No Sudden Move (Steven Soderbergh)

[Peng]

[Peng]

Loses its plot a bit towards the end, as the riveting pile-up of how-are-they-gonna-get-out-of-this-next situations turns a tad too needlessly convoluted instead of thrillingly murky. The prevalent playful tone makes it still a pleasure throughout though, even as the body count rises and the system grimly exerts its power over the caper's small players. Killer ensemble too, with one of the MVPs going to Amy Seimetz, as a hostaged housewife who is believably in fear, but also hilariously, casually annoyed and prickly as well.

As for the controversial warped lens, it doesn't bother me as much as some others, but it gets distracting at times and has me miss the look of his last caper Logan Lucky. Leads to a few striking shots though, like when the son gets approached by Jon Hamm's policeman character, and the seasonal leaves behind Noah Jupe looks like they're swirling around his head as he's making a crucial decision. 7.5/10

[Peng]

Also, a fine workday addition to "Lemon, it's Wednesday" from this film:

[

Show Spoiler

]

[quido8_5]

Mild yay. Soderbergh continues his streak of just-barely-not-mediocre genre exercises. This one has a ridiculous amount of talent in the cast. He does very little with that. Still, good set-up and decent action. The racial undertones felt very awkward to me, though. Rather than being a necessary part of the storyline, it came across as virtue signaling.

**.5/*****

[Pop Trash]

The racial undertones felt very awkward to me, though. Rather than being a necessary part of the storyline, it came across as virtue signaling.

You seriously think a Soderbergh film w/ Don Cheadle as a black man in the 1950s wouldnt bring up racial politics? Hes the main character. A black man. In the 1950s.

[Irish]

So I watched this last night and fell asleep 10 minutes before it ended. I was ambivalent about finishing it this morning. Not a good sign for a twisty-turny noir thriller.

First ~20 minutes are solid, but the rest is needlessly complicated, especially considering the bare bones of the plot are really rather simple.

It also suffers from:

- The "Big Sleep" issue of talky characters referring to people who are off-screen for most of the movie, making it more difficult to keep track of who is who.
- Continually introducing new characters very late into the film, when those characters are incidental to the plot.
- A dull McGuffin. (Catalytic converters? Really? Who gives a shit?!)
- A nebulous setting. It's meant to be Detroit in the 1950s but the movie could have been set any place, any time before 1980 or so.

I did like a lot of the individual scenes and some of the character / dialogue stuff is interesting and fresh. But together it's a whole lotta nothing.

The fish-eye thing was a weird choice. On one hand, I think it's cool Soderbergh is still experimenting within the context of a mainstream film. On the other, man, it just didn't look good. And since it didn't really inform on the material, why do it?

This one has a ridiculous amount of talent in the cast. He does very little with that.

Soderburgh isn't overly concerned with actors, and he never really has been. He hired someone famous for cameo late in the film. The scene in which this character appears wasn't great to begin with, a man ranting about how he sees the world, how it really works. A good actor could have injected some energy into the words, given the scene some personality and weight. But the actor Sods hired is so creatively shallow, the monologue falls flat and the entire thing is completely meaningless.

The racial undertones felt very awkward to me, though. Rather than being a necessary part of the storyline, it came across as virtue signaling.

I wouldn't call it virtue signaling, exactly. Felt more like the producers wanted to be topical and relevant without necessarily being truthful. If they were more honest, the white characters would have been more casually racist. But if you do that, you risk the audience turning on the movie. The way it's done, the film panders to the audience without alienating them.

[Peng]

You seriously think a Soderbergh film w/ Don Cheadle as a black man in the 1950s wouldnt bring up racial politics? Hes the main character. A black man. In the 1950s.

Yeah, if anything Soderbergh keeps it more on the margin than it would realistically be, the better for it not to interfere with the heist plot for him I think. Any less and they might as well switch to white leads altogether. To think of that already minimal amount as virtue signaling sounds, well (to use another unpleasantly loaded buzzword too), triggered.

[Skitch]

First ~20 minutes are solid, but the rest is needlessly complicated, especially considering the bare bones of the plot are really rather simple.

It also suffers from:

- The "Big Sleep" issue of talky characters referring to people who are off-screen for most of the movie, making it more difficult to keep track of who is who.
- Continually introducing new characters very late into the film, when those characters are incidental to the plot.
- A dull McGuffin. (Catalytic converters? Really? Who gives a shit?!)
- A nebulous setting. It's meant to be Detroit in the 1950s but the movie could have been set any place, any time before 1980 or so.

I did like a lot of the individual scenes and some of the character / dialogue stuff is interesting and fresh. But together it's a whole lotta nothing.

Well Irish, I'm glad to hear its not just me. I felt exactly the same way, particularly of the bolded parts.

[quido8_5]

You seriously think a Soderbergh film w/ Don Cheadle as a black man in the 1950s wouldnt bring up racial politics? Hes the main character. A black man. In the 1950s.

I wanted to bring them up more and in a better way. As it is now it's peripheral. When race is brought in to the story it is obtuse and handled awkwardly.