No Sudden Move

I find the story very very confusing. I didn't understand who's who. There seems to be a lot of double crossings, and that complicates the plot further.

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?

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.

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.

I made the mistake of watching this film after I read the reviews and expected them to be accurate. Big mistake. The story line is convoluted but the acting and camera work is first rate. Fans of noir will appreciate it. As a humorous aside, Jon Hamm comes very close to morphing into Don Draper near the end as he accepts a bottle of high end booze for his government work.