No Sudden Move

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.

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?

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.

First "Kimi" and now this as huge disappointments from Soderbergh who seemingly lost his mojo. Slow, messy, uninteresting, pretentious. Felt like 4 hours. There's only one scene in the whole movie I actually felt some tension, and it was in the first 30 minutes, otherwise, characters telling boring things about persons and events we are supposed to care or comprehend but we get so confused that we can't.