This film is basically a dark, sophisticated 'caper' thriller with the added twist that the main characters are rapidly awakened to the fact that they are being ruthlessly manipulated behind the scenes. The deeper they go, the more intense the experience. While none of these guys are admirable (in fact they are all clearly trash), you can't help but feel for them. They are just so in over their heads. And the puppeteer bad guy is a nightmare.
Unfortunately I guessed its 'big secret' almost as soon as I knew there was one, and am justly disappointed. It was nice to keep getting confirmation as it went along, but I would like to have experienced the final surprise. (And I am *sure* I'm not singular in guessing the ending.)
This film really relies too much on the 'wow effect' to make its major impression (read other comments for confirmation)--always a clue that a work of art is leaning *hard* on a crutch. Take away the surprise ending, and what do you have? In this case a stylish and well-produced film with a gaping hole. For example, compare it to LA Confidential. Even if you had guessed LAs secret before they let it out, it wouldn't spoil a thing--because that film didn't rely on a plot twist for its primary punch. It had a whole basket full of assets.
I'd give this movie a 7 if its secret had been better (and more creatively) guarded. As it stands, I give it a 6 for the excellence of the entire production and that fact that I was fairly well entertained. But I won't be watching it again, whereas LA Confidential will always be on my list.
********ABSOLUTE SPOILER *************** Agatha Christie first introduced this gimmick in 1926 with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Beyond that, the whole gig follows the classic mystery formula right down the line: Once we realize it's a whodunit (its clearly gotta be somebody we met, otherwise no punch), the obvious choice is the 'least likely one.' And there he is, perfectly disguised to fool you into not even looking his way--a good indication you should look his way. Another giveaway is that we have one guy telling the story and everything we see is from his eyes. Makes you wonder: 1) Why did only this guy survive? 2) Who says we are seeing the truth, except him? And the big one: 3) I'm supposed to believe a *con* artist? Not.
Unfortunately I guessed its 'big secret' almost as soon as I knew there was one, and am justly disappointed. It was nice to keep getting confirmation as it went along, but I would like to have experienced the final surprise. (And I am *sure* I'm not singular in guessing the ending.)
This film really relies too much on the 'wow effect' to make its major impression (read other comments for confirmation)--always a clue that a work of art is leaning *hard* on a crutch. Take away the surprise ending, and what do you have? In this case a stylish and well-produced film with a gaping hole. For example, compare it to LA Confidential. Even if you had guessed LAs secret before they let it out, it wouldn't spoil a thing--because that film didn't rely on a plot twist for its primary punch. It had a whole basket full of assets.
I'd give this movie a 7 if its secret had been better (and more creatively) guarded. As it stands, I give it a 6 for the excellence of the entire production and that fact that I was fairly well entertained. But I won't be watching it again, whereas LA Confidential will always be on my list.
********ABSOLUTE SPOILER *************** Agatha Christie first introduced this gimmick in 1926 with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Beyond that, the whole gig follows the classic mystery formula right down the line: Once we realize it's a whodunit (its clearly gotta be somebody we met, otherwise no punch), the obvious choice is the 'least likely one.' And there he is, perfectly disguised to fool you into not even looking his way--a good indication you should look his way. Another giveaway is that we have one guy telling the story and everything we see is from his eyes. Makes you wonder: 1) Why did only this guy survive? 2) Who says we are seeing the truth, except him? And the big one: 3) I'm supposed to believe a *con* artist? Not.