Movie Review: Matchstick Men
Starring: Nicholas Cage, Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohman
Directed by: Ridley Scott

This is another film that has already left the “new arrivals” section at Blockbuster. It had its theatrical release way back in 2003, and really only caught my eye because of the director, Ridley Scott.
Scott is far more famous for other additions to American film- Gladiator and Black Hawk Down- which have cemented a sure place for Scott in the annals of cinematic history.

Considering this, Matchstick Men becomes a real departure from Scott’s oeuvre, trading in his action/drama specs for a stab at the sleek sleight-of-hand thriller.
Just like David O. Russel’s I Heart Huckabees, Scott must work from a disadvantage, since this style of film has seen a revival in recent years, and audiences are quick to spot uncomfortable, awkward work.

I am pleased to report, however, that Scott does a great job at adapting his sensitivities to the project at hand, implementing the key ingredient of misdirection masterfully. This film plays the smooth criminal thriller well, except for a few key differences, which serve to push this movie beyond just a good-looking thief film. The end result is a film which almost has a dual identity: a slick robbery flick, and a psychological comedy.

The Premise: Roy (Cage) and Fred (Rockwell) are con artists working in LA, duping innumerable hapless senior citizens out of small-time money, always on the lookout for that bigger score. Roy suffers from any number of neuroses, the most important being his obsessive-compulsive behavior. Self-medicated and lonely, Roy seeks the help of a psychiatrist when his pills run out. Because of these sessions Roy learns that he has a 14-year old daughter, (Lohman) who enters into his life because of a few phone calls. She is accidentally brought in on a con, where Roy discovers her natural affinity for the work. She is brought in on future cons, much to the chagrin of Fred, who is mistrustful, since either he or Roy know literally nothing about her.

The rest of the plot becomes key to a surprise ending that would be shameful to disclose to you who have not seen it. Suffice to say, if you are really alert, you might figure out where you are heading, but for myself, who tends to live a little more “in the moment” when it comes to movies, I was caught off guard, and thus the ruse was a success.

Nicholas Cage’s performance in this film is the first thing I must mention. This may go down as the finest performance I’ve seen Cage give. With the exception perhaps of his dual roles in Adaptation, Matchstick takes Cage further away from the cliché attributes which have plagued him from his earliest days. Audiences either love or hate Cage. It is hard to feel neutral about him because his personality is so unique. In this film, however, I felt Cage explored deeper into a character than I’ve seen from him in a long time.
His portrayal of the obsessive-compulsions that Roy suffers from are not glib or thrown away. In fact, they tread this fine line between humorous and morose, leaving us not quite certain if we should laugh or feel sorry for Roy.
One of Cage’s common detractions is his vocal intonation. He speaks very much in the back of his throat, letting his nose buzz on many words. This is different than any other actor I know of, but it certainly does get old after a while if an actor never moves beyond it. In Adaptation, and now again in Matchstick, Cage adopts a variation of English that takes him away from his common ground.

Ridley Scott’s direction in this film is superb, as I knew it would be. The ability to adapt from one vastly style of film to another is something often times botched by other directors when they move from one genre of film to another. Scott seemed to be well-aware of these challenges, and even managed to stamp his own calling card onto the celluloid.

The one thing that really jumped out at me was the pace of this film. I wasn’t sure what to think at first, because within the first ten minutes we had seen more of Roy’s life than most filmmakers will show in half an hour. Scotts’ cuts are fast and furious, leaving only the most essential of actions left in a shot so that he doesn’t leave us behind. At first I thought this was just the set-up, and the pace would slow once we got to the real part of the story, but the quick camera shots continue at a rapid pace all of the way until the end of the movie. The further we got into the film, however, I realized this was Scott’s way of letting us in on Roy’s world. The sped-up film, over-exposure of certain shots and the quick takes create a surreal sense of events and time, allowing us to see a little bit of the existence that Roy is dealing with. The editing of this work was superb.

Alison Lohman, who plays Angela, Roy’s daughter, is really the weak link in an otherwise exemplary cast. I don’t know if her training or experience, but she really came off to me as practically an amateur, delivering lines the way a first-timer might lean towards a microphone, just to make sure audio picks it all up. I was far less impressed with her performance, but am encouraged that I have not seen her in any other films since 2003.

Over all, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I was expecting a tasty con man film, and got much more. The only thing that acts as a detriment to the pace and excitement of this movie is the duality of the film itself. It is both a film about these men’s work, and yet also about Roy’s mind, and all of the turmoil he is put through during this film. Because of this, the pace of the storyline sometimes lagged a little bit too much to keep the audience really into the movie.

The Grade: B+

T.