No Sudden Move (2021) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
242 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Waste of a great cast
reasons788 July 2021
I feel like I need to watch this movie again to understand what I just watched, but it's so dull and uninteresting that I don't think I could sit through it again. The plot is so convoluted and the editing so choppy that it is really hard to follow the story. Soderberg drops you in the middle of the story with no explanation of the character's backstory or the landscape of the setting. He just keeps throwing characters into the mix without explanation as to why they are there or how they fit into the story, then they all just kind of crash into each other at the end. The first 30 minutes are pretty good, then the rest of the movie is a mess. There are so many elements that become annoying throughout the movie: the stilted dialogue, the scenes that don't seem unnecessary and don't fit into the storyline, the fisheye lens, the bad sound quality, Don Cheadle's weird voice, the choppy editing that interrupted the flow of the movie, and the fact that this flick couldn't decide if it was a heist movie, or a movie about corporate espionage, or a movie about environmental issues, or a movie about racism and the negative effects of gentrification. By the end, I didn't care about any of it. By the time the credits rolled, I couldn't tell who double/triple crossed who or what this movie was really about and I really didn't care. I was just glad it was over.
76 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better than the reviews
pellenbogen16 July 2021
I don't usually post reviews but I felt compelled because of all the bad reviews. Yes its a complicated plot, but if you pay attention there are only one or two holes and I'm not sure about those. There were plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. I may watch even it again. The acting was good and the production design was exceptional. Beautifully captured the 1954 period. I would definately recommend this film.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
We find out who was being conned at the end...
paulyew1 July 2021
As with most Soderbergh movies, the movie itself is very stylish and packed with star power. In Soderbergh's earlier works, you took away the fancy wrapping and found exquisite gifts inside. Here, however, removing the fancy wrapping revealed a gift card to your local grocery store. Sure, some of you may be thrilled with a gift card, but for me, it was a major let down.

The story itself is very convoluted. How some of the characters come together and are put in certain situations are unconvincing or even not adequately explained. It seems like everyone has their own angle or play, leading to backstabbing and double/triple crossing. It's a movie about a bunch of characters (whom I could not sympathize nor empathize with) are trying to con each other. Then I realized at the end of the movie... The only sucker in this story was the audience who was conned out of 2 hours of their lives.
150 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bad lens.
molliegreeneyes1 July 2021
I don't know what kind of lens they used to shoot this film, but it is annoying and distracting. Being from Detroit, I wanted so much more for this film. So sad.
130 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not As Bad As The Reviewers Claim
dennisbedard5 July 2021
I made the mistake of watching this film after I read the reviews and expected them to be accurate. Big mistake. The story line is convoluted but the acting and camera work is first rate. Fans of noir will appreciate it. As a humorous aside, Jon Hamm comes very close to morphing into Don Draper near the end as he accepts a bottle of high end booze for his government work.
52 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Solid Crime Movie
jfzettler6 July 2021
Far better than many recent higher rated films. You need to pay attention to get the connections, and it has a dark feel, but the twists are great as was the acting.
55 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Soderbergh's twisty neo-noir works based on cast & period details
gortx10 July 2021
Steven Soderbergh's Neo-Noir begins with what seems like a simple set-up. In 50s Detroit, a low-level mobster (Brendan Fraser) hires three hoods (Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro, Kieran Culkun) to shake down an accountant (David Harbour) for some files in his office. Of course, nothing goes as planned.

What follows is a series of crosses, double-crosses and beyond. Ed Solomon's screenplay has enough twists and turns for a season's worth of a limited series. The plot certainly keeps the viewer on their toes and is never less than interesting, but at a certain point the momentum gets a bit slack. Some have compared the subtext of the script with Chinatown. The connection is obviously there, but, the constant churn of the stoyline blunts it's effectiveness. The Cinematography by Soderbergh (using his Peter Andrews pseudonym) is distracting with it's extreme wide lenses distorting the image. In a few wide shots, it's not ineffective, but, it's overuse doesn't work. And, "Andrews" also seems to be lighting the movie for film rather than digital which causes crushed shadow detail and too bright night exteriors.

The acting is what makes the movie worth seeing. In addition to the above mentioned, there are also nice turns by Ray Liotta, Amy Seimetz, Julia Fox, Jon Hamm and an unbilled significant cameo. At first the sight of Cheadle, Del Toro and Liotta may make one think that they are all a bit long in the tooth for their roles, but it works here. Their weary, haggard appearances make one believe that they are all just desperate enough to lay it on the line for one last gamble that will let them retire once and for all.

NO SUDDEN MOVE is a decent example of, more or less, straight storytelling for Soderbergh, even if his penchant for experimentation and subverting audience expectations get in the way of it being fully successful.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No Sudden Move, is a good watch!
jonny-7923310 July 2021
I see nothing wrong with this production where the previous reviews are awful and disrespectful with that said feel free to watch. This is a 1950's period movie and in those days it was Vistavision which was widescreen on 35mm with more grain that was later discarded for finer grain film during the 1970's-90's but depicting or sculpting a film look is a difficult task requiring special cameras and lenses that aid in translating what we've watching. A good example is Quentin Tarantino's "Hateful Eight" where he salvaged retired Ultra Panavision 70 special cameras because the lenses were still intact and would give the film that period look of old westerns and even requiring special screens. Another example is CAPOTE starring Phyllis Seymour Hoffman, directed by Bennett Miller winning a nomination for Best Director also takes place in 1959 and in that film every item, object or scene is of great detail that directs the viewers attention that you are in 1959. There is great detail in this film and the acting is superb and it takes place in the 1950's and so it's very easy to take in with a large bowl of fresh popcorn to sit back, enjoy and watch this movie unfold.

No Sudden Move, produced by Casey Silver, Julia M. Anderson and directed by Steven Soderbergh.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Weak story and dialogue
barberp-497701 July 2021
This movie starts out okay, but it really falls apart in the second half.

Characters are introduced in very clumsy ways throughout, and the story is very cliched. There are major pacing issues and there is very little time taken to build suspense or impart a proper sense of stakes to the film.

A lot of the main actors in this movie seem like they don't really want to be there and were just going through the motions. Ray Liotta and Don Cheadle especially seemed bored, and I can't blame them.

Not worth your time.
101 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Extremely Disappointing!
douglasmcbroom2 July 2021
The editing is odd, in a bad way. The dialogue sounds like it's ad libbed, but not in a good way. The plotting is dense and convoluted, but not in a clever way. The pacing is sit-back-in-your-seat plodding. But, the cars were brilliant! This doesn't feel like a movie, but rather the introductory episode of a series.

The fine cast does their best, but there is nothing to grab on to. I didn't even recognize Brendan Fraser. I guess he's into his latterly Brando period. I was going to give the film a 3, but the topsy-turvy twisty-turny resolution that is apparently supposed to be clever, was just absurd, so I dropped it to a 2.
87 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Top dawg doesn't know the difference between anamorphic widescreen and fisheye lenses
jinsoolimmy11 July 2021
Was really disturbed to read a negative review of this film from someone who apparently does not know the difference between anamorphic widescreen and fisheye lenses. Soderbergh is a slavish cineaste of the first order, of technical virtuosity few could hope to match. I would have to assume all of his decisions as cinematographer and editor (under not so secret pseudonyms) as well as being director were explicitly and intentionally acts of artistic agency. We as a community of movie lovers ought to embrace and celebrate the efforts of these masters while they're still sufficiently motivated to contend with the cumbersome tasks of making art out of commercial spaces.

Anamorphic widescreen has a distorting effect at the peripheral ends. This would be correct for the period and a call back to the films of the era. I can understand how this would be distracting to the uninformed viewer, but just think for a moment about the fact that the auteur knew you would notice. Then, just for a moment, ask yourself why Soderbergh is pointing this out to me?
37 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Why the hate?
willmaxr29 August 2021
Solid crime drama. True, not fast paced but great cast make up for it. You gotta pay attention, it's not too hard. Some reviewers are making it sound like Tenet level confusion. A good watch.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Neo-Noir Masterclass
RivereyesGR29 August 2021
This is pitch black and pitch perfect. Soderbergh is a master of his craft and the film oozes wit and the bleak truth about the nature of our world.

Best enjoyed with a fine whiskey by your side, this is the world, as it is.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't let the title fool you. A lot of Sudden Moves happen in the movie.
pythatek1 July 2021
Boy was it good to see Brendan Fraser on screen again!

That being said, it's a well crafted movie. Soderbergh doing what he does best. Amazing cast and performance. Engaging plot. The pacing falls at places, second half. Odd stylistic choices, weird fish eye lens, Dutch angles. But overall enjoyable crime thriller.
62 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Stellar cast and director going nowhere
siderite7 July 2021
This is a heist movie. For any heist movie, you're better off just re-watching "One Crew over the Crewcoo's Morty". The genre is formulaic by design, often involves a cast of very well known people and movies in it should be performance pieces. I mean, no one cares about the loot or what happens in the end, they just want to be entertained by the loops and twists of the story and the way actors make you care about their characters. And on that metric, No Sudden Move is average at best.

Right now I am struggling to mention anything that might be worth mentioning and getting nothing. It's not like people acted badly, but their characters were completely uninteresting and the story went nowhere. Even if it was "inspired" from the story of the catalytic converter and the collusion of all big car manufacturers to keep it off the market, which is true, the rest was complete fiction. And the plot? Just people double and triple crossing each other. No action, no real stakes, no inspiring end. Just Soderbergh being nostalgic over the times when the Ocean's N movies were bringing him a lot of money.

Bottom line: I can't recommend it yet I can't say it was a bad movie. It was just... uninteresting.
27 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
State of Creativity in a Streaming World
mdayne-17 July 2021
Here's an idea. Let's sign up a bunch of names pretend we have a film noir script with a bunch of twists and turns and, wait for it, the big reveal, it's about catalytic converters. At least Matt Damon had the sense to not be identified in the credits.

To put it mildly, this is what film making is now. Quantity over quality. Whatever the streaming service thinks it can pass off on streamers as worth the $12.95 a month. We get what we pay for guys. And there's plenty more crap where this came from.
32 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I thought it was better than it was
dillig-956052 July 2021
The whole time I was watching this movie I kept expecting it to get better. The pieces were there, but by the midpoint the plot is too convoluted and I've lost my motivation to care about any of the characters.

I was very interested at the beginning and the tension is great right up until everything hits the fan in the kitchen scene but then the movie just goes off the rails trying to swerve the viewer over and over again but never doing it in an interesting way. Brendan Frasier looks like he ate Kevin James.

3 stars - great rising action, good acting work (except for Matt Damon)
47 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not for everyone
BijeshNagesh4 July 2021
Good pacing, great twists, amazing costume and prod design, but story alienates most viewers who may have come in expecting an action-packed heist movie.
41 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Soderbergh Strikes Again
mpf10116 July 2021
Soderbergh is a master of so many genres, but seems to most enjoy making complex heist stories. Folks, if you couldn't follow this, it's on you. Halfway through, I mentioned to my friend that this was the kind of film (like other Soderbergh and Guy Ritchie films) that get better with repeated viewings, and I expect to watch this a few times, but honestly at the end we each had few questions about what we'd seen. Complex but complete, thoroughly enjoyable. Intelligence required.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No Sudden Movie
RussHog2 July 2021
I liked the first half a lot. The second half sucked. The script stops being good - it gets preachy and bad. I agree with others that the lens they filmed it on was kinda whack. If you like gangster films I guess that is what this is and you might like it. I've seen worse but this is not very good.
41 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What a convoluted mess!!!!
hardbop-521252 July 2021
Seriously???....does anyone really have a clue what's going on here???...this is very hard to sit through And when the story finally starts to come together....it's like...who cares!!!....the actors all put on totally average performances...this isn't even a decent B movie.... I can see why it was never released to theaters...it would have flopped right from the start....total garbage.
51 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
If you don't like movies that require a brain don't watch it
ewenspark22 August 2021
Captures the film noir effect really well, especially with the use of fish eye lenses which many think is a distraction. The story has twists and turns that many can't follow. If you can't keep up with good movies go watch a superhero movie with no substance and all FX. This is awesome.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It Could Have Been Great
Megan_Shida2 July 2021
Was it a noir? Was it a heist caper? Was it a gangster movie? Was it an indictment of the automobile industries and the racism, gentrification, and pollution they heralded? Despite gritty performances and an interesting premise, the film is really all and none of those things: it is a mess. The tone is uneven and the film is not helped by a 360 kind of camera technique that often makes the film look like it is using google maps. If the film had maintained the very dark and brooding feel it began with, I think this film could have been excellent. Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro really were excellent. Sometimes a director tries to do too much.
31 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What was the point?
whitemanfromtowne1 July 2021
A bunch of stories intertwined to end up absolutely nowhere with no real punch line. What was the point? I really didn't get it.
60 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A mess
lwio196012 October 2021
The movie was a confusing mess. It started out straight forward then we got to hear about all these other people and things happening. At one point I mentioned I was lost. It came together a bit at the end but really it wasn't very good at all.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed