Criminal

Con-man Richard (John C. Reilly) enlists Mexican petty thief Rodrigo (Diego Luna) as his new temporary partner, and soon they are engaged in a huge scam involving counterfeit money, being helped along by Richard's skeptical sister Valerie (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

In 'Criminal' you soon learn not to believe ANYTHING you see! It is an object lesson in distrust, but an engaging and wonderfully entertaining one. Who is going to f... whom over, that's what it is all about. Richard conned his two younger siblings out of their share of the inheritance after their mother, but he whines and bitches at every turn, and he proves himself to be both antisemitic and anti-black. When once again he has tried to cheat his new partner out of his cut, he exclaims, "What's with the raped-virgin look?". Richard is a terrible, terrible person, a thoroughly rotten apple who believes that "F...ing, that's when you're handcuffed on the pavement". Anything short of that he can deal with, squirming like a worm. Of his victims he says, "I don't feel anything for them. They're marks. Some of them are dumber than f ... pets!". John C. Reilly is very good in the part, although I found myself longing for just one other color on the palette, just some surprise, something not too predictable.

He says to Rodrigo, "You got something that money and practice can't buy, you look like a nice guy", and Diego Luna (the 'other' guy from 'And You Mother Too', alongside Gabriel García Bernal) has a puppy-dog appeal that works like a charm. He has genuine, unforced charm and is cuddly at all times.

Obviously, if you have watched 'The Sting' or films like the great French caper 'Les ripoux' ('My New Partner', 1984), 'Criminal' will offer you nothing new or sensational. It does have a really nice feel to it, though, taking its leisurely time to get rolling, enabling us to get to know these people. Or so we think ...

7/10

After sitting through the world premiere of "Criminal", I spent the whole movie trying to remember where I had seen this script before, and then the credits mention that it was adapted from the script of a great British film called "Nine Queens", which was out only a few years ago.

Except for exchanging a postage stamp for a rare currency bill, there is no originality in this adapted screenplay. Similar to the remake of "Psycho", if you are going to film a scene-for-scene remake, then why do it?

I can only hope that this movie causes people to seek out the original "Nine Queens", so that it gets the recognition it deserves in America.

It's truly sad that the first film from someone who has worked for years as an assistant director couldn't be something more innovative, original, or unique.

My vote for 9 Queens, 3 or 4 years ago: 10/10.

This one: 3/10. :-(

-

Bad remake, nothing attractive in this movie. Stupid ending (different from the original), a little boring, we don't always understand what happens...

During the whole movie, we don't feel the stress of the characters. Not because they are bad actors but the movie is not enough realistic, it's difficult to imagine their thoughts.

I totally agree those who say to watch 9 Queens instead.

Why remake it? There is nothing to change to 9 Queens, the actors are perfect and the story is great. More credible than Criminal.

"Criminal" is an adequate Americanization of one of my favorite films of 2002, the delightfully twisty "Nine Queens (Nueve Reinas)."

Adapter/debut director Gregory Jacobs doesn't quite make up for the extra tension that Argentina's financial chaos added as an urgent back drop.

Some of the twists are too smoothly straightened out by focusing more on the older con man, here played by John C. Reilly, and his sister, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal without the original's sensuality, despite her low cut blouse.

Diego Luna is a mite young, but he's cast to turn Reilly's character into more of a manipulative mentor and less an apparent partner.

On its own, without comparison to the original, it's an amusing and workmanlike update of "The Sting" crossed with "The Grifters."

This first scene of this film contained more action than the rest of this rather tedious, bland remake of a recent Argentine film (which I have not seen.) There was virtually no chemistry between the two leads, Reilly and Luna. Sad sack Reilly, despite a decent performance, was miscast as the professional con man and Gyllenhaal was wasted in a minor role as Reilly's sister. Luna gave the best performance in the film as the young protégé. Scottish actor Peter Mullan played the "mark," a streetsmart "Irish" billionaire whose accent slipped from Scot to Irish every other line! By the time the surprise ending rolled around I didn't care who were the good guys, who were bad guys nor the motivations of either. The screenplay, although illogical and far-fetched, included a few good lines but I don't know if they were translated from the original film or written especially for this remake. Luckily, I saw this film at a screening and didn't have to shell out $10 for a ticket!