source: Confidence

source: Confidence

Everyone probably thought they had seen the last of the caper movies when Sinatra et al. made the original Oceans 11 forty years ago. Not so, as this film inter alia is abundant proof of its re-emergence. The Brit Gangster revival cycle initiated by "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels" seems to have cross germinated with the "Oceans Eleven" remake and spawned a genetically modified caper for the 21st. century of which this film is but one of many. Normally my John Bull heart would swell with pride as Pinewood influences Hollywood but not so in this case. Guy Ritchie's shtick does not travel and this film just does not quite work on a number of levels. I have described this film as a caper but I think the director has tried to make something more than a simple caper movie. However there are problems with this approach. First of all it seems he cannot decide what tone it should take. Is it ironic or parodic or a comic book adventure, a pastiche or a spoof? No one can tell. The director probably feels that the film dances nimbly between all these categories artfully evading any pigeon hole. However as a humble viewer I just felt it was a mishmash that lacked the courage of its convictions to set out its stall in any particular category. It did not convince as an example of irony or a comic book adventure or an exercise in cool. I think someone defined a caper movie as one in which the people making the film had more fun making it than the audience had watching it In that case the film falls straight in the middle of the caper bracket. the film is too slick and too knowing. These are common afflictions in contemporary films which you would probably overlook if the film was good enough in other respects. Although this film has redeeming features they do not compensate for these shortcomings. It has some great character actors in the cast who give good performances Giametti, Guzman, Garcia in fact everyone except the two main actors portraying the central couple Edward Burns and Rachel Weisz. The character played by Burns is supposed to be the hub around which the whole film revolves but I am afraid in this case the axle is broken. Burns cannot carry the film and is constantly outshone by the actors that surround him. I get the impression that he is supposed to be the old-fashioned straight (in the old sense) lead whose looks offset all the ugly character actors. However he radiates zero menace or malevolence or evil or anything that might make him believable in the role. "Things to do in Denver when you're dead" survived without a good looking bland central character so why does this film need one. Maybe the guy is "box office" as I believe they say, but I have never heard of him so how exactly did he add to the film. And so on to the vexed subject of Rachel Weisz's performance. It amazes me that Americans tolerate my fellow nationals doing lame non-specific non-regional faltering American accents. She came across as a Helena Bonham Carter for the 2000s. If this had been done by Merchant Ivory then she might have fitted right in but it wasn't and she didn't. I don't want to spoil the plot for anyone but a couple of the set ups for con tricks were just poor. I will mention one episode which is not intrinsic to the plot where a rich customer in a jewellery shop gets reeled in. It is a popular misconception in films that rich people are stupid dupes who are easily parted from their money. This is lazy plotting. Rich people are usually not rich by accident unless they are lottery winners of course. They are rich because they know how to get money and then how to hold on to it. Is it really that easy to part them from their money? A lot of con artists doing time might suggest otherwise. My final issue with the film is the first ten minutes which are as wooden as any episode of "Murder she wrote". Is this a stylistic device or are the first ten minutes of the film just really badly made. The jury is out.

"Confidence" is a clumsy flick about scamming with a good cast working hard trying to flesh out paper thin characters stuck in a messy story. This flick tries too hard to be clever, delivers obvious scams only an idiot would fall for, offers didactics which don't ring true, is chock full of plotholes, ends predictably, and gives us no reason to care. Failing on story/screenplay, "Confidence" starts out at the end, tells its anatomy-of-a-grift story via flashbacks and runs forward to the end and beyond. Recommended viewing procedure: turn off brain, keep expectations low, have a backup flick on hand, and be prepared to have your intelligence insulted. Better grift flicks: "Five Queens", "House of Games", "The Grifters", "The Prime Gig", etc. (C)

EDWARD BURNS is a talented actor but here he's almost expressionless in a screenplay that, according to the trivia section of IMDb, uses the "f" word 130 times. Take the word out, and you've got a film that would have been a lot shorter and perhaps would have been less distracting in its obvious attempt to make the dialog sound tough. Overkill of the word is true of most of the script. It begins with a burst of energy in a scene where nobody is sure what's happening and continues in that vein for the rest of the fast-paced story. Characters come and go and none of them stick in the mind with more than surface effect. RACHEL WEISZ, DUSTIN Hoffman and ANDY GARCIA are all underused in sketchy roles and the big payoff reminds us how much more successful "The Sting" was in pulling off its own twist upon twist. Mediocre film-making in every respect, losing steam before it even reaches the halfway mark. Not worth a peek.

From the start it became obvious that this film owed a lot to the likes of Snatch and Lock, Stock et al. At least, it was pitched at the audience in a very similar way, though without the comedy element that made the aforementioned films fun to watch. Given its attempted rip-off of other movies, its no surprise that the story has a few twists along the way. Trouble is, they were kind of predictable. At least, they would have been if I had been paying more than casual attention to the film. The truth is, I found it difficult to get interested in this story. Too bland, too derivative, too much of everything. Trouble is, other films have already done it, and done it better. Imagine watching a remake of the Godfather, but with completely different actors. You'll have some idea of how Confidence made me feel. All in all a dull and uninspiring film.

'Confidence' is an empty exercise in style. Based on a crooks scheme story filmed with some skill, and acted pretty decently by a good cast, it soon falls in routine and looks like a useless effort. The film is too technical and never succeeds to make us care about the characters or to entangle us in the grip of the plot. Even the final twist in the story comes too late - they lost us already, and good chances are that the spectator went out of the theater, or took the DVD out of the player already. 6/10 on my personal scale. Can be avoided.

I'm not even going to waste my time with this movie. I've just got a few things to ask the writer of the script. Hey, is this what you truly think of your audience? Are we crap in your world? Why not just spit on us? I work hard to pay good money ($1.25) to purchase this movie and this is what I get? You know, this goes to prove that if reality was half as bad as Hollywood depicts it, the evil in this world would be four times as bad. And, by the way, thinking twenty moves ahead in a chess game is absurd. Why not have a chihuahua jump off from the Empire State Building onto the Statue of Liberty? Now that would be believable for sure. Is the word stupid written onto my forehead or what? Please, get therapy soon. In the meantime, go find yourself a day job.

Seeing as this is a movie about con artists you have to know that things may not always be as they seem to be. It's safe to assume that somewhere along the way somebody's getting the rug pulled out from underneath him. Somebody's getting conned. Unfortunately in this instance the audience is getting somewhat conned as well. It's a movie of tricks, a movie which wants to impress you with how smart it is. But it's not nearly as smart as those involved in making it would like to believe. It's all too predictable and thus in the end not nearly as dramatic as would be hoped. As any good con artist movie would this one has all kinds of twists and turns to try and throw you off. But you can see where this is headed a mile away. The movie tries to fool you but it telegraphs its ultimate destination very early on. The big surprises are ultimately not surprising at all. And thus the movie fails. If the story ultimately lets you down you would hope that the movie at least works as a good bit of fun. But we are denied even that pleasure. It's rather dull, moments of true excitement are very few and far between. The whole movie suffers from a lack of personality which is best personified by the lead character of Jake Vig, played by Edward Burns. This is the character at the heart of the movie, it's his story, he even serves as the film's narrator. And the character just doesn't work. Burns obviously was going for cool, calm and collected in his portrayal of Jake. In that he succeeds but in doing so he has created a character that's rather boring. There's no spark to this guy, no reason why the audience should identify with or care about him. There's nothing memorable about him. On the other end of the spectrum there's Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of the crime lord known only as The King. This character is, to put it mildly, an eccentric fellow. A little too eccentric to take seriously. We're supposed to find him menacing but that's quite a stretch. It's another key character which just doesn't work. Which leaves very little left to potentially salvage the movie. Some of the supporting performances, notably those of Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz, work better but they are not nearly enough to prop this movie up. The key characters don't connect, there's very little in the way of fun or entertainment, and after jerking you around all the way through the story lands with a resounding thud. Pretty much a total misfire.

Jack Vig (Edward Burns) is a grifter and leader of a crew of con men, composed of his long time friends Gordo (Paul Giamatti), Alphonse "Big Al" Moorley (Louis Lombardi) and Mile (Brian Van Holt) and supported by two dirty police detectives, Officer Lloyd Whitworth (Donal Loque) and Officer Omar Manzano (Luis Gusmán). When "Big Al" is killed by hit men sent by the mobster boss Winston King (Dustin Hoffman), after a con when King's money was stolen by Jack and his men, Jack has to repay King. While planning a huge con suggested by King against a bank, with the participation of Lupus (Franky G), member of King's gang, and the delicious swindler Lily (Rachel Weisz), Jack looks for revenge against King. Meanwhile, the mysterious federal agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia) chases Jack, in a story with a surprising end. "Confidence" is a sort of contemporary version of "The Sting", where nothing is what seems to be. The story is full of turning points, and although having a predictable end, it is also a surprising end (if the reader has watched the movie, he / she understands what I mean). Rachel Weisz is amazingly beautiful as usual and the film entertains with a very unlikely and charming story. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Confidence – O Golpe Perfeito" ("Confidence – The Perfect Stroke"