Criminal (2004) User Reviews (71)

"What's with the raped-virgin look?"

[mik-19 · 7/10 · 3 May 2005]

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

Rather tough to swallow, but Reilly's performance makes it fun...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 29 October 2015]

American remake of the 2000 Argentinian film "Nine Queens" features John C. Reilly in a superlative performance as a sometimes-successful Los Angeles con-man who partners with a Spanish grifter he meets one morning trying to swindle waitresses in a casino; they become involved in a scheme to dupe an Irish billionaire out of 750 Gs with a rare (and counterfeit) bill of foreign currency. Director Gregory Jacobs, who also co-wrote the script with Sam Lowry (the pen name of Steven Soderbergh), wisely allows Reilly lots of room to go into his maniacal arias, which is a good thing since little else in "Criminal" quite measures up to him (certainly not that generic title!). Although the colorful supporting cast is excellent, Reilly is the spark plug to the entire picture--a fact which makes the final curtain something of a let-down. Since this house-of-cards scenario is filled with cross and double-cross, it's difficult to fault the general plotting (it's a writer's conceit, after all); however, the impetus of this story--how it all gets set into motion--is questionable by the denouement. Still, an engrossing and enjoyable film with a high-wire acting job from Reilly, which might have received a great deal more acclaim had the overall results been stronger. **1/2 from ****

Intelligent, slowburning con movie. Great acting performances.

[imseeg · 7/10 · 22 February 2020]

Co-produced by George Clooney and director Steven Soderbergh, who both created the wonderful heist movie Ocean's Eleven, which has a very smart plot. Even the writer of Ocean's Eleven gets a special thanks during the end credits. So lots of references to that very smart Ocean's Eleven classic.

This story is very smart as well and you wont see the twists and turns coming. It is not as funny or exciting as Ocean's Eleven though, not by far, because "Criminal" is quite a slowburning, talkative con movie, wherein two small time con artists try to pull of a really big con trick. Will they succeed? That's the cliffhanger.

Great acting performance by John C. Reilly. I really cant think of any movie in which he has ever played below par. This actor is true to life in his acting and he is the one that makes this movie worthwhile watching, with an excellent supporting role by the wonderfully gifted Maggie Gylenhaal as well.

Charming characters, intelligent plot, but it is a slow burning story, so only suited for those who have some patience and appreciate acting performances and the plot above speed or suspense.

An OK Americanization Into a Contemporary "The Sting"

[noralee · 21 September 2004]

"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."

Definitely Worth Looking For

[jaxbubba · 6/10 · 10 May 2005]

A very nice film, devoted mainly to two central characters: Richard Gaddis (played by John C. Reilly) and Rodrigo (played by Diego Luna). The film traces a 24-hour period in which the two characters first meet, and subsequently have an opportunity to form partnership. Filmed on a shoestring budget, the movie had only limited released; however, I highly recommend viewing it on rental.

Richard is a con-man in every sense of the word, he's not to be trusted; even his past partners have run the risk of being cheated by him. Rodrigo is a petty thief, and works the small con. Their paths converge when Rodrigo is caught trying to cheat waitresses out of change in a local casino in which Richard is also at. Richard, posing as a local police officer, steps in and takes Rodrigo under custody. Once outside the casino, Richard convinces Rodrigo into working with him.

After a series of short cons, in an attempt to build trust and confidence in one another; Richard is contacted by his sister Valerie (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) in regards to one of Richard's previous partners making contact with her (Valerie) at her job as concierge at the Biltmore Hotel. As it turns out, Richard and Rodrigo are placed into a situation with an opportunity to score the big con. It seems that Richard's former partner, Ochoa, was in the middle of a six-figured con when an impending heart attack struck him incapable of completing the transaction; he is no longer able to complete the deal. Furthermore, Ochoa's "pigeon" departs the U.S. in the next 24-hours due to his Visa expiration; therefore, Ochoa must rely on Richard to finish the con.

What happens next are a sequence of events of "How not to orchestrate the big con", which includes losing the counterfeit item being used for the setup. Richard and Rodrigo are forced to rely on one another whole-heartedly in order to accomplish the final swindle, which included liquidating both their total assets to front the cash required for a duplicate counterfeit item.

The film places you into mind to the con-man, and all the antics required to accomplish the long con. There are no high speed chases, or large scale pyrotechnic involved in this film; just plenty of dialogue and no stop conniving. With the added bonus of a plot twist ending, the film is quite entertaining.

http://farisreel.com

Not as bad as i thought...

[mickosaer · 7/10 · 4 November 2004]

Before giving any kind of review, it might help to point out a few things about the film:

1) This is the only lead role i've ever seen John C. Reilly in

2) It was produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney - the 'Oceans Eleven' comparisons are endless

3) This is a directorial debut by Gregory Jacobs, who's previously worked with the above and others such as the Coen Brothers

4) The film is a remake of a 2000 Argentinian film called 'Nueve Reinas' (Nine Queens)

There are some things about this film that were guaranteed before hand; a razor-sharp script, cool soundtrack and stylish look. However, before attending an advanced showing of the film last night, i checked out the IMDb comments and was not expecting too much. I was, however, pleasantly surprised.

The thing to remember is that the film is not only a remake, but YET ANOTHER addition to an already exhausted Hollywood genre ('The Sting', 'Oceans Eleven' and recently 'Matchstick Men'), and so any originality was going to be hard-earned. But the script is excellent. In the early stages of the film, you feel like Reilly is being a bit heavy-handed with the mannerisms of his intentionally caricatured conman (especially for those familiar with his awesome and similarly heavy-handed and clumsy cop in 'Magnolia', it takes a bit of time to adjust!), but the character definitely grows on him. It is, if nothing else, refreshing to see an actor of his ability given the chance to dominate every scene, and on the whole he takes his chance well.

The real star though, as mentioned elsewhere, is Diego Luna. He plays a fresh-faced and naive rookie-crook who's taken on by Reilly, and throughout the film the interplay between them is a highlight. No questions asked, he steals the show. This was a surprise to me, as i haven't seen him on screen before, but a bit of research shows he was in 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights', so this could be some breakthrough! Maggie Gylenhaal was slightly disappointing, as she's been particularly memorable in everything else i've seen from her, but in general the supporting cast is solid.

Where the film really succeeds though, is how it knows and appreciates its audience. From the outset, 'Criminal' appears as a clichéd gag-fest revolving around the two con-men, and you are continually guessing who's going to be screwing who, and the characters often refer to just this. But the plot is complicated (or maybe uncomplicated) enough to maintain the audiences attention, and you'd be kidding yourself if you said you saw the final twist coming.

Very watchable, very cool, very funny, but perhaps in the end a little unsatisfying. Well worth checking out though.

An Implausible Ending Ruins a Good Film

[driver_8 · 6/10 · 11 September 2004]

I like movies that center around the "con." It is like watching a complicated puzzle being put together. You pay attention to everything. Moreover, as each little event happens, you analyze the potential hidden importance of it. In

"Criminal", you follow Reilly's character as he comes up with various ways to scam people. His character is a somewhat heartless individual that stopped

having a conscience sometime ago. Still, there is something to him that gives you empathy for the character. Needing a new partner, he recruits a young

confidence man (Luna). Right after recruiting this new partner (in a somewhat random way), the two of them plot a major con. This con is elaborate and rather clever. It is the kind of con that would take months to develop and countless hours of rehearsal. Hence the problem.

(SPOILER ALERT).

This movie has the inevitable big twist at the end. The switch is that the

character played by Luna, is actually scamming Reilly's character. As I watched the first 80 minutes of this film, I really enjoyed it. However, the last two minutes killed it. Why? Because the implausible ending made the whole rest of the film insane. There is no way this elaborate scheme could have been run. After all, it was Reilly that sought out Luna, not the other way. The elaborate set of events that were set up for the big sting were all designed to take place that day. How? How could these relations have been developed? They could not have been.

Great performances, but the ending was just stupid! I know that this movie is a re-do of an Argentinian film, this does not bother me. However, if the Argentinian film had the same implausible ending as this one, it should not have been

copied at all.

I like con movies, so I liked this

[MLDinTN · 7/10 · 20 October 2005]

As with all con films, you know you can never be sure who is conning who and what the final twist will be. In this, Richard is a cold-blooded con man who has lost his partner. He spots Rodrigo trying to con waitresses and helps him out. He then tells him he wants to try him out as a partner. So, for the rest of the day Richard and Rodrigo run scams together. The first one involves scamming an old lady, something that Richard has no remorse over.

Later in the day, Richard hears from his sister Valerie. She says an associate of his is at her hotel. So he goes over there to learn that the guy has a scam he is trying to pull off but needs help. Richard eventually accepts it since it could net well over 6 figures. So, he and Rodrigo go around town setting up the scam.

And you know you can never believe what anyone says and there will be a final twist. The twist here "SPOILERS" is that Rodrigo and Val were scamming Richard because Richard stole the inheritance that Val and their other brother was going to receive from their mother's estate.

What I didn't get was when did Rodrigo first know Val. Did Val get Rodrigo to do it the first time they went to the hotel and the film just didn't show them talking on screen? Or was this a plan that had been planned weeks in advance? Because I don't get how that would be possible because it was Richard that initiated the relationship with Rodrigo. How could Val know that Richard would pick Rodrigo?

FINAL VERDICT: I thought it was fun, like most con films are. It's fun to guess the final twist. I recommend it.

Con men

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 18 September 2004]

One question that always pop in my mind whenever Hollywood tries to remake a foreign film that was successful is: Why? In most cases, the end result is disastrous; it never compares with the original movie and why spend money in something that has already been done, better.

The movie in question here is the Argentine surprise film of last year, "9 Queens". In it, Fabian Belinsky, its director, was able to give us an original story, a caper, that was well executed and brilliantly acted; it was a pleasure to watch.

Not to put this movie down, but it suffers in comparison. Gregory Jacobs, the director, has adapted the story to present day Los Angeles and the story hasn't changed at all. The memory of the other movie was still vivid in our minds, so there was no surprise with this one.

The acting is good in general. John C. Reilly makes the con man Richard Gaddis perfectly slimy. Diego Luna brings a nice balance to his role, and Maggie Gillenhaal is excellent as the long suffering sister.

If you haven't seen the original, this version works fine.

A Very Enjoyable Film

[daddyofduke · 7/10 · 21 January 2012]

I liked Criminal. Almost a lot. This is a good film about the art of the con. Not a great film, but a good one. The Grifters, The House of Games, and, of course, The Sting, are great films about the con. Criminal is a peg below them, but still very enjoyable.

The film stars two standard bearers, John C. Reilly and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and an actor I had not previously known, Diego Luna. Reilly plays Richard Gaddis, a professional con man who thinks he is something special. Gyllenhaal plays his sister, Valerie, a concierge at a swanky hotel in Los Angeles, who is more cunning than she lets on. Luna portrays Rodrigo, Gaddis' seemingly compliant understudy. All three give solid performances.

The film is well crafted in every respect. I understand now that the film is basically a remake of a foreign film, Nine Queens, which I didn't see. Maybe if I had seen that film I wouldn't have enjoyed this one as much. Since I didn't see it, I don't really know. But since you probably haven't seen that film either, I recommend you see Criminal.

I have yet to see a film yet in which Reilly puts in a bad performance, so I wasn't surprised that he did well in Criminal. As a good con man, and as an accomplished actor, he doesn't tip his hand, he's polished, and he is credible. Actually, that goes for the other cast members as well.

Unlike The Sting, where you know who is getting stung, and by whom, and even why, in Criminal you think you do, but you don't. It's more like The House of Games, where you don't know what you think you know. Suffice it to say, I didn't see the curve coming.

One thing I didn't like about the film is its title. Its bluntness undermines the skill of subtlety with which this film was made. So enjoy this film and find out what you know. And what you don't know.

Something Familiar?

[chris-pitcher · 2/10 · 16 June 2005]

Being quite fond of heist/sting/caper movies this looked like it was well worth a hire at the local DVD store when it came out.

After about 5 minutes I was feeling very confused - I was sure had seen it before but it had only just been released. *light goes on over head* - This is very reminiscent of 9 Queens. Ten minutes later... *light goes on over head* - This is a Hollywood remake of 9 Queens. Maybe I'm the only person to watch the movie that didn't know it was remake.

And that, as they say, is that. If you have already seen 9 Queens then this won't hold any surprises for you. The acting, directing etc. etc. are all fine but then again, it was all fine (if not excellent) in 9 Queens. If you haven't seen 9 Queens then watch that instead because it is better.

It just makes me sad that when there are people struggling to get new interesting movies funded, that it is seen as more profitable to do a remake of a film that is only a few years old anyway. Of course we all know the reason for the remake; 9 Queens is not in English and requires that you read subtitles and the 15 to 25 year old American boys that are the prime target for this type of film can't read and chew popcorn at the same time.

If this film had been an original I would be inclined to give it 7 or 8 stars but because the best part of it (the plot) is lifted (and in the final credits it acknowledges 9 Queens) and also because I am really annoyed by pointless remakes - (Don't even mention Nikita!!) I can only summon up 2 stars. What a pointless way to use a great cast and the film making talent that was evidently available for this piece of work.

Indelible -- a movie I shall never forget, and pleased not to

[starring-1 · 9/10 · 23 August 2004]

I just went recently to the Austin Premiere of this flick (which is actually the second showing -- I guess the first premiere must have been in LA).

I expected to see an "okay" film, but what I got to see was really something special! I don't know if I ever saw John G. Reilly as a lead character before (if you don't know his name, you will recognize him from many movies you have seen), and he was awesome! One of those guys who is so ugly that he is adorable. (How many guys can pull that one off?!) But what makes him adorable is not his looks; rather, his acting and flawless timing. This movie had me cracking up so many times from when Reilly delivered his lines straight-faced, playing Richard Gaddis, the "I-don't-give-a-rat's-ass-about-anybody-but-myself swindler" whose only redeeming virtue was his choice to do all his dirty dealings without any violence involved 99% of the time. I swear it made me embarrassed sometimes how loudly I found myself laughing in public when he delivered some of those priceless lines. I wish I could remember a funny one verbatim, but can't, so won't spoil it my misquoting. One funny line that didn't make me laugh out loud but I still remember as a great line was when asked by Diego Luna's character Rodrigo, "What's your sister like?" he responds with, "What's my sister like? She likes to give me s**t."

What is Gaddis' sister like? Indeed. What a cool lady! So sexy, fascinating and unique. She has a walk that, as a woman myself, I'd give a million dollars to learn to imitate. I have to say she beat Mae West or any other screen star. I had not seen Maggie Gyllenhaal (Valeria Gaddis) in films before (sorry, I missed a lot of films in the past some years) but hear she has been around for a while. Now this is one sensual and mysterious mature woman who plays Gaddis' smart-as-a-whip sister who is very, very tired of her brother's B.S. (She is the Concierge at a very classy high-dollar hotel.)

What can I say about Diego Luna? He had me at hello. Oh, to be young and in love. I can feel that way easily watching this very pretty and very excellent actor. I had not seen him before though he may have been well known to everyone but me. (Like I said, I haven't gotten out much, but I do consume hundreds of movies a year, I swear!) One line I remember where I really loved Diego's delivery was when Gaddis is telling someone they are conning that Rodrigo is Spanish. Rodrigo corrects him, "Mexican." The Moment was all there. What a jewel!

And there are many, many jewels in this film. It is fast-moving, and if you like to think and figure out puzzles you will be a pig in mud; if you are like me, not so quick to figure it all out, it may take several viewings to catch on to every ruse, but that's so much of the fun of this movie -- and this movie is, indeed, FUN...!

The first-time director, Gregory Jacobs, did a very fine job in my opinion. I personally would have enjoyed for the movie to go at a slower pace, but that's only because I'm a bit slow myself. (smile)

The directing and acting were excellent, and I felt the chemistry was perfect for the story. This is a film I will enjoy seeing again and again. Great story, good acting -- and with actors that are so fun to look at. All three of the main characters (Reilly, Luna and Gyllenhaal) have faces one never gets tired of looking at.

I'm giving it 9 stars only because it was too fast-paced to allow me to relax while enjoying this deeply enjoyable film. Highly recommended unless you are someone who just HAS to see gratuitous sex and violence in order to enjoy a film. For that you have to go elsewhere.

WELL DONE.

Guilty Until Proved Guilty

[dunmore_ego · 7/10 · 22 July 2008]

Honor among thieves? *I don't think so!* Well-dressed and well-spoken grifter, Richard (John C. Reilly), rescues inexperienced, young Spanish con artist, Rodrigo (Diego Luna) from an arrest, taking the supposedly-inexperienced youngster under his wing, at first for small cons, and then for a giant con that suddenly falls into his lap.

Ah yes, but who is conning who?

Well directed by Gregory Jacobs – or misdirected, as the case may be – from an Argentine movie, NINE QUEENS (Fabián Bielinsky's NUEVE REINAS, 2000), produced by George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh (no strangers to confusing audiences – to wit: OCEAN'S 11/12/13), CRIMINAL is rife with scams within cons within plays.

All very satisfactory, I might add, due in large part to the utmost conviction in all the exceptional performances. Twists in con movies tend to come at you with a groan, whereas the twisty storyline in CRIMINAL comes at you via a night-stick to the back of the knees.

Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Reilly's sister, of whom he asks a morally-wretched favor, and Peter Mullan is a rich investor whom Reilly tries to sell a counterfeit bank note. All while trying to con Diego's life savings from his little illegal immigrant pockets.

With the deceptive dance twirling to the last frame, you discover something about yourself when you watch these types of movies – whether you are sharp enough to see the reveal coming, or whether you LIKE being a blind bitch.

Bad copy of "Nueve Reinas"

[MaDJiK · 3/10 · 7 August 2005]

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.

A Gem: John C. Reilly, Diego Luna and Maggie Gyllenhaal were never better together.

[WCS02 · 18 September 2004]

Lovers of the grifter genre - you will love this one most of all. It earns a 9 out of 10 from yours truly. Sincerely. Sure, I'm biased for the genre.

But this one has the style of a low budget 'Sting' with a story line on par with Steve Martin's 'The Spanish Prisoner'.

Grifter movies rely on competent, likable con men and women, gullible marks and a logical plot. The audience can be(come) the mark, as can the cons themselves. That's why this genre yanks me in … and why it entertains so well. I am (you are) the detective. Figure out what's going on before they tell you: That's the ame. I'm a cynic by nature and I'm always equal to the task.

Now this one - I couldn't figure it all out before they revealed it. What they reveal is worth the wait and meandering through the story. I doubt you'll piece it all together either. Therein lies how it earned its 9.

The plot works. Oh . . . and "Cut to the chase' will never be the same after you see how "Criminal" cuts to it. It's brilliant and timed with perfection. It's something you'd expect from the likes of Spike Lee.

Sorry to be oblique here; but if I tell you any more, the ending would be exposed. The last two minutes tell all - and the first 85 are every bit as entertaining and important. John C. Reilly, Diego Luna and Maggie Gyllenhaal are worth the admission price. Superb, all! See it. Tonight!

entertaining con-men story

[dromasca · 7/10 · 30 April 2005]

'Criminal' is a remake of an Argentinian con-men story. I was lucky (or not) to have missed the original, so that I could enjoy the turns and twists of the story, and there are plenty of those. John C. Reilly and Diego Luna are two one-time partners trying a tricky plot around some fake collectors bill. Acting is low-tone but credible, and you get to know the characters by the mid of the film, and expect the next trick, although you never know what this would really be. Only Maggie Gyllenhaal exceeds the level of the cast, but she is such a good actress that her talent seems almost wasted here. No big ambitions for this film, just good entertainment, and the viewer gets it. Which is not to be dis-considered, quite the contrary. 7 out of 10 on my personal scale.

Hardly an offence.

[Victor Field · 6/10 · 12 March 2005]

Since I haven't seen "Nine Queens" I don't know how "Criminal" stacks up next to the source. On its own merits, however, it makes for a compact little caper.

As is often the case, conning is the name of the game with two small-league criminals (the excellent John C. Reilly and Diego Luna) attempting to hoodwink another one, but with nothing being what it seems, etc., etc. It's not the most extraordinary tale of its kind, but unlike another caper movie involving producers George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh, the wildly overrated "Ocean's Eleven," this story doesn't give itself over to how stylish it thinks it is, devoting itself more to its characters. It's not exactly exciting, but at least it holds the attention and doesn't last a moment longer than it has to.

As for the acting, in another departure from the "Ocean's Eleven" trope it's fine (no need for stars here), although one wishes that Maggie Gyllenhaal could have been put to more and better use. The movie may be about a con job, but it's unlikely to rip off the viewer.

A short and to the point review for a short and to the point movie.

So-so grifter flick

[=G= · 6/10 · 4 May 2005]

"Criminal" sticks Reilly front and center as an unlikeable con artist who takes on a young Hispanic protégé and together they fall into a scam involving the most valuable bill ever minted by the US Treasury Dept. An enjoyable but only par flick about scamming, the film becomes so convoluted and loaded up with sundry characters that it's a bit of a mess with a plethora of possible endings. It's impossible to tell who's scamming who and almost as impossible to care about any of the poorly developed characters. Nonetheless, for those interested in grifting flicks, "Criminal" should be worth a look. Don't expect to see much of Maggie Gyllenhaal who has a comparatively small part in the film. Other grifting flicks include: "The Grifters", "The House of Games", "The Spanish Prisoner", "Nine Queens", "The Prime Gig", and "Confidence". (B-)

Entertaining Con-Artist Caper

[RobertF87 · 6/10 · 19 February 2005]

This film is a re-make of the Argentinian crime thriller "Nine Queens". I haven't seen "Nine Queens" so I can't say how faithful or not this film is to the original.

The story, set in Los Angeles, concerns con-man Richard Gaddis (John C Reilly) who spends the day teaching his young protégé Rodrigo (Diego Luna) the rules of his trade, until they both get caught up in a forgery scam.

"Criminal" adds nothing new to the usual formula of con-artist thrillers and does rely a little too heavily on coincidence in the plot. However it is also very entertaining, very fast and very well-played by a great cast. It is a great fun film.

A Big Bravo! for this California Transplant from Argentina!

[gradyharp · 9/10 · 17 April 2005]

As one of the many foreign film devotees who rank writer Fabián Bielinsky's 2000 film NUEVE REINAS from Argentina as one of the best caper films ever, I was completely satisfied with the 'American made version' CRIMINAL. Bielinsky co-wrote this screenplay with director Gregory Jacobs and the result is a terse, witty, fascinating, intelligent film that deserves 5 stars in every category.

Transposing the story (which takes place in one day) to Los Angeles opens up even more avenues of social comment than the original. The use of the various areas of LA that span from the wealth of Beverly Hills to the grandeur of the downtown Biltmore Hotel to the scruffy East LA neighborhoods and other underbellies of Sun City truly match the flow of the story.

Smarmy Richard Gaddis (John C. Reilly) is a small time crook who has experienced every aspect of con games. He dresses like a businessman, drives a Mercedes, and believes that if you're going to con the wealth out of money (which he does without conscience), you must look professional. He observes Rodrigo (Diego Luna) in a cafe doing some very minor con games and when Rodrigo is apparently 'caught', Richard acts the part of a vice officer and saves Rodrigo from being arrested. Here begins their partnership: Richard needs a sideman to assist in an important grifter scheme involving selling a valuable money bill (instead of the stamps with nine queens of the original); Rodrigo (who Richard re-names Brian to Anglicize him so he won't appear a Cholo) needs big money to pay off his father's gambling debt. Through a series of introductory can games they learn to 'trust' each other and the big game begins.

The fast and furious process of the big grift flows with many incidents that are clever, convincingly intriguing, and introduces many characters in its path, each of whom plays a more major role than anyone would expect... Maggie Gylenhaal as Richard's sister Valerie (concierge at the Biltmore) is pulled in unwillingly only after she forces a 'truth session' involving Richard's cheating on their inheritance in front of their brother Michael (Jonathan Tucker), the original forger of the bill Ochoa (Zitto Kazaan), the hit who buys the bill Hannigan (Peter Muller), and all of the apparent bit people in the scheme are superb.

Throughout the story Rodrigo/Brian is portrayed as warm, lovable smalltime beginner, though always ready with a clever intervention, and Richard is the know-it-all conflicted 'boss'. How this relationship mutates is just plain fine writing and acting and the ending of the film is a terrific surprise even to those who know NUEVE REINAS well! Reilly and Luna are perfect choices for these multifaceted roles. Highly Recommended!

We've seen it all before, and better.

[tsmith417 · 6/10 · 3 December 2009]

The biggest complaint I have with movies about intricate, complicated cons is that everyone says exactly the right thing at the right time. In real life even the best con man can't count on that level of predictability.

Take, for example, the first scene, where Rodrigo is conning the casino waitress. Who's to say that Richard will automatically jump in and save him? An experienced con man would more likely just sit and smile to himself, watching the inexperienced kid; at most he might try to intervene on the kid's behalf, but to assume the identity of a police officer? Not believable. And for the casino security guard to just back off like that is implausible too.

Or take the scene where Richard presses the call buttons looking for an old lady and finally finds one. He pretends to be the woman's grandson. How can he be so sure the woman even has a grandson and if she does, wouldn't she know the boy's voice and know that she wasn't talking to the right person? What lonely old lady would spend 10 minutes talking to someone over an intercom without once saying, "Come to the house and visit with me"? John C. Reilly must have studied "House of Games" for his character because at times he sounded just like Joe Mantegna, but that's where the similarity ends.

I agree with the person who said that the movie should have ended with Rodrigo/Brian meeting with Valerie. Why can't filmmakers give their audiences a little credit for common sense? Don't they think we could have figured out that it was a double-cross from a simple scene like that? No, they have to spoon-feed us by showing all the various other characters gathered around a table (once again, just like in "House of Games").

As for the part where the "mark" pays for the forged note with a check, I can't believe that any con man worth his salt would allow someone else, even his sister, to take the briefcase and have sole control over it and then patiently wait several hours for the results and then accept that it took the mark eight hours to get a certified check and not cash.

And if that wasn't enough, what idiot goes into a bank where he is not known, with a check for $750,000, and ask that it be cashed on the spot? A true con man would know to open an account with a nominal amount, deposit the check, let it clear, and then draw against it the next day.

I haven't seen "Nine Queens", but for a better con double-cross I would recommend "House of Games".

Collosal Waste of Time (and Talent)

[jsrinc · 1/10 · 9 August 2006]

Someone needs to tell Reilly to hire a new agent. I thought he was above this kind of crap. I begrudgingly sit through 1.5 hours of this only to find out he was being set up by all the but players all along. So we're presupposed to the fact that this was all a master rouse from the start and that John's character just "happens" to find the kid in the cascino as his unwitting accomplice? Give me a freaking break.

I'm all for the suspension of disbelief when watching movies, but this was too much to ask the viewer. There are a dozen other ways to have contrived an justifiable plot without putting the viewers through the ordeal and offering the surprise at the end. This just sucked. I was angry that I had spent my time to watch it- I highly advise that you save yours and pass on this lump of dirt.

What a film

[porterandprince · 10/10 · 8 September 2005]

I really, really, really think that EVERYONE should see this film. It was one of the most entertaining films I've watched all year. In a world where only morbid/ depressing movies are considered excellent and plot less, big-budget films rule the box-office it is nice to see a smaller budget film that has fun with itself.

The cast in this film is superb. Diego Luna especially gives a great performance. He is endearing, lovable, enthusiastic, and intelligent in his portrayal of "Brian." It was nice to see him in this context and I personally believe that he thrived in the part. He is an excellent actor and i have to admit that I am now a fan.I almost always guess the "surprise" ending in movies that claim to have one, but this film still has me wondering how i didn't get it. Do yourself a favor and see this movie!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to tell you the plot because I don't trust myself not to give anything away. If you enjoy caper/mystery/ entertaining movies go see this one.

Entertaining

[bt698nhj · 6/10 · 27 April 2023]

Pretty good flick. Kept me guessing about how it would play out. John Reilly channeling Mark Buffalo.

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.

Bad copy of "Nueve Reinas"

[johncoffey · 4/10 · 25 April 2005]

This film is based on another film! It's a bad starting point. Now the worst thing is that the original one is far better than this copy. It's much a copy than a "based on" kind of thing.

Don't waste your time and see the original, more details of original movie (Nueve Reinas):

http://www.IMDb.com/title/tt0247586/

with 7,6/10 IMDb votes (over 3500 votes)

This film is based on another film! It's a bad starting point. Now the worst thing is that the original one is far better than this copy. It's much a copy than a "based on" kind of thing.