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.

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989) (SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch , or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins . Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon.  It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy ( Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Bi

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the