Logo

Cool News

Nekko digs Ridley Scott's MATCHSTICK MEN!

Published at:  Feb 18, 2003 6:53:22 AM CST

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



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 6:59:04 AM CST

    First!

    by tom whitaker

    I met Rockwell yesterday :)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 7:07:08 AM CST

    Plant !!!

    by bluelou_boyle

    This film may or may not be good, but this guy is certainly a plant. There is nothing wrong with this film ? 'All my friends are movie geeks who happen to work in video stores' ?!!!
    You, sir, are a 30+ marketing guy trying to harness the power of the internet. And Failing.
    Wake up Harry !!!!
    Triploi isn't even Crowe's next film, Cinderella man is.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 7:10:22 AM CST

    I don't mean to lapse into cliche, but...

    by earthworm

    ...someone get the weed killer out for this fucking plant.
    PS Love the new GIF Harry.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 7:11:31 AM CST

    dammit bluelou, beat me to it.

    by earthworm

    Guess I have to learn to type faster.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 7:56:31 AM CST

    Test Screenings are necessary...

    by buscemi 01

    It's not just the studio who wants to know the audiences reaction but also the director. You never know if what you did has the impact you wanted to create. If you failed, you can re-edit a certain scene or even re-shoot it. If Scott recognizes his mistakes at premiere night it'd be too late, get it?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 9:03:47 AM CST

    .....

    by buio omega

    "I said PLANT yourself. Plants don't talk".

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 9:42:52 AM CST

    Plant!

    by clancywiggum

    Plant, plantity, plant, plant, plant

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 10:14:47 AM CST

    Let me get this straight...

    by dru

    It's a Ridely Scott film, right? THE Ridely Scott? Okay... + it's got Nic Cage + Sam Rockwell in it, right? As in, Nic-Leaving-Las-Vegas-Cage + Sam-Confessions-of-a-Dangerous-Mind-Rockwell? Gotcha... + the reviewer in question thinks the movie is good? I don't get it... Plant or not, this should be a good film. Okay, so the line about the 3 video-store friends was pushing it; I'm not saying the guy isn't a plant! But come on people, this'll still be a damn good movie. Head... out've your asses, all of you! Out.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 11:31:37 AM CST

    Alright, so it could be a good film...

    by earthworm

    ..."tremendous motion picture", "first rate actor", "played adorably", "is right up there with The Sting, The Spanish Prisoner and The Game(FFS)", "It is both a character piece and a touching relationship movie (between father and daughter) as well as a damn good comedy and thriller" In fact it sounds like the best film ever made, unless of course the reviewer is a touch over effusive in their praise. As such, the screams of 'Plant' aren't that unreasonable

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 11:48:14 AM CST

    GOD, I WISH I WAS A PLANT CAUSE THEN I'D HAVE A JOB!!

    by nekko

    Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I run a non-profit organization dealing with animal rights, (www.nationearth.org if anyone's interested.) Sadly, I don't work for anybody in Hollywood, but wish I did, (I have done some documentary work). Anyway, I admit to being an avid Ridley Scott fan, but just because someone posts a glowing review shouldn't mean they're a plant. You guys are really amazing. Negative reviews are genuine and positive ones are plants, is that it? Doesn't all this pessimism just feed studio's fears and contribute to their movie-making assembly-line process? From what I know it's hard enough making a movie no matter who you are. So why facilitate it? Besides, how many marketing stooges do you know could pull a Welles quote like that? The movie's good, damnit. Alas, I'm not a plant.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 4:28:13 PM CST

    Going slightly off-topic...

    by salem hanna

    ...lets talk about TONY Scott. Saw True Romance for the first time on Sunday. Why have I waited ten years to watch this? It's so cool! Well, the second half is anyway. Dennis Hopper and Chris Walken sharing the screen together, pure class!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 8:41:32 PM CST

    Umm... Matchstick Men without ANY faults? Plant or not, this guy

    by el duderino

    So if Matchstick Men is without fault, does that mean that Mr. Scott has outdone all of his previous films, even Blade Runner and Alien? One could easily argue that they all suffered from a flaw here or there.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 9:09:04 PM CST

    Monkeysofwar

    by mrpeanut

    what the fuck is wrong with you? This talkback has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with either Star Wars or LOTR, and the controversy is old, anyway. Serkis didn't get nominated, nor did he deserve to, and Yoda never had a fucking chance because even though he looked great, all his dialogue was shit. The fact that you need to bring up either of these characters without even mentioning the movie that we're supposed to be talking about makes you the most obsessive, creepy and pathetic virgin to ever post on this site, and that's saying something. The only thing worse than an irrationally obsessive geek is someone who still thinks being FIRST! is something to brag about. Nobody gives a shit if you're first, and anyone who makes a big deal out of it automatically brands themselves as an ignorant newbie or just a complete asshole. With apologies to badassunclefucka, FUCK FIRST POSTERS, FUCK THEM UP THEIR STUPID ASSES WITH GREASED WOODEN STAKES SO THAT THEY SUFFER BEFORE THEY DIE.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 18, 2003 10:25:29 PM CST

    I, too, went to this Sherman Oaks screening, and I can attest th

    by heywood jablomie

    I can't imagine what Real People--i.e., not chumps fooled by a free movie and the attendance of Ridley Scott--will make of this excruciating movie, which resembles certain bad late-eighties/early-nineties pictures like the Robin Williams CADILLAC MAN and Barry Levinson's odes to Baltimore hustlers. It's the kind of thing where the con-man hero has an attitudinous 12-year-old daughter with a smart mouth and... bleccccchhh. Nicolas Cage overacts the tic-riddled con man as if he were doing a Bruckheimerized version of ADAPTATION. The whole thing is painfully boring and unfunny. Sam Rockwell looks like he's having a hemmhorrhoid twisted with a screwdriver in every scene. How Warner Bros. is going to drop this turd is beyond me. Geeks, avoid like plague!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 19, 2003 2:48:08 PM CST

    Monkey...

    by mrpeanut

    Why get angry with me? You said in your own post that you expected to get some shit for being way, way, way off-topic, and I only gave you what you deserved. If you're going to be a blatant and unimaginative troll who goes around professing his love of all things Star Wars in talkbacks that have nothing to do with Star Wars, then people are going to harass you, so get used to it. You should be grateful that everyone was too distarcted by the whole hulk-dog fiasco to pay attention to your trolling, otherwise you would have got it worse than you did from me.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 19, 2003 9:02:21 PM CST

    plant!

    by devil0509

    nuff said

    Reply to Talkback

  • Feb 20, 2003 8:01:40 PM CST

    I hope this isn't an Oceans 11 style cash in...

    by motokouk

    I have to admit I am totally biased towards Scott's movies since he is my absolute directing hero. And the idea of him doing a Soderbergh and making a little fluffy movie inbetween more serious fare does make my heart leap in anticipation. Lets face it, how many of Scott's films (with the exception of Thelma & Louise) have had a sense of fun in them. I can't think of any. The naughty maliciousness of Hannibal springs to mind but that was a completely different tone. With Cage and Rockwell onboard plus John Mathieson on lensing, Hans Zimmer on music and the brothers Griffin on script duties too my hopes for this one are pretty high.

    My only worry is that...it's another heist movie. After Ocean's 11 a whole raft of hip, thieves-pull-complex-job movies got greenlit (they're even remaking The Italian Job for god's sake!!!)...could this be one that came that thinking. OK, that doesn't mean it'll be a bad film. OK, so the heist movie is an old staple thats been around forever. OK, there's too much talent here for it to totally blow. BUT i'm always trepidacious about movies that get greenlit or fast-tracked based on the success of previous movies. How many cruddy crime movies did we have after Pulp Fiction? I lost count. And despite their abilities, Scott and Cage aren't above money jobs on occaision. The review above is fishy. Even if it isn't a plant, it's not a well written one (not a single plot detail about the con, not a single flaw mentioned). And we've had a VERY negative one from Beaks. Just cos it's Ridley my anticipation remains high...but the stars still aren't in alignment for me yet...

    Reply to Talkback

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback