Matchstick Men (2003)

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

A Brilliant Conflict

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Matchstick Men is the story of two con artists who decided to set up a major sting. It is also the story of a man struggling with major neuroses (think Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt). It is also the story of a man who learns to love a young girl who claims to be his 14-year old daughter.At the center of all three stories is Roy Waller, the veteran con man played by Nicolas Cage. Nicolas Cage has some limitations as an actor. If you saw him struggling with his Italian accent in Captain Corelli's Mandolin you know what I'm talking about. In spite of his limitations, he has turned into a major star and leading man with more than forty films to his credit. He has played the romantic lead in City of Angels and Moonstruck, the action hero in Con Air, Face Off, and The Rock. He won an Academy Award for his stunning performance as a despondent alcoholic in Leaving Las Vegas. Some of his best work comes when he is playing offbeat characters in movies like Raising Arizona or Peggy Sue Got Married. His performance in Matchstick Men resembles a "best of" collection that draws on strengths from many of his greatest performances.His character here is charming, quirky, witty, at points almost helpless, and at other points determined and driven. This is a great performance by a seasoned veteran. This is also an outstanding directorial achievement for Ridley Scott. Scott was the director of Gladiator, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down, and Thelma and Louise. This film is very different from his previous works in theme, scope, and tone.When I saw the previews, I was afraid that I had already seen the best pieces and that this film would become another predictable formula film with a few innovations thrown in. I was wrong. The story is clever and original and Scott does a masterful job of weaving together the different elements into a cohesive and engaging story.Throughout the story we learn about the science of the con, but somewhere in the middle we move from con science to conscience when we learn that Cage's neuroses are a result of a nagging conscience and his own sense of failure. He has been quite successful as a con artist but his failed relationships make him a deeply troubled man with more than a few tics and quirks.I do have a minor criticism, but it has more to do with a larger trend in Hollywood-ubiquitous product placement. A number of brand names are prominently featured during the film, and I'm sure the companies paid handsomely to have their products featured. In an era when we name public schools after corporations and products, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's bad enough that I have to sit through commercials before the film, I shouldn't have to seem them during the film too. That minor criticism aside, this is a film that is definitely worth a look. In the beginning, the film looks like just another "clever caper" film, but by the time I reached the final credits, I saw a charming film about redemption, forgiveness, and grace.

No spoliers here, nothing revealed, just my opinion that once again Nicolas Cage lifts a flick way up to enviable levels with his brilliant acting and interpretation of a character. Directors must find him so refreshing to hande. This is a clever film, a pleasure to watch, engrossin, entertaining, with smart dialogue. 8/10. This is a winner ~ watch it!

At last Nick Cage had a good character for redemption for such bad roles in late years,Ridley provides a great plot with a disturb leading role which is the best of the picture,the whole sting stay in backdrop or in second plane,this kind of disorder is very usual nowadays,the behavior obsessive compulsive reach around 20% of population,and how it is great bring it a movie as shown in this one,great approach by Ridley Scott and magnificent acting by Cage!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8

did this illogical mess of a film receive such high reviews? I usually avoid Nicholas Cage movies, but saw this on HBO and I like Sam Rockwell. It was a decent enough movie, a little schmaltzy, but not horrible. That is until the twist, that completely invalidates the first 90 minutes of the movie from having any logic to it at all. The plot is like an extended Rub Goldberg machine, that the protagonist thinks he is in charge of, but EVERYONE ELSE is playing against him, simply for the benefit of his partner. For the whole movie! Can anyone explain how, or why, the characters behaved the way they did when Cage was not in the scene? As they were plotting against him, when they were alone, they remained the characters Cage's character thought they were. If you were conning someone, would you keep the con facade going even when you are alone, or only with other people you are conspiring with? I don't think so. Simply one of the worst plot holes I have ever seen, yet the professional critics, and the other reviews posted here, simply seem to ignore pure cinematic ridiculousness when they see it.