Movie Review Napoleon

Napoleon (2023) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by David Scarpa 

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby 

Release Date November 22nd, 2023 

Published November 27th, 2023 

Napoleon stars Joaquin Phoenix as the legendary French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte. Once merely a soldier, Napoleon is driven by an iron will to become the leader of all France. What drives Napoleon? What experiences made him such a single minded, obsessive leader, clinging with all of his might to power? That's the heart of what Ridley Scott is after in Napoleon and its questionable whether or not he got there or not. The film is wildly accomplished, technically superb, but it lingers a great deal and some of the lingering aspects leave you wondering what the point of it all is. The lack of a point may be the point. 

We meet Napoleon Bonaparte during the French Revolution. Marie Antoinette is dragged from the royal mansion of France and taken to the gallows. France lines up behind the revolutionary Robespierre but he's soon deposed as well. As Bonaparte helps quell another coup attempt, the power vacuum in France sweeps up more leaders until the tip of the French sword, Napoleon himself takes the reigns. It was a very fast rise to power but given the lack of leaders, the spineless neophyte politicians and remaining royalists, it's no wonder that a dictator willing to get his hands bloody would eventually take hold. 

Written off as a brute, Napoleon uses force to establish dominance and cunning to win on the battlefield. Regardless of what the bourgeois aristocrats of France think, Napoleon commands an army while they can merely command words. As Napoleon's power grows, he seeks companionship and finds it in a former aristocrat whose husband was beheaded in one of the many revolutions. Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) is a snakelike woman capable of slithering into any man's bed. She makes plain that she has a history and that if Napoleon has a problem with that, as so many men do, he should look elsewhere. 

Her forceful sexuality and allure are more than enough for Napoleon to overlook her potentially scandalous background. The two are married and Napoleon leaves to conquer the known world. We see him in various parts of the world, most notably Egypt where France attempted to destroy the ancient pyramids and Napoleon came face to face with Egyptian royalty in the form of a disinterred Mummy whom Napoleon cannot help but compare himself in terms of stature. Napoleon wishes to be as venerated as the Egyptian leaders were, but he first must deal with his cheating wife and a series of toady politicians looking to gain his favor. 

Find my full length review of Napoleon at Geeks.Media. 

Movie Review: Exodus Gods and Kings

Exodus Gods and Kings (2014) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian

Starring Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn

Release Date December 12th, 2014 

Published December 11th, 2014 

Ridley Scott's "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is a dull slog through a Bible story too familiar to be of much interest. Putting aside, for a moment, the awful casual racism involved in the film's casting, "Exodus" just simply isn't a very good film. Despite the special effects that render the seven plagues of Egypt in spectacular fashion, the grim story and wooden characters make "Exodus" a dreadful movie-going experience. 

Christian Bale stars as Moses and Joel Edgerton is Ramses, the Egyptian pharaoh, soon to be king. When we first meet them, Moses is Ramses' right-hand man. The two were raised as brothers by the Egyptian King Seti (John Turturro). Moses' origin story, however, is a lingering mystery that will become a definitive part of his life. He is an Israelite, and not an Egyptian. 

In fact, Moses isn't merely Jewish. He may be the Jewish savior who leads his people to freedom in Canaan, which will later become Israel. But first he and Ramses have to go to war. Moses has to prove that he is the greater warrior and more worthy heir to the throne of Egypt than the sniveling Ramses, who will poison his father to make sure his ascension to the throne happens without interruption. 

Ramses' paranoia eventually extends to his feelings for his brother Moses, whom he suspects will usurp his throne. When Ramses is informed by spies that Moses is, in fact, Jewish, he banishes Moses from the kingdom. Nine years pass, and Moses has begun to raise a family. Then he has a vision: A child, a stand-in for God, orders Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of slavery. 

If you don't already know this story then you have likely lived under a rock since birth. It's among the most familiar Bible stories in history, thanks to the violence and death unleashed by God in seven plagues. The plagues are the main reason why "Exodus: Gods and Kings" exists. Special effects have advanced so much in the past two decades that making the Nile River run red with blood, the arrival of millions of frogs, and an attack of locusts now can be rendered realistically in CGI.  

There is no denying that the special effects are impressive, especially late in the film, when God parts the Red Sea and then un-parts the Red Sea in even more spectacular and deadly fashion. But special effects alone are not enough to overcome the grim story, dour performances and general tedium of sitting through nearly three hours of this. 

And then there is the racism at the heart of the film. Both director Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox owner Rupert Murdoch have weighed in on the casting of Scottish actor Joel Edgerton, saying that it was a business decision to cast a white actor as an Egyptian king. Scott claims that an actor with a name like Muhammad would not sell tickets, as if the name of Joel Edgerton ever has sold a ticket anywhere outside his Scottish home town. 

Bale, at the very least, has the powerful presence and charisma to render a Moses we can appreciate. Edgerton's sneering, sniveling Ramses is an over-the-top bore who is completely overmatched opposite Bale's imposing performance. Of course, even if Edgerton had delivered an Oscar-worthy turn, it still would not justify his casting over that of an actual Egyptian actor in the role. 

Scott's attempt to mask this racism as a business decision only makes it more insidious and cynical. It's impossible to watch "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and not see the casting of Edgerton – and, to an extent, Bale and Turturro -- as the latest example of Hollywood's historic offhand bigotry that dates back to Al Jolson and D.W Griffith. Nearly 100 years after Griffith, one might think we've evolved, especially with Hollywood's well known leftist politics. Yet here we are with white actors imitating Arabs and Israelites while wearing brown-face. 

In the end, even if "Exodus: Gods and Kings" hadn't been an overly familiar slog made solely to exploit modern special effects, the film still would have stunk because of its blasé’ attitude toward its own bigotry. 

Movie Review: Body of Lies

Body of Lies (2009) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by William Monahan 

Starring Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac

Release Date October 10th, 2009 

Published October 9th, 2009

Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio. Two of the biggest stars in the world starring together in a movie. That's a big deal. So why doesn't it feel as big as it should be? Body of Lies is the movie, a CIA spook movie about middle eastern politics from director Ridley Scott. Is it as simple as Body of Lies being less than a great movie? Maybe. Or it could be that Crowe's heart isn't in and thus his star power shines less bright.

Roger Ferris is the CIA asset on the ground in the middle east. The intelligence he gathers is the most valuable of anything the CIA can gather. Ferris gets closer than any military on the ground ever could by blending into the background, speaking fluent arabic and finding just the right person to get him what he needs.

Back in Langley Virginia, Roger's handler is the head of Middle Eastern affairs Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe). Ed uses high tech gadgets and insanely expensive satellite technology to track not just the world's leading terrorist but to pinpoint Roger himself from space. This technology is put to especially good use early on when Roger and a middle eastern co-hort investigate an Iraqi terrorist hideout and end up in a fire fight. The satellite image sends exact coordinates to attack helicopters that arrive just in time to save Roger and his latest intel.

This latest discovery is big and a plan is hatched using it to suss out the location of the world's most wanted terrorist other than Osama Bin Laden. The plan is ingenious and dangerous with a moral complication that will draw an important distinction between Roger and Ed and what they are willing to do to fight the war on terror.

Ridley Scott is a pro behind the camera. His work on the gritty, sun drenched streets and vast deserts of Iraq and the crowded dusty streets of Amman Jordan is impecable. Scott's action scenes are crisp and exciting, filled with energy and suspense. The trouble for Body of Lies comes from a script without an underlying idea.

There is a plot with a sound engine in DiCaprio's very active hero. However, one is at a loss to delineate the message of Body of Lies. What are the underlying politics. What other than some kick ass action scenes made Scott want to make this movie. The story cries out for a deeper meaning beyond the pale love story between DiCaprio and a Jordanian nurse and the father/prodigal son relationship between Crowe and DiCaprio.

The major hole in Body of Lies is Russell Crowe. The Oscar winner cuts an original, somewhat quirky character, an arrogant almost bumbling bureacrat. Unfortunately, there isn't really much behind the quirks. There is no real arc to the character. Crowe's Ed Hoffman begins as an arrogant jerk and ends an arrogant jerk. He learns no lesson, gets no comeuppance, not even a sharp sock to the jaw that the character so richly deserves.

That is unlike DiCaprio's Ferris who begins as a cold blooded terrorist killer and humanizes throughout. When the dangerous game begins to unfold Ferris is careful, cautious and thoughtful where Hoffman is impetuous and self aggrandizing. My comparison here is not without reason as late in the film Scott reveals what may be his missing thesis. These two men represent the two poles of American foreign policy.

The stretch is exceedingly thin as Crowe is portrayed as a bumbler who acts without thought while DiCaprio is heroic because he is deliberative and patient. The point is as heavy handed in Scott's one scene to lay it out as it is unseen throughout most of the movie. The one scene seems a last minute desperate attempt to give the action of Body of Lies a purpose beyond its series of action. It plays simply as hamhanded and desperate.

There is great work in this movie from Mark Strong as the head of Jordan security apparatus. He and DiCaprio go head to head and the battle of wills, the melding of egos and mutual respect gives their scenes weight. Strong is a heavy presence but he like Crowe and DiCaprio suffers for not having something deeper driving him, something beyond plot requirements.

There is too much good about Body of Lies to dismiss it. Scott is still a talented scenarist even with a thin story to tell. DiCaprio is an engaging hero and Crowe at the very least is charismatic, even on auto-pilot. Body of Lies has some tremendous action and spycraft and that is enough for me to recommend it for fans of big time action.

However, Body of Lies is a good movie that could have been, should have been great.

Movie Review Kingdom of Heaven

Kingdom of Heaven (2005) 

Directed by Ridley Scott

Written by William Monahan

Starring Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, David Thewlis, Liam Neeson

Release Date May 6th, 2005

Published May 5th, 2005 

When Ridley Scott announced he was taking on a crusades era epic, red flags went up all over the world. Given the current sensitivities in the middle east and the constantly inflamed situation on the border of Israel and Palestine specifically, a film about the crusades made by westerners seemed like a bad idea. That film, Kingdom Of Heaven, is now complete and it is indeed controversial, but not in the way we thought it would be. Instead of offending believers in Islam, the film goes out of its way to be fair to all sides which actually worked to offend many christians. You just can't win.

Orlando Bloom is the star of Kingdom Of Heaven as Balian, a blacksmith who we meet at the lowest point in his life. His son died shortly after birth, which led his wife to take her own life. His own priest is quick to remind him that because his wife committed suicide she will not go to heaven. It is at this lowest point that Balian's father Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson) returns with an offer of salvation, comes to the holy land, inherits his kingdom and helps King Baldwin maintain the tentative peace that has followed the third Crusade.

Balian is reluctant but eventually circumstances conspire to send Balian to the holy land. Along the way Balian's father is mortally wounded leaving Balian his title, Lord of Ibelin, and the charge to defend the people of the kingdom at all cost. Balian soon arrives in the holy land after surviving a nasty shipwreck, and is taken to meet King Baldwin (Edward Norton, hidden behind a metal mask) who immediately recognizes the good in Balian and entrusts him with defending the kingdom alongside his chief military officer Tiberius (Jeremy Irons).

The biggest threat to peace in the holy land is not the Muslim leader Saladin (Ghassan Massoud), who is portrayed as a reasonable and peaceful leader. The threat comes from inside King Baldwin's court, his sister Sybilla (Eva Green)'s huband Guy De Lusignan (Martin Csokas) commander of the Knights Templar, the Vatican's own order of Knights, intent on forcing all non-christians out of the holy city of Jerusalem. King Baldwin has managed a shaky peace but he is dying, the king has leprosy, when he is gone Sybilla will be queen and De Lusignan king.

This is the point in which the plot takes a disastrous turn. Balian is given an opportunity to kill Guy De Lusignan and marry Sybilla. The two have, by this time, fallen in love but Balian chooses not to and thus dooms the kingdom to a war with Saladin and his army of more than 200,000 soldiers. Though Balian, Tiberius and the soldiers in their charge refuse to fight, De Lusignan goes ahead with the attack and it is left to Balian to defend the innocent people left behind when the new king's army is destroyed.

One of my biggest pet peeves about movies is when the entire film rests on one obvious decision that if made correctly would negate the rest of the film. Balian's decision not to let Guy De Lusignan be hanged as a traitor, which he is, is the single dumbest decision he could possibly make. He knows that by deciding to spare him he is making him the new king and that thousands will die because of it. Balian's decision only offers the film the opportunity to continue, if he makes the right decision, the movie is over.

Is this linked to historical accuracy? No! In reality Balian never fell in love with or had an affair with Sybilla. The romance is a construct of director Ridley Scott and screenwriter William Monahan and they nearly try to pin the entire plot of the film onto one. The romance crumbles under the weight of the plot that hangs on it. Neither Orlando Bloom or Eva Green sparks in the subplot.

What is worse is that the romance is clearly a marketing decision and not a creative decision. The only reason Sybilla and Balian get together is because all ancient epic movie hero's have doomed romances. Brad Pitt's Achilles in Troy had Polydora, Russell Crowe's Maximus had Connie Nielsen's Lucilla and most recently Colin Ferrell's Alexander had Jared Leto's Hephaistion.

As for the action, I was one of the rare detractors of Ridley Scott's Oscar winning epic Gladiator, and the same problems that plagued that film plague Kingdom Of Heaven. CGI Hordes clashing on the battlefield gets real old real fast without a compelling story and dialogue as a backup. Gladiator, however, did have one thing going for it and that was the magnetism of star Russell Crowe, Kingdom Of Heaven is not as fortunate.

Surrounded by an extraordinary supporting cast, Orlando Bloom fades into the background never emerging as a believable action hero. When called upon to deliver a rousing speech near the end of the film, he sounds more like the petulant child he played in Troy than the inspiring hero that Russell Crowe brought to Gladiator. Bloom may have packed on 25 pounds of muscle for this role but nothing can make this guy look tough.

Liam Neeson in particular makes Bloom look bad. Neeson blows the kid off the screen with his stature, gravitas and poise. When Neeson leaves the movie you are sad to see him go. Jeremy Irons and the voice of Edward Norton are equally more compelling than Mr. Bloom. Finally putting his blustery scene chewing to rest, Irons delivers a weary but knowing performance and Mr. Norton though hidden behind a horrible metal mask cannot mask his natural actorly charisma.

With its plot construction problems and desperately inept lead, the least Ridley Scott could do is deliver on the controversy we were promised when the New York Times began floating the script around to religious experts and historians. Instead the film is even handed to a fault. There is the minor matter of the Vatican's own army portrayed as thuggish glory hounds fighting for riches instead of god, that is a little controversial but it's too weakly played to really resonate in the kind of controversy you remember and talk about after the movie.

No, in fact there is little to remember or discuss about Kingdom Of Heaven, another mundane exercise in Hollywood spending and marketing.

Movie Review: A Good Year

A Good Year (2006) 

Directed by Ridley Scott

Written by Marc Klein

Starring Russell Crowe, Albert Finney, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Tom Hollander, Freddie Highmore

Release Date November 10th, 2006

Published November 10th, 2006

Can I recommend a movie based on one lovely line of dialogue? I'm serious, there is a line of dialogue in the new romantic comedy A Good Year starring Russell Crowe, that put an uncontrollable smile on my face. I was so excited by this one line that I sent it as a text message to a friend while the movie was still on because I wanted to make certain I did not forget it. Other than this one line of dialogue, A Good Year is an entirely underwhelming, by the numbers, romantic comedy with less weight than the film it's printed on.

Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) is in the business of making money. As a stock broker in London he gets up early in the morning to game the bond system and earn the ire of every other broker in the country. As we meet Max he has just made millions of dollars in some sort of shady bit of business. Max has no remorse for his actions, he proudly takes a victory lap at a bar frequented by fellow brokers. After things on the market calm down, Max receives a letter informing him that his Uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away. Max hasn't seen his uncle in nearly a decade. However, since Max is Henry's only living relative; he gets all of Henry's estate including a sizable vineyard in Provence France. Seeing an opportunity to cash in, Max leaves for France intending to sell the vineyard.

Max spent many wonderful summers at his uncle's vineyard. His greatest childhood memories are linked to this place and to his beloved, larger than life uncle. As these memories begin to flood back, as Max works with his uncle's long time employees, Du Flot (Didier Bourdon) and his wife Ludivine (Isabelle Candelier), to restore the vineyard, Max begins to wonder if he should keep the place. The plot of A Good Year is as predictable as a sunrise in the east. Max, the soulless stock broker, regains his soul at the vineyard. Wacky supporting characters help and cause trouble in equal portion and a beautiful French girl, Fanny Chenal played by Marion Cotllard, will steal Max's heart. Oh and yes, there is the obligatory roadblock; in the form of Christie (Abbie Cornish) who may or may not be uncle Henry's daughter and the rightful heir to the vineyard.

As the mechanics of the plot click away on rusty gears, star Russell Crowe does all he can with the material, not least of which includes a little of the kind slapstick humor more suited to Adam Sandler than to a former Oscar winner. There are moments in A Good Year where Crowe bounces from dignified and classy to Benny Hill style goof to Tom Hanks romantic. The schizphrenic performance still manages to be rather entertaining and when it comes time for Crowe to deliver the romantic zinger that seals the movie's good vibes, he nails it, belts it all the way to the back of the room and takes a bow.

Director Ridley Scott is far better known for the histrionics of Gladiator than he is for his soft and cuddly side. Much unlike the director who piled up the bloody bodies of Gladiator or Kingdom Of Heaven, the Ridley Scott of A Good Year is a purring pussy cat, lying in the sun and lounging on windowsills in A Good Year. Scott's efforts here don't extend much beyond an opening scene in which he tosses in an odd, out of place camera trick that would be more at home on the Gladiator battlefield than in this cookie of a romantic comedy.

Ridley Scott's joy in filming something as superfluous and lightheaded as A Good Year comes through in the little touches. The softly lit flashbacks to Max and his uncle (young Max is played by the terrific child actor Freddie Highmore), Russell Crowe's bouts of uncomfortable slapstick -awkward but fun- and of course the filming of that one line of dialogue that I love so much. So should I give you the line that makes this movie? No, I think you should actually see the movie. Get your significant other, get some popcorn and some candy, sit in the dark and marvel at the simple, elegant ease of such a predictable romantic comedy plot. Then when you hear that line that I'm talking about, and I honestly don't see how you could miss it, kiss your date and smile.

A Good Year is movie candy, empty calories, nothing but sugar. It has the potential for an upset stomach but it tastes so good going down. A Good Year for all intents and purposes is not a very good movie. It is however, modestly entertaining and then there is that one line. That amazing, lyrical, poetic, romantic line of dialogue so well delivered by Russell Crowe. This one line made me smile so much I can't help but forgive the many minor flaws of the softhearted, slightly softheaded A Good Year. Watch the movie and let me know if you catch the line I'm talking about.

Movie Review: American Gangster

American Gangster (2007) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by Steven Zaillian 

Starring Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Clarence Williams III, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cuba Gooding Jr 

Release Date November 2nd, 2007 

Published November 1st, 2007

The story of Frank Lucas could have found this enterprising, intelligent man as CEO of a fortune 500 company. The man knew how to run a business. He was a retail pioneer at heart who figured a way to cut out the middle man and bring his product directly from the manufacturer, no middle man. He sounds like an electronics dealer with his own chain of wholesale retailers.

The reality, captured in fictional form, in American Gangster is that Frank Lucas was a drug dealer and a murderer who coldly and heartlessly killed hundreds with his product and more with his own gun.

As the driver for legendary Harlem gangster Bumpy Johnson (Clarence Williams III) Frank Lucas learned the business of being a gangster up close and personal. When Bumpy died the city fell into a chaos of crime and violence and Frank Lucas longed to bring back Bumpy's sense of order and profit from it as he did.

Finding a way to get heroin without having to share with the mob and the NYPD, Frank went all the way to Vietnam to get his product which was then smuggled into the country in the coffins of US soldiers returning from the war. The result was a more pure and addictive form of heroin that Frank nicknamed Blue Magic. With his product in place Frank brought his brothers up from North Carolina and the Lucas empire was born.

Unraveling the tangled web of the Lucas drug trade is Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe). A lone good cop in department overflowing with corruption, Richie never took a dime, even when he and his partner stumbled on a million dollars of easily stealable drug money. It's good that Richie has his professional integrity because he has little else. His wife is leaving him and taking his son while his personal life consists of a series of mindless one night stands.

The collision of Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts was inevitable how it arrives and plays out in American Gangster is entirely unpredictable if you haven't already investigated the rise and fall of Frank Lucas. Indeed, Frank was for real. His reign in Harlem lasted nearly a decade. He once had more than 150 million dollars in cash stored in his home. He also murdered enemies in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses and was not caught.

Richie Roberts was also for real and the the path of his life through this film is fascinating and the prologue hints that even after getting Frank Lucas his life was colorful and unique. As played by Russell Crowe, Richie Roberts almost steals the picture. Crowe's Richie isn't your typical meatheaded tough guy roughing up suspects to get the information he needs to get the bad guy. Richie was a law student and eventually a prosecutor. He was a thinking man's detective even as he put forth a tough guy front.

This character could not be better suited to Russell Crowe who has played Nobel prize winner John Nash and fictional Gladiator Maximus, each to Oscar level. Don't be surprised if his Richie Roberts gets called on the morning of the Oscar nominations.

There was recently quite a heated debate at MovieCityNews.com over director Ridley Scott. A writer for the site wrote that he felt Scott is overrated as a director. He cited his examples and made some strong points about Scott's resume, which I agree, is somewhat inflated. However, after watching American Gangster I am convinced that Scott is an auteur of the highest order.

Fighting for two years to get American Gangster on the screen, Scott battled studio heads to get his vision of the film as the final product and he succeeded. This is top notch work that plays to Scott's strengths as a director of epics like Gladiator and Alien. Say what you will about Scott's many failings, his American Gangster is a modern film classic.

American Gangster can fairly be called Ridley Scott's Godfather. It is the height of his work thus far and it reflects everything he has accomplished including his earning the loyalty and trust of two of the finest actors of this generation. If Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington love Ridley Scott that's gotta mean he's doing something right.

Denzel Washington remains the king of cool in Hollywood. No one could have played the role of Frank Lucas like Denzel does. The charisma, the elegance, the cold steely intelligence rolls off the screen in waves when Denzel is on camera. His work is so effortless I worry that people will call the performance lazy. There is none of the histrionics of his Oscar winning performance in Training Day , none of the harrumphing bravado that announces a big dramatic performance.

The menace and charm are all played in Denzel's eyes. In fact, much of Denzel's Frank Lucas is in his eyes. There are scenes where that steely gaze could kill whoever it falls upon. There are other scenes, ones with his mother played by Ruby Dee and his wife (Lymari Nadal), where those eyes are as soft and inviting as Denzel in The Preacher's Wife. The entire dichotomy that is Frank Lucas can be found in Denzel's electric gaze.

That is the extraordinary talent of Denzel Washington on display in American Gangster, he makes it look so easy even as he has so much going on. Some will no doubt walk away feeling like they have seen this Denzel before. Cocky and harsh but still charismatic and even charming, there are so many levels to Denzel's performance and he plays them so well that it barely registers until after you've had time to think about, after the performance has already worked on you.

Two extraordinary actors under the direction of a director at the height of his powers creates one hell of a filmgoing experience. American Gangster is the kind of epic filmmaking that so rarely lives up to its ambitions. American Gangster more than lives up to its grand ambitions. A true powerhouse of dramatic filmmaking, American Gangster is a must see for all audiences, but especially those that want to see the movie that will be featured on Oscar night come March.

Movie Review Matchstick Men

Matchstick Men (2003) 

Directed by Ridley Scott

Written by Ted Griffin

Starring Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Allison Lohman, Bruce McGill 

Release Date September 12th, 2003 

Published September 11th, 2003 

Nicholas Cage has had a very unique road to stardom. He began his career on the indie circuit trying to overcome the perception that he was merely Francis Ford Coppola's nephew. He then graduated to unique supporting roles in oddball romances such as Moonstruck and Peggy Sue Got Married. Because he avoided conventional leading man roles, it seemed he was destined for the career of a great supporting actor a la Peter Lorre. Then came his star turn and Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, a role that completely changed his career. Whether that was a good thing or not is debatable. The role led to starring roles in two awful Jerry Bruckheimer action pics. 

Now Cage seems to be maturing into his stardom, varying his choice in lead roles from bad action like Windtalkers to bad drama like Captain Corelli's Mandolin to the occasional terrific role like the one he had in Bringing Out the Dead. Those great roles are becoming few and far between for Cage, and though his role as a neurotic con man in Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men might seem like a step in the right direction, his career rehab is not entirely successful.

As Roy Waller, Cage is a con man with a conscience. He will still take your money, but he feels bad about it, and his guilt spills out of him in a number of tics and phobias. His partner Frank (Sam Rockwell) has no such qualms about what he does and urges Roy to move up to bigger cons with bigger stakes. In an effort to get Roy to go for the big con, Frank sets Roy up with a psychiatrist (Bruce Altman) who links some of Roy's problems to a child Roy isn't certain he ever had.

Through a little investigation, the psychiatrist locates a woman who indeed had Roy's baby some years ago. The girl, Angela (Alison Lohman), is now a teenager and eager to meet the father she never knew. Angela is quick to insinuate herself into Roy's life and eventually into his profession as he teaches her the tricks of the trade. All the while, Frank is setting up a big-time pigeon (Bruce Mcgill) for what could be a million-dollar con.

Director Ridley Scott has a number of directorial flourishes topping off numerous plot twists. However, much of what happens is predictable and precarious from a story standpoint, as the twists require a good deal of suspension of disbelief that the movie never earns. The most talked about portion of the film is its ending and I won't reveal what happens except to say that you're likely to be disappointed.

To be sure, the film is a pro effort from top to bottom. Scott and his cast give first rate effort at making this dubious plot work. Lohman once again shows great chops as she did in last year's highly underrated White Oleander. Hers is the only fully realized character in Matchstick Men. Rockwell is also strong in a role that is terribly underwritten and too often he disappears entirely from the film.

As for Cage, he's playing a role with tics and gestures and phobias that draw audience attention even while other actors are talking. From an acting standpoint, it's a dream role. However, the tics and gestures overwhelm the performance, and the character gets lost beneath the facade. To be sure, I prefer this role to Cage's dewy-eyed romantics and action dunderheads, but this is no Leaving Las Vegas-like return to acting form.

Many believe that to make a movie about con men you have to have a great con. In reality, the con is merely window dressing, context for great performances and interesting characters and dialogue. Matchstick Men has portions of great performances, and one really good performance by Lohman, but the lack of fully fleshed out characters only calls attention to the window dressing that is a rather weak and predictable con.