eric262003 After watching a film of a similar story to "Matchstick Men" called "Confidence" where I summarized that the caper can easily be ruined by giving away details too early in the film. "Matchstick Men" faces a very similar predicament as well, but can back up its intentions by going a different direction. Like many capers before, they smugly believe they're being clever to its viewers, taking us on their journeys only to end being formulaic and predictable. What makes "Matchstick Men" work is that although the con doesn't light a candle, it's still able to connect with its audience in the events proceeding up the ultimate climax. So while the con was a bust, the rest of the movie pans out splendidly.Sure the whole hustler backdrop can surely get on your nerves,plus the whole you know what you've gotten yourselves arrogance can like pluck your eyeballs out of its socket, but its the upbeat, snappy tone of the film which is quite the contrast to operatic soundtrack you hear from a Ridley Scott film. The crooning sound of Bobby Darin among others along with the vibrant dialogue from each performer, everything just runs smoothly without a care in sight. Before you know it, we're humming and tapping as we enjoy the company of our leading protagonists two thirds along the way in this nearly two hour film.It also helps that the cast seems spot on in their respective performances as Nicolas Cage was flawless in his performance as obsessive compulsive con artist Roy Waller whose neurotic demeanor upstages whatever con games he has up his sleeves. Meanwhile his sidekick Frank Mercer (Sam Rockwell) who suave laid-back personae can make you wonder if his friendship is genuine or superficial. Both performers can play these roles in their sleep and both know how to manipulate each other of their civics duties. Cage carries the heavier cargo as he battles Tourette's syndrome and sports constant nervous tics that can at times be nauseating (he also feverishly washes windows and eats tuna right out of a can), he makes it seem authentic and natural. Rockwell also plays a role we could get invested in, though he plays off more of a background character when he should be a second billing character.They're a pair of likable scoundrels and Scott guides us to their world to see how they conduct their shady dealings. They're work comes to a pause as Roy is united with his teenager daughter Angela (Alison Lohman) a prodigal waif who could easily con a person with the very best of them. She can at times be more of a liability than an asset to Roy and Frank, but as Roy starts to warm up to Angela, he starts to reconsider other avenues to make money. Lohman has that eerily resemblance of a young Geena Davis from "Thelma and Louise" and her conniving and naive ways whether intentional or not can resemble the character from "Thelma and Louise". Cage and Lohman (an adult playing a teenager by the way) share some great scenes together and their chemistry is clever and moving as opposed to being saccharine and mushy.This film would have been pure gold have it stuck to the relationship between Roy and Angela, but sadly the Big Con had to come around sooner or later and the filmmakers had this planned the whole time through. The scoundrel trifecta find their unfortunate guinea pig in the shape of Chuck Frechette (Bruce McGill) who will resort to any scheming tactics possible. It seems like the right feel at first, but then the deceptions seems too obvious and can be seen from a mile away. Once all that character development is put to the pasture, it all comes down to big, bad assassins armed with their heavy ammunition and just seems to spoil the apple cart from all the wonderful moments from the earlier scenes. It makes you wonder why didn't Scott keep a good thing coming? And then he ruins the scenes by softening up the hardened scenes which is an apology too late.And sure those non-judgmental purists can still enjoy the film as a whole and I don't blame them for it. The positives outnumbered the negatives. The tame humour and the emotional chemistry is truly a delight to the soul while the big heist climax tends to fall flat on its face, but it's still easy to forgive the flaws while marveling at the good qualities of this movie. It shows that Scott can handle lighter fare films than his more heavier themed films. "Matchstick Men" can stand alone for the unintended scenes contrary to the direction its mindset was on the whole time.

hewlett61 did this illogical mess of a film receive such high reviews? I usually avoid Nicholas Cage movies, but saw this on HBO and I like Sam Rockwell. It was a decent enough movie, a little schmaltzy, but not horrible. That is until the twist, that completely invalidates the first 90 minutes of the movie from having any logic to it at all. The plot is like an extended Rub Goldberg machine, that the protagonist thinks he is in charge of, but EVERYONE ELSE is playing against him, simply for the benefit of his partner. For the whole movie! Can anyone explain how, or why, the characters behaved the way they did when Cage was not in the scene? As they were plotting against him, when they were alone, they remained the characters Cage's character thought they were. If you were conning someone, would you keep the con facade going even when you are alone, or only with other people you are conspiring with? I don't think so. Simply one of the worst plot holes I have ever seen, yet the professional critics, and the other reviews posted here, simply seem to ignore pure cinematic ridiculousness when they see it.

Jawbox5 Matchstick Men represents a pleasant change of pace for Ridley Scott. For a director known for doing films that are both large thematically and in scope, it's nice to see him tackle a film that has a simple premise which allows him to build the themes that he wants to discuss. Matchstick Men is a difficult film to categorise, as is the case for most con films. It has touches of dark comedy and pieces of crime thriller, plenty of drama without losing its quirkiness. It often plays out like a character study of a man who struggles to balance his dirty deeds with his mental issues. All of this delivered in a very free-flowing and vibrant way, much like the majority of Scott's work.At its core the film is about con man Roy Waller who suffers from serve OCD which become even worse once he loses his pills, shown in a scene that is both funny and sad where he spends a day cleaning his entire house. He then goes to see doctor who takes an interest in his life and wants to help him defeat his illness. Cage is the star centrepiece of the film. He also provides one of his best performances. In a way it is prefect casting, Cage has always been at his best playing edgy and jittery characters and here he gets a legitimate reason to act that way. His performance provides a surprising amount of sympathy as well as humour, he gets so into the character that his frequent ticks seem natural. The story develops further when it turns out Roy has a 14 year-old daughter called Angela who he decides to meet, which leads to him struggling to balance out both sides of his life. Enter Alison Lohman who is fantastic. It's hard to believe that she is playing a character ten years younger than she was at the time given how natural her performance is. She manages to capture the essence of what a character that age would be like, without detracting from the emotional weight and likability that she brings. I also think that Sam Rockwell (who I swear has never put in a subpar performance) deserves some praise for his role as Roy's confident business partner.It is tough to reveal much more about the plot without giving away pieces of information that might spoil its ending. Scott's direction is certainly a highlight, as usual with his films. It is possibly his most fluid film and he manages to convey Roy's breakdowns with his subtle use of the camera, whilst the frequent use of blue shade invokes the calmness of water which becomes something of a motif. From a visual standpoint the film reminded a lot of 'Catch Me If You Can' given its vibrancy and colour scheme. Adding to this is both the editing and the transitions which are seamlessly done. Hans Zimmer's score is also worth a mention, trading in his usually bombastic compositions for more jazzy and bass heavy pieces that fit the film perfectly.The only part of the film that left me cold was its climax and its eventual twist (which I won't reveal). For me the twist did disrupt a lot of the film's emotional and grounded aspects that had been developed excellently throughout. It brings a jolt that almost pushes you out of the film and instead of feeling that the twist transformed the film into something completely different, it simply felt like an unnecessary addition. I think the film would have been even stronger had it avoided said twist all together.Matchstick Men ends up feeling exactly like what Ridley Scott wants it to be. It's a film that blends multiple genres together and basically plays them off against the typical con man film style. It does go deeper than the story initially suggests, almost working as a psychological study of Roy and the building of his relationship with the daughter he never knew existed. On a surface level however, the film is constantly entertaining. Whether it is for the excellent acting, the charming central narrative, the tension building con or Scott's wonderful direction it doesn't really matter because all of these aspects blend with and play off of each other so well. I don't think the twist works, but it's a testament to the films strength that it isn't overly damaged by that. For me it's a film that is meant to be enjoyed on the surface, before you start to analyse what is underneath.

unsolicitedmale Generally, I like this movie. Not a huge fan of Nick Cage most of the time and Matchstick Men is no exception. But he's likable enough once you get over the often-bad acting.I won't labor the plot - 300+ other reviews do that very well. And I am one of those who actually liked the "big con" twist - and no, I didn't see it coming (I can be plot-dense sometimes LOL!). I retrospect, it's so obvious - but so was Sixth Sense and a lot of people bought that one too.What really bugs me about this movie are two things:1. Cage's character is supposedly massively OCD about cleanliness. And yet he is a horribly messy chain smoker. In countless scenes he's flicking ashes on the floor, in the house and car. His car ashtray is overflowing. And everyone comes in his house and comments on how it always smells "clean" from cleaning products.... has anyone ever visited a chain smoker's house? EVERYTHING would be coated with goo that would then be collecting massive dust. And you don't just wipe that away! As a long-ago heavy smoker I can attest to this. No OCD-Cleanliness person would smoke much less chain smoke.2. I'd have to count, but I'd bet there are only a handful of scenes where someone isn't blatantly smoking. It's so annoying and so unnecessary to the plot. The little girl even is seen smoking, the shrink smokes a pipe, Frank smokes, the big con guy smokes, and they smoke everywhere - Cage even smokes while eating breakfast. The Tobacco industry must be proud of this - either that or Cage (who in fact is a chain smoker) demanded he be able to smoke in every scene or he wouldn't do it.I'm no radical "anti-smoking" person (typing this from a Casino bar in Vegas in fact LOL!) - but it's such a laughable plot item and clearly not an accident.But otherwise, I still like the movie