Criminal is a movie about conmen. There are a number of stereotypes and clichés that any movie of this genre will follow, and Criminal does so religiously.
The story setup: A young trick thief is taken under the wing of an experienced, successful conman. Together, they stumble across an opportunity for a huge con, and the rest of the movie is about all the little obstacles that get in their way.
To be fair, the main attraction about this movie is the cast list. One would expect a movie starring John C Reilly and Maggie Gyllenhaal to be something special and brilliant, slightly indie and probably quirky enough for a British audience to embrace it much more than an American audience would. Unfortunately, the film is actually quite disappointing (if one has high expectations to begin with).
First of all, whenever a conversation is shown, and you just see one talking head, you get the impression that the other actor isn't even in the room. Maybe I'm wrong there, but somehow, subconsciously, it kept bothering me. As a result, all the acting chemistry goes out of the window - if I'm not convinced that both people are in the room, how could the emotional undercurrent of any conversation convince me? To give them credit, the actors did a brilliant job whenever they weren't in "talking heads" style conversations, with subtle and convincing performances. Especially in the second half of the film.
The second problem is the predictability of the movie. Maybe I've seen too many films by now, but I had a very clear suspicion of what the resolution would be from fairly early on, and it was fulfilled entirely, much to my disappointment.
And finally, there's the issue of John C Reilly as evil character. On the one hand, he's ideal for the role of a conman. They have to be charming and innocent-looking to be convincing in their work. On the other, there's that problem of audience expectation - at least in my case. I spent quite a while, looking for "Mr Cellophane" moments, after seeing him play too many nice roles. It took hours for me to accept him as evil character, and then just the briefest flicker of a moment to destroy all that and replenish sympathy.
On the whole, it is a fairly acceptable film. I expected more, but it did what it says on the tin.
PS: One item of background knowledge that might come in handy for non-American audiences: If someone has been convicted twice, and commits a third crime, they get an automatic life sentence in some states. It's called the "Three Strikes Law", I believe. So when characters put so much emphasis on the "twice" or two strikes, this is what they are implying: If they get caught, it's life imprisonment they're heading for.
The story setup: A young trick thief is taken under the wing of an experienced, successful conman. Together, they stumble across an opportunity for a huge con, and the rest of the movie is about all the little obstacles that get in their way.
To be fair, the main attraction about this movie is the cast list. One would expect a movie starring John C Reilly and Maggie Gyllenhaal to be something special and brilliant, slightly indie and probably quirky enough for a British audience to embrace it much more than an American audience would. Unfortunately, the film is actually quite disappointing (if one has high expectations to begin with).
First of all, whenever a conversation is shown, and you just see one talking head, you get the impression that the other actor isn't even in the room. Maybe I'm wrong there, but somehow, subconsciously, it kept bothering me. As a result, all the acting chemistry goes out of the window - if I'm not convinced that both people are in the room, how could the emotional undercurrent of any conversation convince me? To give them credit, the actors did a brilliant job whenever they weren't in "talking heads" style conversations, with subtle and convincing performances. Especially in the second half of the film.
The second problem is the predictability of the movie. Maybe I've seen too many films by now, but I had a very clear suspicion of what the resolution would be from fairly early on, and it was fulfilled entirely, much to my disappointment.
And finally, there's the issue of John C Reilly as evil character. On the one hand, he's ideal for the role of a conman. They have to be charming and innocent-looking to be convincing in their work. On the other, there's that problem of audience expectation - at least in my case. I spent quite a while, looking for "Mr Cellophane" moments, after seeing him play too many nice roles. It took hours for me to accept him as evil character, and then just the briefest flicker of a moment to destroy all that and replenish sympathy.
On the whole, it is a fairly acceptable film. I expected more, but it did what it says on the tin.
PS: One item of background knowledge that might come in handy for non-American audiences: If someone has been convicted twice, and commits a third crime, they get an automatic life sentence in some states. It's called the "Three Strikes Law", I believe. So when characters put so much emphasis on the "twice" or two strikes, this is what they are implying: If they get caught, it's life imprisonment they're heading for.