Matchstick Men Review
Matchstick Men is a 2003 caper drama written by Nicholas and Ted Griffin and directed by Ridley Scott. For the first time I have nothing interesting to say about this one. It wasn't nominated for any major awards, it wasn't culturally influential in any way. It was critically praised, but what Ridley Scott film isn't? It just kind of came and went like an inconsequential fart on a windy day.
Story
Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage) is an OCD conman whose life is interrupted by the appearance of his previously unknown daughter Angela (Alison Lohman). Desperate to bond with her, he invites her to help with his latest scheme involving swindling thousands of dollars off of a rich businessman.
When you hear this set up, you might think that this is some kind of quirky crime comedy/ father-daughter bonding film. That's what I thought going into it, at least. However, without giving too much away, that's the film's ingenious trick. Making you think it's one thing and making you get invested in that one thing before it pulls the rug out from under you in a twist that I didn't see coming, but was a delightful surprise. It's a shame that I can't talk about the twist itself, because it makes the film something really interesting: a meta commentary about filmmaking. Taking something that isn't real, luring the audience in to caring about it and then pulling back the curtain to bring you back to reality by the end. I might be over analyzing it. It might not have been the writer's original intent at all, seeing as how this was based off a book, but that's what I saw when I watched the movie.
The characters are ok I suppose, the standout being Angela who somehow makes the smooth transition from unbelievably annoying to delightfully endearing without you actually noticing where the change happened. I find it really interesting that they chose to make the main character OCD and when I think back on it, it's all once again part of the film's slight of hand, meta narrative. It's part of the first thing you were caring about and gets you invested, but you barely remember it was even there by the end.
The story itself actually takes a long time to get going, mostly because it's setting everything up; Roy's OCD, his sleazy partner, his daughter and his previous marriage. However, even though I think it could've all been explained a lot quicker and a lot more efficiently, I'm actually glad they didn't do that. They could've established Roy's OCD by just having him say he doesn't like it when people leave their shoes on his carpet and that would be the end of it. However, what they do instead to show the severity of his situation is have him lose his meds down the drain. He then spends an entire day cleaning up his house in a surprisingly intense scene that shows the severity of his condition. By the end of it, he's sweating, hyperventilating, unable to function. It's really good visual storytelling.
The dialogue is nothing to marvel at. It's not terrible, but it's servicable. It manages to get information across without sounding like exposition, it has a lot of good quiet moments that allow the characters to breathe and calm down.
Techincal
As is the case with a lot of dramas made in the 90s and first decade of the 2000s the set design is nothing to speak of. It's pretty damn standard, but regardless does everything to a satisfactory level. There was never a moment when I was saying, "Really? Did you really expect us to think that any of that was real?" It all just looks a little too natural, without much to differentiate it from a million other movies.
The cinematography doesn't really do anything that special, as far as I can remember.
One of two unique standouts on the technical side is the editing in the first half of the film, which is some of the weirdest editing I've ever seen in a movie. One of the very first transitions you see is a shot literally being pushed away by the next shot. This happens a couple different times during the first half hour or so of the film and for the life of me I don't know why that creative decision was made. I can't think of what this could possibly signify or what kind of symbolism this could implicate. Tell me what you guys think, because I have no clue.
The second unique stand out is the lighting, especially in the first half when Roy is still struggling with his OCD. In the scene where he's frantically cleaning and readjusting his apartment the scene is shot in a harsh blue light, creating this really uncomfortable atmosphere. However, when we see his partner calling him from their office in the same scene, the room he's in is bathed in a warm sunlight, which enhances our sense of relaxation vs tensity from shot to shot.
The acting from our two leads is a mixed bag for me. Alison Lohman is actually really good as Roy's daughter, selling the hell out of every emotion from tearful sadness and giddy happiness. Where the mixed bag comes in for me is Nicolas Cage, who I have mixed feelings about. Every time I see him I know he's giving it 110% every minute he's on screen, but I never see a character. Instead, I just see Nicolas Cage playing a character. I suppose he does fine here.
I appreciate the soundtrack comprised mostly of crooner songs, sort of a callback to the Rat Pack days of crime movies.
Summary: Matchstick Men is an ok movie. The set design is ok. The script is ok. The acting is ok. Even the twist is just kind of ok. I mean, it's a good twist, but I'm not going to remember it the way I would remember the twist from The Unusual Suspects or Inception. If you're in the mood for a solid con man movie, check it out I guess.
Story
Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage) is an OCD conman whose life is interrupted by the appearance of his previously unknown daughter Angela (Alison Lohman). Desperate to bond with her, he invites her to help with his latest scheme involving swindling thousands of dollars off of a rich businessman.
When you hear this set up, you might think that this is some kind of quirky crime comedy/ father-daughter bonding film. That's what I thought going into it, at least. However, without giving too much away, that's the film's ingenious trick. Making you think it's one thing and making you get invested in that one thing before it pulls the rug out from under you in a twist that I didn't see coming, but was a delightful surprise. It's a shame that I can't talk about the twist itself, because it makes the film something really interesting: a meta commentary about filmmaking. Taking something that isn't real, luring the audience in to caring about it and then pulling back the curtain to bring you back to reality by the end. I might be over analyzing it. It might not have been the writer's original intent at all, seeing as how this was based off a book, but that's what I saw when I watched the movie.
The characters are ok I suppose, the standout being Angela who somehow makes the smooth transition from unbelievably annoying to delightfully endearing without you actually noticing where the change happened. I find it really interesting that they chose to make the main character OCD and when I think back on it, it's all once again part of the film's slight of hand, meta narrative. It's part of the first thing you were caring about and gets you invested, but you barely remember it was even there by the end.
The story itself actually takes a long time to get going, mostly because it's setting everything up; Roy's OCD, his sleazy partner, his daughter and his previous marriage. However, even though I think it could've all been explained a lot quicker and a lot more efficiently, I'm actually glad they didn't do that. They could've established Roy's OCD by just having him say he doesn't like it when people leave their shoes on his carpet and that would be the end of it. However, what they do instead to show the severity of his situation is have him lose his meds down the drain. He then spends an entire day cleaning up his house in a surprisingly intense scene that shows the severity of his condition. By the end of it, he's sweating, hyperventilating, unable to function. It's really good visual storytelling.
The dialogue is nothing to marvel at. It's not terrible, but it's servicable. It manages to get information across without sounding like exposition, it has a lot of good quiet moments that allow the characters to breathe and calm down.
Techincal
As is the case with a lot of dramas made in the 90s and first decade of the 2000s the set design is nothing to speak of. It's pretty damn standard, but regardless does everything to a satisfactory level. There was never a moment when I was saying, "Really? Did you really expect us to think that any of that was real?" It all just looks a little too natural, without much to differentiate it from a million other movies.
The cinematography doesn't really do anything that special, as far as I can remember.
One of two unique standouts on the technical side is the editing in the first half of the film, which is some of the weirdest editing I've ever seen in a movie. One of the very first transitions you see is a shot literally being pushed away by the next shot. This happens a couple different times during the first half hour or so of the film and for the life of me I don't know why that creative decision was made. I can't think of what this could possibly signify or what kind of symbolism this could implicate. Tell me what you guys think, because I have no clue.
The second unique stand out is the lighting, especially in the first half when Roy is still struggling with his OCD. In the scene where he's frantically cleaning and readjusting his apartment the scene is shot in a harsh blue light, creating this really uncomfortable atmosphere. However, when we see his partner calling him from their office in the same scene, the room he's in is bathed in a warm sunlight, which enhances our sense of relaxation vs tensity from shot to shot.
The acting from our two leads is a mixed bag for me. Alison Lohman is actually really good as Roy's daughter, selling the hell out of every emotion from tearful sadness and giddy happiness. Where the mixed bag comes in for me is Nicolas Cage, who I have mixed feelings about. Every time I see him I know he's giving it 110% every minute he's on screen, but I never see a character. Instead, I just see Nicolas Cage playing a character. I suppose he does fine here.
I appreciate the soundtrack comprised mostly of crooner songs, sort of a callback to the Rat Pack days of crime movies.
Summary: Matchstick Men is an ok movie. The set design is ok. The script is ok. The acting is ok. Even the twist is just kind of ok. I mean, it's a good twist, but I'm not going to remember it the way I would remember the twist from The Unusual Suspects or Inception. If you're in the mood for a solid con man movie, check it out I guess.
Comments
Post a Comment