|Page 3 of 15:||            |
|Index||143 reviews in total|
Wow, I have read several reviews on this site that compare this film to "Lock, Stock" and "Snatch.", and I believe those comparisons are lost on me. Though Guy Ritchie makes "cheeky" English comedy capers, that are direct rip-offs of Tarentino films, I do not see how this movie is in that same vein of films. This is a con film, and yes, it is boring in spots, but the sheer genius of performances by everyone except Mr. Burns dwarfs any boredom that one may experience. Hoffman is in rare form and I have not seen a better performance from him since "Rainman." The cast is all game for the film, and James Foley keeps them together. Foley's directorial pacing and several strange camera angles (people pass in front of the camera, yeah I get it, but they make the scene lose focus) are the only real gripes that I have about this film. I am going to buy this film on DVD, because Foley's films may not be the most entertaining pieces of work, but just like Glengarry Glen Ross, this film has amazing performances that should be treasured.
Don't be fooled by filmmaker comments like "It's the best movie of the year." This film is an insult to anyone's intelligence. It is boring, boring, boring. Dustin Hoffman chose a bad film, and the director did not get the best out of him. He makes a poor crime boss with homicidal tendencies. Not believable at all, and almost laughable. The plot is soooooo contrived. I felt cheated and let-down when I left the theatre. Don't let it happen to you. I was "conned." The movie itself is a confidence game. Say it ain't so, Dustin.
Decent con movie about a con artist (Ed Burns) who steals from a Mob boss
(Dustin Hoffman) then tries to repay him by doing another con. Like
one is out maneuvering the other for control of the money, and no one is
be trusted. The cliches are there in full force but the real strength of
film lies with the very good performances by Dustin Hoffman, who remakes
guy role with a slick and derange delight, and Rachel Weisz, who nearly
steals the movie From Hoffman with a pitch perfect performance of a fem
fatal who can charm the walled out of you.
To be honest, Rachel Weisz and Dustin Hoffman's performances are probably better suited for a much better film but thank god they're in this film because with out them The movie in my mind would have not been as good as it was.
I just finished watching this very interesting flick w/ Edward Burns and
Rachel Weisz. It's about a man and his crew who pull a big scam on someone
who turned out to be linked to the mob and now they have to come up with a
lump-sum to repay him. I gotta say a lot of this was interesting 'cause
Edward Burns' character Vig was very manipulating as he knew so much about
finances and "clean-up" if you know what I mean. The ending made me laugh
so hard I swear to god because that....never mind - anyway I recommend this
flick because it is damn solid in its own right and Rachel Weisz was
definitely something to look at in this(sexy as hell)
great movie, glad I saw it
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Jake Vig, a charming presence even in the worst of times, makes a
perfectly beguiling grifter; as Jake Vig he displays both the smarts to
spot big money and the ruthlessness to go after it. Early on in
Confidence, he sets his sights on a big target -- The King, a
pint-sized crime boss with an eye for strippers and a bad case of ADD.
In other hands, the King might have just been a collection of quirks,
but Hoffman has the effortless ability to make him both fascinating and
complete. Together, he and Burns form a strong pair of tentpoles under
which Confidence can develop its complicated scheme.
Naturally, it's not as simple as Vig picking the King out of a crowd. He and his crew unknowingly fleece an important underling, stealing a substantial chunk of the King's money. Before they realize their error, one of their number has a bullet in his head and the rest are ready to cut and run, leaving Vig to do some fast thinking. So he approaches the King directly, offering to pay back the funds by pulling an even bigger scam on the crime lord's hated rival. Unfortunately, the plan requires an additional player, and Vig settles on a pickpocket femme fatale named Lily who may not have the group's best interests at heart. He also neglects to mention the federal marshal on his trail, who could land the entire lot of them in prison.
Like he did in Glengarry Glen Ross, Foley demonstrates considerable skill working with an ensemble, aptly balancing the characters with the needs of the story. As a technical exercise Confidence is well-tuned, and the 98 minute running time feels just about right. The script brims with terrific dialogue, which the cast takes great relish in delivering, and the uniformly excellent performances never become forced or mannered .Dustin Hoffman gives a fresh and original performance that should have landed him at the very least an Oscar nomination. Like the length of the film is just about perfect. It's incredibly fast paced. This one movie that has re-watch-ability written all over it and an excellent flick that should not be missed.
'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.
Sure, Confidence is a rather solid movie
which has some great angles, but the film
seemed to be overwrought with silliness
and unbelievable plot devices.
Let's start with the things I don't like. First off, the soundtrack was pretty annoying. Second, the acting was pretty wretched. Sure, they were cool and nonplus, but everyone, including the great Dustin Hoffman, made their performances far too campy and disassociative. It seems only Rachel Weisz was believeble in her performance, which is too bad. The idea and concept was great, but only one good performance among many won't help a film. I mean, Paul Giamatti was even more annoying in this film than he was in Big Fat Liar, a movie that should have been called "Annoying, Kids Movie that Deserves to be Burned." Then, let's not forget the whole idea of Jake Vig talking to an assassin when the assassin should have been only after the money, not a good yarn. Also, being a sap for redheads, they are not bad luck, but that whole sequence in the movie is pretty funny nonetheless.
Anyway, now for the good things. The film as a whole was pretty well made, presenting some interesting angles and lighting schemes that just beamed with charisma. It felt perfect for the seedy underworld these people were living in. Once again though, Weisz was the only beacon in a film full of cartoonish performances. Fortunately, Luis Guzman and Donal Logue provided some relief from the onslaught. So, what wins out in the end?
Style and substance. This film had plenty, with a twist that was actually pretty cool and not overdone (like the film Basic). Watch it for the fact it is pretty cool, just don't expect great acting performances.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Confidence is one of those hit and miss movies. When it works it is
brilliant however there are too many inherent flaws to make it worth
recommending. Principally the biggest draw is Dustin Hoffmans
performance. His character, the mobster "King", a sleaze bag with a
volcanic personality, reminded me a lot of the character he played in
the understated 1970's classic crime/drama Straight Time (which if you
have not seen you really should check out. The scenes of Hoffman
simultaneously threatening and coming on to Ed Burns are tense and
At other times the movie tries to be quirky and with its jaunty musical score gives the film a frustratingly uneven tone. Edward Burns is fine as the leader of the scam artist crew but i didn't buy into the other crew members one of whom should really stick to comedy. The addition of Rachael Weisz to the crew failed to impress me. When you consider strong female roles that make an impression in for example The Grifters and House of Games, Weisz really comes up short. The snaring of their mark for the sting to pay off King does not ring true. The promise of a honey trap is floated but the banker does not even have to sleep with Weisz in order to be suckered in and this is not believable. Andy Garcia pops up in an extended cameo to harass the two goonish cops who are helping and skimming Ed Burns but again this facet is played mostly for laughs.
The ending was entirely predictable when it should have left you guessing and again not enough Hoffman.
Confidence like most con movies is story driven. Of course there are the
twists that make you think ahead as well as think behind. But what really
separates this movie from the other con movies is the snapping editing. The
scenes flow into each other and are full of sound and motion. The movie is
only 97 minutes and it keeps the audience engaged through-out. The story is
nothing special but is believable due to some solid acting from the leads.
The supporting cast is good for the most part. Dustin Hoffman is
particularly entertaining (not great) in this movie.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes con films and modern fast paced crime flicks.
I just rented this last night. The acting was ok with standout performances by Dustin Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Donal Logue, and Luis Guzman. Edward Burns, Rachel Weisz, and Andy Garcia were decent. The directing and writing were decent. It was a good story with pretty good characters. If you like grifter movies, 'ie' The Sting, House of Games you will probably like this movie. Although not as good a very watchable movie.
|Page 3 of 15:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|