haunted house?
I think people like films that are entertaining, and not to actually study and think about.
Use your brains, and enjoy a good movie for once!
There is only one problem, but its not the movies fault. The music is GREAT, but no soundtrack :(
Rating: 
Summary: Worth Seeing Once
Review: The movie is worth seeing but is very slow through most of it. The storyline was good and the ending was even better. But you have to stick it out to see the results. The transition from one scene to the next was technically primitive and almost annoying, but on a good note, I thought Campbell Scott and Steve Martin gave great performances.
Rating:
Summary: Starts off slow...
Review: The Spanish Prisoner is a classic suspense story. It fits in with some of the great storylines from Hitchcock. A poor, trusting guy gets duped and taken for all he's worth. Just when you think there's no possible way for him to get out of trouble, it all works out. Tied up in a nice little bow at the end. Delicious. The story starts off a bit on the slow side, which I've found to be typical of David Mamet. But once it gets going, the action and suspense are amazing. I was also impressed with Steve Martin's performance. Is there anything that man can't do?
Rating:
Summary: Spanish for "TORTURE"
Review: After shelling out 4 dollars to rent this film, which I had seen get pretty good reviews, I was optimistic, and looked forward to a well-made non-blockbuster. With Steve Martin involved, how bad could it be. The opening credits rolled and my expectations increased upon seeing David Mammet's name. However, all of my expectations went unfulfilled as I forced myself through a viewing of one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The movie centers around the most naive and unintelligent person ever to invent a billion dollar, super-secret, internationally sought after idea. It becomes so nausiating to watch him obviously con'd scene, after scene, after scene. Its clear to any viewer of average intelligence that almost everyone he comes into contact with is clearly crooked. This is dissmissable until our protagonist fails to pickup on any of the crooks until literally the final five minutes of the movie. The numerous incidents throughout the movie, of which some call "plot twists" serve only to push the movie lower in quality. Granted his first suspicions, which as mentioned only occur towards the finale, provide an unpredictable ending, unfortunately, the only thing unpredictable about it, was that the movie could sink even lower. The pinnacle of disgust is fitting the very last line, which was barely heard over the screams of agony, the sound of ... being spewed into the popcorn bowl, and bashing of any objects within close proximity to my fellow viewers. If one thing will better your life this year, it most definitely is not watching this film, let alone purchasing it!
Rating:
Summary: I just saw it
Review: I think this is a great David Mamet film with a complete twisty raw script. It has an excellent relm of dialogue. Steve Martin is a different character for a change. He is great in this particular part.
Rating:
Summary: Agonizing. I felt like I was the prisoner...
Review: *Zero* stars would not be sufficient to represent the pain incurred by watching this. Intelligent?? Brilliant?? Did we watch the same movie?? Honestly, there has only been one other movie which I despised enough to have even been *remotely* compelled to write a review about (that film was "Mission Impossible 2," which also garnered many reviews to the far negative and positive). I rented this for a mere three dollars on DVD, and I still feel robbed... This film's plot is predictable, uninteresting, and insulting. Masquerading as an intellectual story regarding a convoluted confidence scheme (which has been done all too often, gang), it falls totally short of its goals. This is nowhere near Hitchcock, folks - it's not even in the same solar system. Additionally, to say that the dialog is flat is to be kind ("to be kind?" "to be kind." (watch the movie and you'll see what I mean by the statements in quotes)). The only redeeming feature of the film is that Steve Martin gives a moderately interesting performance, save for the fact that it is almost completely devoid of feeling, and the end scene feels very forced and unnatural. I really don't like making negative comments about Mr. Martin, because he is one of my favorite actors. As a rule, he is absolutely brilliant and a tremendously gifted actor. However, in this performance I could probably only give him about three stars because it's just not compelling enough. We don't really find out enough about him, nor do you really care about the character and what happens to him - good or bad (which is unfortunate, since I really wanted to like his performance. I tried. I really did). Campbell Scott is another promising candidate as Joe Ross. He is almost passable as a brilliant mathematician - or whatever he is - we never really find out about what he's really supposed to be either. Nor do we find out what the "Process" is that he has created for the company he works for, other than that it's going to make The Company and its benefactors filthy rich and that it's worth ripping Mr. Scott's character's life apart, blah, blah, blah... (this void of information regarding the "Process" hearkens back to the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, in which we never really know what's really *in* the briefcase - but in the case of Pulp Fiction, the mystery works). The basic problem is that Ross never learns, which is odd for someone who has evidently been accustomed to learning for a great deal of his life. At every turn he makes classic predictable blunders on his road to "redemption." However, even at the end of this movie he is still speaks hesitatingly, and yet trusts everyone he meets, which is just rediculous, unrealistic, and pointless. I agree that his character is supposed to be stupid, but not *this* stupid... And, if you are the type who enjoys stilted delivery of lines and sterile character who just tries a little too hard to convince Ross of her "feelings" for him (which we find out later are nonexistent anyway), but comes off too repellent to be remotely interesting, then you'll probably enjoy Rebecca Pidgeon's portrayal of Susan Ricci. Another reviewer chalked this up to great acting ability and a deliberate action to show disdain for Ross, but I don't buy it. It just made me cringe every time she opened her mouth from the beginning of the movie until the end. It's *that* amazingly bad. At any rate, I'm usually very lenient in my judgment on films, but my disdain for this film has unfortunately motivated me to put my feelings into words, and to hopefully aid in swaying individuals away from buying or renting this abomination.
Rating:
Summary: The plot dragged me in
Review: In short, this is a movie about confidence games. i.e.,
someone has something others want, and these 'others' try to
get it via age-old duplicitous techniques. Overall I
thought the acting was first-rate, and in particular Steve
Martin's non-comedic role a pleasure to watch. If your last
introduction to confidence games was 'The Sting,' (a
wonderful movie btw) it's perhaps time to watch another.
This movie, and 'The Game', are the ones I recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Mamet brilliance
Review: David Mamet is an extremely gifted director. Spanish Prisoner is a glowing example of his talent. The movie has so many twists that it takes almost the whole flick to "get it". Campbell Scott (George C.'s son) is excellent as the duped inventor of a secret process. Steve Martin shines in a non comedic dramatic role of a supposed friend or is he really an agent of industrial espionage. This is truly a cerebral film that would not be appreciated by those who like things all spelled out for them. Mamet urges us to think.
| 
