Hey folks, Harry here... we had two earlier reviews for MATCHSTICK MEN - one from Mr Mustard and the other from a dear friend in Los Angeles... Mustard (who has reviewed longest) really disliked it quite a bit and the friend of mine in L.A. was quite charmed with it. With a director like Ridley Scott, there is a chance that the expectations that we film geeks have for him, may in fact be different from the goals he has for himself. Does Ridley want to make nothing but grim historical efforts and deep brow furling art and maturity... or does Ridley want to be able from time to time, make something that he's having fun with. From the sound of it, this is a fun movie. Something to cleane the palatte. Here's Nekko and his take, plus kudos to Nekko for the Welles quote at the end!
Harry,
Saw a preview screening last week of Ridley Scott's MATCHSTICK MEN here in
Sherman Oaks, and thought I'd offer you a review. Contrary to the previous
review by Mr. Mustard posted on AICN about this film, Scott's upcoming
Matchstick Men is a great picture!
Ridley was in attendance tonight, to gage audience reaction to the movie,
and I even had a chance to shake his hand afterward, which was an honor.
Though Matchstick Men is clearly a departure from what audiences may expect
from Scott (it feels like a much smaller film in comparison to the scope of
his other works, i.e. Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Hannibal, and more in the
vein of Thelma & Louise), it is nonetheless a tremendous motion picture.
The film is about con artists, or "matchstick men," with Nicolas Cage and
Sam Rockwell as the characters in question. They're small time crooks,
really, and Cage battles a debilitating nervous disorder. Cage's acting is
first-rate, by the way, with no resemblance at all to his performance in
Adaptation, wherein he also suffered from psychological paranoia, (which
further goes to show how talented this actor's versatility is).
When Cage learns for the first time that he has a 14 year old daughter
(played adorably by Alison Lohman of White Oleander fame), his troubles at
work increase, but his personal health suddenly improves. Since this is a
con movie, I will reveal no more about the plot. But suffice it to say the
film blindsides the audience more than once. Along the line of great heist
movies, in my opinion, Matchstick Men is right up there with The Sting, The
Spanish Prisoner and The Game, to name a few, in how it pulls the wool over
our eyes.
It is both a character piece and a touching relationship movie (between
father and daughter) as well as a damn good comedy and thriller. Scott has
managed to weave all these elements successfully together (his own version
of Catch Me If You Can, but with a twist) into a thoroughly enjoyable film.
Hans Zimmer wrote the score, which seemed only half finished in this preview
cut, since some of Zimmer's music from The Thin Red Line had been laid down
as a temp track. The photography and editing are outstanding, as to be
expected from Scott, and I think it's great that this filmmaker has decided
to make a more personal film between his usual epics, (apparently, Tripoli
with Russell Crowe is his next project).
All I can say is that Mr. Mustard's review totally misrepresented this film.
There is nothing to find fault with in Matchstick Men. I attended the film
with three friends (all of whom work in video stores and are total film
geeks) and each of them thought it was a great movie for Scott.
Everyone in the audience, and it was packed, seemed to enjoy the film,
clapping and laughing all through it. I only wish these preview screenings
weren't necessary, especially for the likes of Ridley Scott, who has been
making great movies for 25 years now. He should be able to cut the film
he's made his way, regardless of score cards and preview audience reactions.
Like Orson Welles once said, "It is impossible to conceive of what a movie
audience is: a bunch of Sikhs; a band of Bedouins; a tribe of gypsies; four
hundred widowed ladies from Ohio on a bus tour ... what is that audience?
How can you set out to please it? You can't address yourself to it, because
it's inconceivable. So you make it for yourself. That's the advantage of
film over theater -- when you do a play, you make it for the audience; when
you do a movie, you make it for yourself." (taken from This is Orson Welles
by Peter Bogdanovich, pg. 213)
Having said that, please post this review to counter what Mustard has said,
so that AICN readers will look forward to this film as they should.
Respectfully,
Nekko
|
