Lack of good storyline.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Don't listen to the negative reviews

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Sam Peckinpah's swan song is a muddled, confusing work with flashes of greatness that remind us of the director in his prime. Considering the amount of trash that was released during the '80s, I was actually pretty pleased with this film, which kept me gripped throughout. The reason is twofold: first off, the twisty, turny plot line, taken from a Robert Ludlum novel, always keeps you guessing as to the true identities of the characters and what's going on behind the scenes. The second reason is the cast: this film has assembled a list of greats from old-time winners to then-new talent.The film marks pretty familiar territory for the director: taut conspiracy tension combines with a home-under-siege scenario reminiscent of the climax of STRAW DOGS. Along the way there's time for the kind of biting television satire that was also prevalent in the likes of Cronenberg's VIDEODROME from the same period. The action is handled very well indeed and there's just the right amount without the film being too over the top; time is always taken to build the characters and storyline first, unlike in today's Hollywood blockbusters. I find action always more effective when you care about those involved. Peckinpah can't resist shooting some slow motion and I love the bow and arrows/crossbow scenes, expertly done.Yes, the film's editing is poor, and Lalo Schifrin's score is one of his deservedly lesser known compositions. The muddled storyline takes some working out but despite all these negatives, I had fun watching this movie. The twist is spot on and the actors handle it very well. John Hurt is creepy and weird, while Rutger Hauer is the best I've ever seen him, making for a charismatic hero who's believable as well as being an action man. Burt Lancaster lends some old-time gravitas to the role while '80s starlets Helen Shaver and Meg Foster also make good, early impressions in their careers. Some of the best casting is saved for the trio of friends who visit Hauer; Nelson, Hopper and Sarandon take some beating. Hopper achieves a fine balance between friendliness and sinister; Chris Sarandon is a pretty frightening, volatile character and I'm sure his part here paved the way for his vampire role in FRIGHT NIGHT. Best of all is POLTERGEIST's Craig T. Nelson, absolutely superb as the buddy with shady intentions; he plays it just right. What a cast!

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.

Nobody should claim too much for Sam Peckinpah's final movie, yet it's an intriguing work which communicates - in the midst of a lot of confusion, grandstanding and fustian - a real sense of unease about Western pseudo-democracies and their broadcast media.Rutger Hauer plays a David Frost-type chat show host who has made a career out of grilling powerful government and military big-wigs. He finds himself caught in the middle of a CIA action against three of his former college friends, who are alleged to be traitors. CIA operative John Hurt installs state-of-the-art surveillance equipment in Hauer's home and when the three friends come over for one of their regular reunion weekends all hell breaks loose, with accusations, counter-accusations, set-ups and assassinations the order of play. Eventually it becomes clear that Hauer and his friends have been entrammelled in Hurt's plot to revenge himself on his boss, Burt Lancaster, who green-lighted the murder of Hurt's wife some time in the past.All of this makes The Osterman Weekend your usual le Carré-type spy story. Yet the film has wider ambitions, as the surveillance and final showdown on TV are straining to say something about the way in which the media mediates every act we perform. The final showdown between Hauer, Hurt and Lancaster is enacted on a seemingly live talk show, a kind of untra-violent version of Frost/Nixon, and in the end Hauer does a Howard Beale and challenges his audience to turn him off with their last remaining ounce of free will. In a way, the film is a companion piece to Cronenberg's contemporaneous Videodrome, but sadly The Osterman Weekend's critique of the media-age lacks that film's formal precision, and the final shift from formula spy pic to media apocalypse is unearned. Perhaps if the producers had allowed Peckinpah's original cut to be released, the film would be more consistent - those who've seen the VHS of the preview edition might enlighten us.As a Peckinpah film, The Osterman Weekend gives us another portrait of an individual forced to take action against the forces threatening his family, a la Straw Dogs. It shows a corporate/military establishment corrupt and murderous, a la Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. It shows a group of friends torn apart when history and larger forces overtake them, a la The Wild Bunch. But it does so less convincingly than any of these previous films, and whilst its merits make it worth watching, it probably can't be thought of as anything but an intriguing coda to a remarkable career.

I caught this movie, the other night on one of the premium cable channels, I think IFC or Sundance, I had read about the movie previously over the years, but never saw it. WoW! What a movie. There are def not anyone in this country that could make such an intelligent insightful movie about politics, today. The movie is very astute in terms of its analysis of the political structure in this country, and it was definitely too much for the average viewer upon its release in 1983. It is still too much today. But its message is still relevant, of how nothing is at seems, we are all pawns, how are whole government is just a front or cover which masks the true power structure in tnis country. We individually have no power, we are again pawns that are moved to one postion from the other, completely unaware of what is really going on. We are pawns that are played against each other, white against black, brown against black, straight against gay, men against women, etc..in the background they watch and laugh at us, we are such simpletons..eg. we still believe(that Universal Suffrage) that our elections in this country mean something...etc I think that is a very hard message for people to accept, the tragic thing is that with the recent collapse of our economy, people will actually come to realize this finally...