Showing posts with label edward burns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edward burns. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 November 2022

Noirvember: Confidence (2003)

It sometimes strikes me as wild that Edward Burns had (has?) a decent acting career, to the point where he was considered a viable leading man for some movies that have very strong supporting casts. I don’t hate Burns, that would be far too strong a reaction, but he is never someone who I would consider a first choice for any movie role, even the ones that he wrote and directed himself. There’s just a whopping great lack of charm, which makes it even harder to accept him in his lead role here, playing someone supposedly smart and charming enough to lead a con team on a number of successful jobs.

Burns is Jake, the leader of a group who have honed their craft over a number of years. His crew includes Gordo (Paul Giamatti), Miles (Brian Van Holt), Al (Louis Lombardi), and even a couple of cops (played by Donal Logue and Luis Guzmán). Things get sticky when the team con someone out of a load of money that actually belongs to a crime boss named King (Dustin Hoffman). Coming up with a way to appease King isn’t easy, but Jake thinks he can manage it, with the help of a woman named Lily (Rachel Weisz). There are so many ways things could go wrong though, especially with federal agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia) snooping around.

If you have seen any con movie then you will know how this film plays out. I could easily name you a dozen con films right now that are better than this, but that isn’t to say that this is a bad film. Director James Foley and writer Doug Jung may feel as if they are just going through things mechanically, but the mechanics of any con movie can end up being the most appealing aspect. Knowing how things are playing out just keeps viewers closely onside with the con artists, which is satisfying enough when they are trying to get one over on someone who deserves to be fleeced. A lack of surprise in a con movie doesn’t automatically equate to a lack of enjoyment, not for me anyway.

With the exception of Burns, the cast all help to make this more enjoyable than it otherwise would be. Hoffman is an enjoyable villain, and just about manages to feel like a real threat, and both Giamatti and Weisz are easy highlights. There are more people to keep an eye on though, including Morris Chestnut, Tom Lister Jr, Robert Forster (sadly onscreen for seconds), John Carroll Lynch, and Leland Orser. Alongside the other supporting players already mentioned, it’s almost as if someone was savvy enough to realise that a lot of talent was required to compensate for the bland leading man.

Nobody here will put this at the top of their C.V. This is a lesser film in almost every department. It manages to avoid being bad though. That is mostly due to the cast, but it is also partly due to the innate charm of the con movie format, which always tends to appeal to me. You could even say that I’m a sucker for them.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Sunday, 26 August 2012

27 Dresses (2008)

I can't help thinking whenever I see Katherine Heigl in a movie that she's somehow going out of her way to annoy as many people as possible. She's pretty but also comes over as pretty irritating and, worst of all, she has a knack for picking some of the worst projects that she could work on. Her knack for picking crap is actually uncanny.

In 27 Dresses she plays a young, successful woman named Jane who just loves being the bridesmaid and looks forward to one day when she will be the bride. She loves the joy and celebration of THE BIG DAY and, as you might have guessed, has kept all of her 27 bridesmaid dresses. She also happens to be in love with her boss (played by Edward Burns) but he takes a bit of a shine to her sister (the lovely Malin Akerman) and then there's a writer (James Marsden) who is intent on annoying Jane while also trying to find out more about her.

Directed in a completely by-the-numbers fashion by Anne Fletcher and written by Aline Brosh McKenna, 27 Dresses is the kind of movie that women can easily enjoy without giving too much thought to. But when any thought IS given to it the whole thing starts to look inept and ugly.

The cast have little to no chemistry. I don't really find Heigl that enjoyable to watch onscreen nowadays, after so many poor vehicles, and Edward Burns is inoffensive but has all the charisma of a grain of brown rice. Malin Akerman is usually someone I like but her character here is selfish and unpleasant, making her as unappealing as the others onscreen. James Marsden tries his best, and does well, but there's too much working against him. Thankfully, Judy Greer has fun playing the one decent character who is always fun to see onscreen - she's Jane's friend and gets the few decent lines that the script has.

So what's so inept and ugly about it? Well, the lack of chemistry between anyone makes the forced meetings and interactions feel even more false than usual. The motivations of the characters also, quite frankly, stink on most occasions. If those things don't bother you then take a moment to consider that the central, overriding, message is all about a successful woman with a great life feeling that nothing is complete without her marrying a man. Oh, I know that you can dig around through the layers of various romantic movies (be they comedies or serious films) and find the same, or very similiar, central idea but it's just so horribly blatant here that it's yet another aspect that makes Heigl in the lead role pretty unlikeable. She's a doormat, an easily cajoled and flighty woman who just wants to be a bride. That used to be the only thing that 10-year-old girls would spend their time thinking about back in the 1950s. Times have changed since then, maybe someone needs to tell Anne Fletcher and Aline Brosh McKenna (which is a harsh thing to say because McKenna has written a number of screenplays a LOT better than this sorry effort - but it makes my point).

Then that same person could try to save Katherine Heigl from herself, though I fear it may already be too late.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chick-Flick-Triple-Dresses-Happens/dp/B0029TQW70/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345931309&sr=8-3