kineticandroid
Jun 21, 2014
I came to this because of the Coen brothers credit. It's an anomaly in their filmography — one of only two feature-length films they wrote but didn't direct, and the first since 1985. Sure, the poster makes the film look a lot less art-house-ready than the last film of theirs I saw, but I've enjoyed a Coen brothers farce before. Maybe the reason it hasn't made it stateside is because it's a misunderstood oddball. Turns out, no, it's pretty easy to understand. It's a cheaply-felt farce, replete with broad stereotypes sporting funny-sounding accents and the usual game of misunderstandings, several of which looking like they could quickly end if only certain characters decided to use peripheral vision. You wonder how different this film would have looked if the Coen's script hadn't reportedly been reworked or if they directed it instead. I did enjoy the idea that our conman hero initially paints his mark as a cartoonish and sour individual. But when we meet him in a more objective gaze, he seems much more rational, though clearly impatient with his employee. There's an intriguing antihero-versus-antihero story in that. I wish the film had further explored that idea.
