Skip to main content

You're not a bad guy, you know. You're just not a very good one.

Matchstick Men
(2003)

(SPOILERS) Conning the conman has a lot of going for it as a premise. An enormous amount, if you’re David Mamet. Unfortunately, Sir Ridley Scott (he was plain Ridders prior to 2003) is no Mamet, and neither are screenwriters Ted and Nicholas Griffin. Ted’s Ocean’s 11 remake, curiously, had pretty much the reverse issue of Matchstick Men. There, there were never any real obstacles in the way of the crew making their score (none they couldn’t produce a rabbit out of a hat to resolve). That didn’t matter too much though, as you were in it for a breezy, good-time heist. Here, we’re told how skilled Nicolas Cage’s Roy Waller is at the con, but he spends the entire movie succumbing to the schemes of those around him. He’s everybody’s dupe, which makes the picture, on revisit, quite wearing.


Not that I was wholly sold first time round, as for all that the cast are very good, there’s something rather disengaging about the foregrounded father-daughter bonding-background con approach. I suspect there are two factors there. One is that, despite the performances of Nicolas Cage and Alison Lohman, there isn’t enough reason to care about these two coming together as a family (as we see it on first run). The other is that the cons the Griffins come up with don’t have the juice to engage or impress. It’s only really at the climax of the (apparent) con on Bruce McGill’s Chuck Frechette, as Roy and Angela are attempting their escape through a torturously slow-moving garage checkpoint, that Scott even opts into standard con movie devices of “Will they get away with it?” (“In this situation, it’s very important to remain calm”).


And, because the central relationship is rather ambivalent, we’re not as invested as we should be. Roy’s a mass of facial tics, light sensitivity and OCD behaviour, something Scott loves exploring with the camera and the edit, yet doesn’t feel wholly right for the material. We’ll see his genre unbendablility with the full-on romcom of A Good Year in a couple of movies time, where he’s well out of his comfort zone; when he pulls for the comic visuals here, they fail to provide the rhythms of humour so the laughs derive mainly from performance.


The screenplay is serviceable, based on Eric Garcia novel of same name, but something of a house of cards, reliant on genre clichés and tenuous supposition (the con only works if Roy will want a relationship with his “daughter”, and if he doesn’t call his ex to discuss her at any point – when honestly, it seems pretty damn likely that he would). Under Scott, though – going back to the Ocean’s 11 comparison –  Matchstick Men recalls the way Steven Soderbergh makes highly professional, functional, schematic exercises and slaps “film” on them as a description, expecting you to give a toss (has Soderbergh made more than one movie where you really care about the characters?) Scott accordingly over-directs, very, very literally, when a more musical, lighter touch might have yielded better results. On the other hand, since he directs everything the same way, indifferent to genre or form, he doesn’t dwell on what might be tells that could tip off the viewer.


There’s a big problem too that Roy’s trials and tribulations simply aren’t interesting enough without the twist, and with the twist he just seems like a chump who should know better. Sure, there’s lots of “sly” winks to those paying attention (“I don’t do long cons” he instructs protégé Frank; “And for God’s sake, make sure the person you’re conning isn’t conning you” is his lesson to Angela, who is, of course, conning him). With a Mamet script like House of Games, the conman is eventually conned in a manner of a Russian doll, where tables are turned and there are twists within twists. Here, the Griffins have simply worked backwards, which renders Roy entirely impotent, thus making it very difficult to credit the plaudits laid at his door by Angela (“Wow, my dad’s a smooth operator”) and Frank (“If it makes any difference, you’re the best I ever saw”).


If you’re a fan of unhinged Cage, though, you’ll find much to enjoy here. He was making the kind of variable choices by this point that have now become endemic to his career, but they also included a string of admirably forlorn types (Adaptation, The Weather Man) that gave him something fruitful to explore. In Matchstick Men, his protesting exasperation (“uhhhh”) as situations spiral out of his tight control is marvellous to behold. Even more so, his wired emphases mid-sentence (“… a lot of these WHACK jobs”; “Have you ever been dragged to the sidewalk and beaten till you PISSED… BLOOD?!”) His scenes with his “shrink” (Bruce Altman, who is obviously a fake on revisit as he smokes a pipe) are also highlights, for the reason of getting the full Cage unleashed, and it’s the only time where he doesn’t consistently come across as a sap.


Roy: It’s not fun doing what I do. A lot of people who don’t deserve it. Old people. Fat people. Lonely. A lot of the time I feel sick about it.

The movie’s emotional arc, or rather Roy’s, requires the clear establishing that Roy is not a sociopath, and indeed it’s most likely – given how family life has settled him down come the cosy last scene – that his tendencies are a direct result of doing a job he knows is morally unconscionable (“I’m not very good at being a dad, okay. You know, alright, I barely get by being me” he tells Angela at one point). The ending may seem like a soft-touch, pat decision (by losing everything – well, except his house – Roy gains everything), but it’s consistent with the Griffins’ goal, as very un-Mamet as it is. Talking of Mamet, much of the writers' dialogue is very sharp, although, as clever (and much quoted) as "For some people, money is... money is a foreign film without subtitles" is, it's overwritten, the sort of thing only screenwriters would think up.


One inevitable consequence of the structure is that we have little insight into those conning Roy. Sam Rockwell seems to be doing the cocky showboating thing he’s been doing in every movie in the decade and a half since (and I say that as a fan). 


Lohman’s performance rightly got raves for convincingly playing a character a decade younger than she was, but are we really offered any insights into Angela? She reunites with Roy where he now works, in a carpet shop, boyfriend in tow (Fran Kanz of Dollhouse and Cabin in the Woods), assuring Roy his was the only con she ever pulled and that Frank left her standing; it’s designed to underline that their connection was genuine, despite the chicanery, rightly resulting from the makers wondering what it would all be for if Roy was no more than the biggest sucker evah. Some have raved about Scott’s impressive use of a female character here, but Angela is essentially a cypher as we can’t know her, only her grift.


Of course, by this point Scott, in his mid-60s, had embarked on a new period of hyper-productivity that continues today. If his current movie isn’t wholly satisfying, there’ll be another not-wholly-satisfying one little more than a year away (between 2000 and 2010 he directed nine features). Matchstick Men, hinging so much on character, is more interesting and effective than much of his surrounding work, but forgets that, for the twist to pack a real punch, the informing elements need to be sustainable without it.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the originaland III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts lis…