Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

screenman It's a movie about criminals. So; you can't trust 'em.In a pretty formulaic buddy match-up; an experienced world-weary cynical grifter finds himself an amateurish young trainee. Richard (the elder) is played by J C Reilly, who is blessed with the sort of unmemorable features that make him ill-fitted as a movie lead, yet perhaps ideally-suited for the profession his character represents. He's not quite the criminal big-wheel he fancies himself to be. Rodrigo, the ill-fitting Hispanic rookie is played by Diego Cumo. He's a punk, a loser. Or so it seems.As the movie progresses, we gain some insight into the ruthless mentality of Richard, both by his actions and his confessions. He's not particularly likable. But then neither is Rodrigo, who is evidently smarter than he looks.You can see that this is gonna be a twist-in-the-tail story. The question is, simply: how? In fact, there are several little twists that develop in a rapidly tightening plot. Eventually, I was left wondering - was this gonna be a bloody-awful-shock type ending, or an ironic, humorous morality tail. You can find out for yourselves.Most of what you see has been done before. 'Grifters' is the ultimate hard-edged bloody-awful-shocker, whereas 'The Sting' is probably the most memorable tongue-in-cheek morality scenario. In between there are others - 'Ocean's' several, 'The Score' and of course, this.Don't buy into the detractors too heavily; they may be selling you short. The technical issues of camera-work and sound score, editing etc, are all up to snuff. The players give good turns and the script is more-or-less believable. Watch it without a wallet filled with expectations and you shouldn't come away feeling fleeced.

tsmith417 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".

Martha Savila I rented "Criminal" when I briefly read the description of the plot. When I started to see it, I realized that it was a remake of the Argentinian "9 Queens". What a disappointment! I believe any remake should make it clear that it's a copy/ adaptation of another (foreign or local) film. I am not against remakes, I just feel that I am entitled to know this detail, specially if they completely change the name/title. By the way, in my opinion "9 Queens" is way superior to "Criminal". First, both lead actors are more authentic in "9 Queens", and they are very representative of a period of Argentinian reality. Diego Luna's average Mexican immigrant looks and accent made him a complete miscast, and Gyllenhaal just imitated the Argentinian leading lady.

jsrinc 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.