not as good as all the hype

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The Plot.Having left New Hampshire over excessive demands by the locals, the cast and crew of "The Old Mill" moves their movie shoot to a small town in Vermont. However, they soon discover that The Old Mill burned down in 1960, the star can't keep his pants zipped, the starlet won't take her top off, and the locals aren't quite as easily conned as they appear.Well I LOVE Mamet.This is not one of his best efforts.Starts off good and once SJP comes in the scene things plummet.She cannot act her way out of a paper bag.

Having read the reviews that some IMDb contributors made, I was looking forward to this movie. I should have known better. The morally bankrupt set that is making movies these days is not able to produce anything that isn't loaded with sex, twisted liberal values and thoroughly rehashed rubbish. My problem with began with the end-of-reel flickering style opening credits which were annoying along with the music played. Virtually all the characters are stereotypes:1). the temperamental leading lady who is more diva than artist2). the lecherous leading man who can't keep his hands off 14 yearold girls3). the crooked politician well, you get the idea. Sure there are some clever lines here and there but on the whole this movie stinks and is illogical to the point of absurdity. For example, the leading lady won't expose her breasts but strips naked in the lead writer's hotel bedroom before he can close the door. The writer is supposed to be a Jew but has a WASP name. What's he hiding? Frankly, I'm getting fed up with this sort of rot that passes for humor. It should come to no surprise that the townspeople succumb to Hollywood's degenerate values by the end of the movie. Hey, why not? Look who produced this trash.

Recap: A film team practically invades a small rural town in Vermont after being kicked out of their last intended shooting location. Short on cash, short on time and with a lot of people talented in finding trouble they must convince the townsfolk to let the shoot their movie, and use their building. Problem is, the building they want to use burned downed in 1960.Comments: A movie about all the small things that complicate your life as a movie producer or director. Never mind that you're short on cash and time, but when your lead star has an improper taste for (too) young girls, your shooting location burnt down a few decades ago and a town council member really hates you, then you almost appreciate the small troubles of life.This intention to make the movie a hectic, intense and funny project that finds trouble everywhere it goes is also it biggest problem. There are so many small sub-plots that none of them are given much time to grow and evolve. The result is that there are a lot of small "ha-ha"s but you never got a joke that really is given time to build up and make you roll on the floor laughing.It is nice, not hilarious. But it does redeem itself a little at the end, where it actually connects a lot of these sub-plots in one scene. And it also got a good cast with a few actually making a little something with the scarce screen time they get with so many plots to go around. I think especially of Macy, Stiles and Hoffman.But I had expected more. A laugh or two maybe. Something to get the movie going. Something extra. Unfortunately I got a little disappointed.5/10

I have, for seven years, been waiting to see this film. I always tell the story about the time I went with some friends to the cinema and convinced everyone to watch this film and once inside the theater everyone wanted to go because they didn't like what they were watching but I wanted to stay because I liked it very much. And because I think there's a time for movies and that they arrive when they arrive, I have just found David Mamet's "State and Main" and, luckily, I've liked it very much. Of course, it's a special movie, but not in the sense that it's not for everyone. It's an easy-going movie, with a clear and simple plot line, nice sceneries and a cinematography that doesn't take any risks; but I could merely recommend, with enthusiasm, that everyone who watches assume a commitment. What do I mean by this? Well, that if you pay more attention than usual you should really enjoy it. The thing is that "State and Main" is a movie about a movie, and it's written by David Mamet, fact that naturally makes it not 'any' movie about a movie. I'll take a risk and say that this is based on one of Mamet's plays (I don't know that for a fact), because it looks very theatrical, but with the exceptional cast (by genius Avy Kaufman) and Theodore Shapiro's shifting score, we quickly forget about it. We don't forget, however, what may originally have come from a play; and that's Mamet's use of language. From scene one, where a doctor encounters a patient on the street and Walt (William H. Macy) argues with his team about the place they've ended up in, the writer/director establishes a style in his screenplay that we feel throughout the whole ride and contains certain characteristics: sharp, witty, direct, humorous and, at surprising times, reflexive and profound. Walt is a director who comes to shoot a film to Waterford, Vermont; the place they've ended up in: the middle of nowhere. The fact that Waterford is a little town where everyone has a big smile on their faces and don't seem to have problems (Julia Stiles' perfect working teenager; Rebecca Pidgeon's kind and loving Annie; Charles Durning's mayor), helps to establish a contrast with the neurotic director and his Hollywood crew: the manipulative and unstoppable producer Marty (a wonderful David Paymer); the popular star with a 'thing' for minors Bob (the role Alec Baldwin knows by heart); the pretty and stupid popular actress (Sarah Jessica Parker, in the role that suits her quite well); and the character with which you should implement my recommendation of paying attention: the creative, insecure writer of the film, Joe, played by the Great Philip Seymour Hoffman. Stereotypes? Why not some of them? But Manet is so gifted that, instead of assuming a character is stereotyped, he gives them lines for us to recognize, through their personality, the stereotype they represent. This sound simple, but it's not. It's the same I try to say about "State and Main": it looks simple, and it can be; but it doesn't have to be if you want it to. If you want, you can put yourselves in Joe the writer's position and try to figure out the truth, whatever it may be. If you want, you can enter as an outsider to the world of making a film and what it has to offer; to the political aspirations and perspectives of a little town; to the tradition and the stories and the sense of home of a little town. Mamet knows all of these things, and here sometimes he takes a stand; he sometimes mocks, other times he praises, most of the time he makes no sense at all, but all the time he's showing these things to us, in any form you may want to take them. And what's what cinema essentially does?