No Sudden Move

No Sudden Move is very much the sort of film you can expect from Steven Soderbergh: acomplicated crime scheme(involving numerous A-listers), with hidden intentions stacked on each other and all done with a distinct style. However, this movie's biggest setback is that this time the 'clever' plot goes a little too far. Even the most keen and attentive viewer will have issues following and eventually will probably be left behind by the ever evolving and frankly indiscernible story.

The thing with Steven Soderbergh is that you're not sure what you're going to get. Sometimes it's very good ( like The Knick, The Report, or Traffic) but on a rare occasion it can also be pretty mediocre or even really bad (like Schizopolis). No Sudden Move has a very good cast. All actors that know what they're doing so that wasn't the problem. The problem was the story. It's a complete mess, with so many twists and turns that nobody with a sane mind can understand anything about the plot. I don't know what Soderbergh was thinking. It's all much too complicated to be a good movie. It's all shot well, all acted well, but if the plot doesn't make much sense it loses all credibility. Too bad because Benicio Del Toro and Don Cheadle did a very good job, even with a plot that they probably didn't understand themselves. Maybe you need to watch the movie two or three times to understand everything but that seems too much of a hassle to me. I'll just wait for a better movie from Soderbergh.

Steven Soderbergh's Neo-Noir begins with what seems like a simple set-up. In 50s Detroit, a low-level mobster (Brendan Fraser) hires three hoods (Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro, Kieran Culkun) to shake down an accountant (David Harbour) for some files in his office. Of course, nothing goes as planned.

What follows is a series of crosses, double-crosses and beyond. Ed Solomon's screenplay has enough twists and turns for a season's worth of a limited series. The plot certainly keeps the viewer on their toes and is never less than interesting, but at a certain point the momentum gets a bit slack. Some have compared the subtext of the script with Chinatown. The connection is obviously there, but, the constant churn of the stoyline blunts it's effectiveness. The Cinematography by Soderbergh (using his Peter Andrews pseudonym) is distracting with it's extreme wide lenses distorting the image. In a few wide shots, it's not ineffective, but, it's overuse doesn't work. And, "Andrews" also seems to be lighting the movie for film rather than digital which causes crushed shadow detail and too bright night exteriors.

The acting is what makes the movie worth seeing. In addition to the above mentioned, there are also nice turns by Ray Liotta, Amy Seimetz, Julia Fox, Jon Hamm and an unbilled significant cameo. At first the sight of Cheadle, Del Toro and Liotta may make one think that they are all a bit long in the tooth for their roles, but it works here. Their weary, haggard appearances make one believe that they are all just desperate enough to lay it on the line for one last gamble that will let them retire once and for all.

NO SUDDEN MOVE is a decent example of, more or less, straight storytelling for Soderbergh, even if his penchant for experimentation and subverting audience expectations get in the way of it being fully successful.

Was it a noir? Was it a heist caper? Was it a gangster movie? Was it an indictment of the automobile industries and the racism, gentrification, and pollution they heralded? Despite gritty performances and an interesting premise, the film is really all and none of those things: it is a mess. The tone is uneven and the film is not helped by a 360 kind of camera technique that often makes the film look like it is using google maps. If the film had maintained the very dark and brooding feel it began with, I think this film could have been excellent. Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro really were excellent. Sometimes a director tries to do too much.

Was really disturbed to read a negative review of this film from someone who apparently does not know the difference between anamorphic widescreen and fisheye lenses. Soderbergh is a slavish cineaste of the first order, of technical virtuosity few could hope to match. I would have to assume all of his decisions as cinematographer and editor (under not so secret pseudonyms) as well as being director were explicitly and intentionally acts of artistic agency. We as a community of movie lovers ought to embrace and celebrate the efforts of these masters while they're still sufficiently motivated to contend with the cumbersome tasks of making art out of commercial spaces.

Anamorphic widescreen has a distorting effect at the peripheral ends. This would be correct for the period and a call back to the films of the era. I can understand how this would be distracting to the uninformed viewer, but just think for a moment about the fact that the auteur knew you would notice. Then, just for a moment, ask yourself why Soderbergh is pointing this out to me?