The film is built from several stages, somewhat reminiscent of the Kubler-Ross model on behalf of the hero Peter Dinklage, first there is denial and anger in one, when the character of Dinklage begins to act, and then it seems that the Main Heroine got caught, now she is finished and you do not know what the film will be about for the next 1.5 hours, but this was not the case: several moments when it seemed that everything, it was impossible to go against the Russian mafia, and the heroine Rosamund Pike will give up, but contrary to expectations she acted diametrically opposite. The second stage is Humility and Trade, when Dinklage proposed a joint business.
At first it seems that this film promotes the development of negative qualities in a person to achieve goals, but after thinking a little, still comes the thought that no matter how bad it seems, there is always a way out of the situation, the main thing is to act with your head and believe in yourself, and it can turn out, rather than waiting, idly, bad.
Another conclusion from the film is that you need to know your rights well, have a friend of a great lawyer.
This film, in a 'bureaucratic' moment mixed with action scenes, reminded Ben Affleck of Payback.
After watching, there was a long aftertaste, which prompts reflection, so I finally decided to leave my review.
8 out of 10
The Russian mafia type could not cope with the boarding school, the most valuable kept by my mother in the drawer. A woman is better than a Terminator. Although the start was promising.
The film, although it claims to be something comedic and satirical, is shot on a rather serious topic, which the author drew from reality after hearing about such a scam. The main character of the film Marla (Rosamund Pike), whose life goal is to get rich at all costs, found such a bottomless source of wealth as non-poor old people, whom she, on the tip of a friend, working as a doctor, through the court determines as people in need of constant care, and places in various luxury shelters, maintenance in which is expensive, and herself, being their guardian, appointed by the court, sells all their property, including real estate. Considering that the stupid judge believes all her stories, everything goes as usual, as long as she does not get into the story with an elderly woman, quite wealthy, listed on all documents alone, whom she also quickly processed, but then she began to have trouble. It turned out, and it turned out not immediately, that she is not alone at all, and she has a son – a Russian mobster (played by Peter Dinklage). Here begins a somewhat amazing story, similar to a fairy tale. Of course, she behaves as she is accustomed to – brazenly and self-confidently, disentangling herself from all the vicissitudes in which she falls, sometimes in a very implausible way. But no matter how much the rope is curled... So at the peak of her success, which she achieves with the help of the same Russian mafioso, retribution overtakes her. It should be noted that there is not a single positive character in the film among those whose actions we observe, although sometimes it seems that some authors are trying to make us feel sympathy, but I did not experience it, to be honest. The actors, of course, are not bad, in particular Rosamund Pike received a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical, but only that. It’s a good thing that Russian mafiosi were not forced to speak Russian in this film.
After watching this movie, I clap standing up. Is it possible to develop an honest business? Very unlikely. Here we are shown exactly how and what people go into businessmen and businesswomen. Like blood and hypocrisy, we earn millions. And all this with an innocent smile and sweet words that it is all for the good of society and they cannot do otherwise.
It is strange that such a mafia could not do anything. Well, you can drop it before the general meaning.
We all like to look at someone else’s beautiful life, success, happiness. But everything has a price. And in the end, the heroine paid in full. Are you willing to pay the price for your choice? Are you wolves, lambs or something? This film will be appreciated by those who have made their life choices.
10 out of 10
There are movies with positive GG, there are with negative, and there are just with nasty.
But this film falls into the category of those whose plot pushes idiocy.
If you soberly assess the first minutes of the film, it becomes clear that such a “swindle” can not exist for a long time in reality simply in any way. Exception: all government officials are either impassably stupid or corrupt to the bone. Which of the options is implemented in the film? The question is rhetorical.
Allegedly villains / mafia: around them a hard suspense is pumped, they say that the GG will show where the crayfish winter, as if you can see from the trailer. In fact, they're idiots. There is no other way to name them.
A woman's power that's exhausted. Not like Sarah Conor, Ripley, etc., but just smart/cunning/bold women. Men are scoundrels and fools. All right.
3 out of 10
For acting (not GG) and the final. The rest is complete nonsense and wasted time.
All the characters in the movie are nasty, even if they seem pretty cute at first. No positive hero, no one to empathize with, look at them disgusting. But you keep watching. It's like a sore with dried blood on the wound. You don't need to touch it, or you pick it up and blood will go again, but you still constantly taunt it, you want to tear it off. So is this movie. Disgusting, but interesting.
The main character, and other heroes too hypertrophied. The main character has such large steel eggs that it is impossible to walk with them. With that character, she couldn't be a petty scammer. She's either a big boss, or she was buried when she was young. Russian mobsters are caricatures. Judge's an idiot. One grandmother is only real, such harmful old women actually happen. After such characters, you treat blunders in the film more calmly, as an artistic assumption. Well, for example, a guard in a nursing home with a gun, he has something to fight off the mafia.
But the very end was disappointing, it is not vital at all, the authors followed the lead of the viewer. This is not how the main character should have ended. The movie is not bad, I liked it, but probably it is an amateur and not everyone will go.
A fascinating film about what is very close in life
I watched the movie in one breath. Fascinating, spectacular, constantly wanted to prescribe the heroine Pike, just incredible. It is a pity that the story of the old woman herself is not fully disclosed, there it would be possible to twist a little. In general, there is nothing to complain about.
Such people really walk the earth, I believe in it, billions no one has ever saved honestly. Or maybe there are no companies that are created by the same people to enter into contracts with themselves? Such networks are functioning normally in our country.
And with this law that everything can be done bypassing relatives and the patient himself - quite cruel.
The fact that she's not afraid of anything is fine. First of all, she is moved and injured, there are already empathic problems. Secondly, life for her is not valuable, the quality of life is more valuable, so it is traded to the last.
I was worried about the ending, but everything happened as it should have happened.
I am not a master of words, but my outrage does not allow me not to write a couple of affectionate and not to put this film unit.
Somewhere up to half the time it seemed to me that the ratings were underestimated: well, the agenda, well, yes, the miscast with the leader of the Russian mafia, but in general it was shot dynamically, the actors play well, and the plot keeps in suspense. Until then.
The plot is frankly shoddy. The main character is lucky to the point of indecency: the judge has an aikiu not higher than five, and none of the victims and their relatives can do anything with her (this is in the cradle of democracy), and the Russian mafia next to this “lioness”-man-hating lesbian is a kindergarten group. In the climax and denouement of the years, it is so unrealistic to come out of all troubles that I want to double check whether I am watching Indian cinema.
Characters - they are not disclosed, we do not know anything about the motivation of the main character, about her background (in passing, the "sociopathic" mother even more requires the disclosure of the line, but alas). None of the heroes bear any consequences for their actions, rather, on the contrary. I am already silent about the way in which the authors offer us “not to be lambs”, and how pathetic, with a touch of heroism and resistance, we are presented with the usual marginal.
Game, too. Thriller? So the film is not frightening, but only annoying. Drama? Which of the characters can you sympathize with, other than a couple of episodic characters? Comedy? Except to laugh at the waste of two hours of your life.
Well, I can not share the excitement about the ending, without spoilers and not describe, but it turned out very herbivorous.
Apparently trying to surpass the success of the film eight years ago “Gone Girl”, where the plot was associated with a witty and cunning heroine, actress Rosamund Pike starred in the same role as a strong woman, an iron lady, weaving a web of lies in order to achieve her ambitious goal.
This ridiculous film is some clumsy propaganda of the American Dream way of life and thinking, that is, to make millions of dollars no matter how. This is clearly an illegal and fraudulent path to success. If Soviet films sang all the best in a person, then the film “Swindler” is the exact opposite.
The semi-comedic style of the picture is emphasized by the magnificent actor Peter Dinklage, known to all for the series Game of Thrones. Why was he invited to this particular movie? I guess you wanted to make a comedy? But why wasn’t it funny at any point?
Peter Dinklage plays Russian mafia boss Roman Lunev. The more ridiculous, comical and wretched Russian mafia is hard to see anywhere, except in the Jackie Chan movies. Yeah, it's not John Wick. This is ridiculous. Unreal scenes of attacks, after which the heroes miraculously resurrect, survive and ... succeed?
This is one of those movies where none of the characters are sympathetic. Actress Rosamund Pike, in my opinion, played disgusting: too strong emotions in those moments where it was not necessary, not enough emotions in other moments. The other actors are no better. Peter Dinklage played himself. The Russian does not pull, well, there is no such face in our country.
Initially, we understand that the main character is a scammer, that we do not like her very much (if you have any moral principles). And someone has to put it in its place, because it is a serious topic and a movie.
But for some unknown reasons, an actor was chosen for the role of the arbiter of justice, who is not suitable for the role of a mafia and even a Russian, but he makes a stern face, keeps his subordinates at bay, buys cakes and throws everything at people, trying to follow orders. And you're involuntarily thinking, okay, now it's gonna be black humor, gunfights, and I'm gonna laugh. But that was not the case.
In all this story, the original drama with offended and disadvantaged old people is no longer important, the struggle on pinkies becomes more important. Who will win an unscrupulous blonde with absolute lesbian love and with the motto “together we are strong and will defeat any Russian men, small and terrible” or a Russian mafia with absolute love for his mother and eclairs and the inability to hire guards to protect him?
And we were taught that the Russian mafia is unprincipled, ruthless and invincible, and this is a serious drama. And if it's black humor, at least sometimes we laugh.
The result didn't laugh or cry.
How could such an interesting and original story be ruined? Immediately suspicious, before watching the film read the beginning of the plot. I knew I was going to watch a psychological thriller. The businesswoman has his own firm, which is engaged in the guardianship of elderly disabled people, placing them in a high-security boarding house, and their property sells and appropriates money for itself. But one day she took custody of the wrong grandmother. In view of some twists and turns, Grandma turns out to be the mother of a Russian gangster. And this gangster violates the calm and natural course of events of the guardianship business and the personal life of the main character.
It's a bomb story, isn't it? What do we actually get? The main character is a lesbian of Balzac age, and a Russian gangster is a dwarf. How about Elon Musk? How were the filmmakers going to convince me that what was happening on screen was real? Why was there such an illogical and implausible narrative? A lesbian who acts both like John McClain and mentally ill? And this Russian gangster dwarf? What was it like to attract such a character? What was it like when he kidnapped that lesbian with his girlfriend? A normal gangster would start cutting off her finger and her friend, and then she would naturally tell. And in the movie, the lesbian is talking nonsense, and the dwarf is doing something illogical. Have filmmakers ever seen Russian gangsters? We would study the biography of Vyacheslav Ivankov at least, the more he was there in prison and there is enough information on him to make a believable image. But in the end, the director and the company dullly ruined an interesting plot in favor of fashion for political correctness. When the hell is this gonna end? Lesbians, dwarfs, homosexuals. Give us back the old-school movie.
I’ll tell you right away – after the film I want to wash and drink detox.
I couldn’t write a review for a month, I was getting cold. The only (surprising) bright spot in the film is the beautiful actors. They also raise the bar of failure. At some point, Dinklage is just embarrassed. And yes, that's the moment he's on the road with his ass naked.
Brief description. Two lesbians have built a business on bullying rich older people.
And it's disgusting. The question is, where's the Globe? The answer is that this movie is full of tabloid themes. The main characters are lesbians. Not because it is important to the story, but because it is necessary. They smoke vape because they are very modern. The heroine Pike, committing a clearly inhuman act, shouts: “Do you feel offended by the fact that you were beaten by a woman and I have no stick between my legs?”
No, honey, because you're an ordinary scumbag with nothing human in it. At least give her some motivation. She would collect this money for a dying mother, to ransom a loved one from Taliban captivity, to save the starving, but no, she just “loves to win.”
All the men in the movie are idiots. The boss of the Russian mafia is a symbolic dwarf (Peter forgive me), and she is a fragile blonde with heels - almost a superman: and sobers up in a second, and pulls out her teeth and drags healthy men on herself. Sometimes it's not even Mary Sue, it's just ridiculous. What is there, if Brie Larson let the light rays out of her hands, the film would almost spoil.
The worst part is that there are no positive characters in the film. Everyone is so disgusting that you just have no one to worry about. The judge is an imbecile blind, the best lawyer does not know that without a contract he can not represent someone’s interests, the mafia boss can not break the girl, all the doctors are bribes, the mother of the mafia boss is a rare bastard, and the girl of the main character ... Why is she in the story? Does she have a role other than furniture? Oh, it's definitely nudity in the shower.
And don’t think about Tarantino, who often has negative characters. They are charismatic and always have a history, something unique. Here is just a ton of pathos and inorganic feminist quotes.
After Gone, it's not just a step, it's a leap back. The only good thing about the movie is the ending. I am sure that he appeared after focus groups, where the audience in shock demanded retaliation. In general, the film is ridiculous and funny, but far from comedy. A rare combination of a terrible script and good acting.
The movie Bomb! In connection with the events of the last two years, more than relevant And if someone has a head on his shoulders, and not a shingle in which worn-out records are twisted, he will understand what message the director transmits to the viewer with this work I do not want to go into details of the main idea of the narrative, it is not obvious only to fools, but I will note one important feature that J. Blakeson correctly submitted: Evil is also not always absolute and has its own competition and its own skin interests, but sometimes can agree on a global scale! P.S. Commentators under this film either pour some water with a claim to a deep understanding and philosophy of film art, or it’s just not their genre and they need funny pictures instead of books.
American Lesbians Against the Russian Mafia – Who Are We Ringing For? It’s a terrible country to live in. Marla, played by Rosamund Pike, says only the stupid, brave, cruel and strong-willed survive in this country. We need to send the film to the Foreign Office so that they finally understand who they are trying to make deals with. I'm rooting for a guy in a red hat with an eagle, which is sold to truckers, is a symbol of free America. Surely this honest son of America is not voting for Democrats.
I've been waiting so long for this moment when I sit down to watch. I kind of got rid of waiting for something from movies so I wouldn’t be disappointed (after all, it’s my fault). But here are some of my favorite actors, and the title instills the spirit of 'Gone'.
As a result, the whole film, except for the first 20 minutes, seemed to me that I was watching something from the category of a Disney teenage film with small inserts for adults.
The film openly makes it clear to the main character why she went on an immoral path. But they do not make it clear why she is so lucky all the time when she is stupidly climbing under the fire of bullets ... not just caught, but just running screaming something absurd (there is no such scene, this is a metaphor). Most episodes of the film do not justify themselves.
I have so many stupid questions for the story that there will be no answers. And I'm a little ashamed of them, like I'm a complete bore and expect all too thoughtful plausibility. Usually this happens with Indian films, but they are forgiven for the dazzling dances and unsurpassed effects and grace of the actors.
And here? And here serious actors (well, I really think they are quite talented) just dissolve.
This clearly interesting idea completely ruined the implementation. At the beginning of the film, I felt that nothing could surprise me, including the use of clichés for a swindling mood. But what happened, the film is spoiled, the logic is dead, the idea is strangled, and the talent of the actors was shoved into a plastic bag, from where they are vaguely visible.
P.s. The ending is really great.
"You're not playing fair! You should win in court, not shoot in an old house! Probably, if you know for sure that there are no such holes in the judicial system and in fact there are ways to prevent abuse and correct judicial errors, then the movie may well look like a comedy. And if the American courts are known only that they are strange, then the film turns out to be some cannibal hell - everyone doesn't care, but it's happy about what Marla is good and how successfully solves the problems of society, and who doesn't care, because their loved ones were treated inhumanely, they still can't do anything.
Nemosol for modern agendas and a little bit of fiction.
The film does what it has to do:
- keeps the viewer
- causes emotions
- carries the agenda, reflecting the problem that serious film marketing bypasses for thirty lands.
I will say more: this movie reflects a whole range of problems using modern & #39; agendas & #39; not as it should, but quite the opposite. For this, you want to shake the right hand of the writer and immediately (apparently left) the director. I am very tired of this sterilely brilliant and therefore very boring propaganda of the petty and pseudo-human in a mass cultural product, reducing it to the level of Macdak cakes with a cutlet.
With the first and second points of due film to do experimentally in their own way. He doesn’t represent any character that he wants to empathize with. The characters are either very smart and vile, or stupid and impenetrable. One negative. Personally, I (and judging by the reviews of many) for most of this movie worried about when she still, let’s say, get to Hades and take all the other characters there. And all the people are believable. They live their own passions and goals, do not ask such unnecessary questions as ' for what?' and ' why?': in general, very similar to us, only with more pumped all sorts of coaching brains. Until the end of the film, the viewer receives the expected, but still not very desirable plot twists. Maybe not very plausible, but still necessary for the development of the main plot idea.
This idea is clearly revealed at the very end. Personally, I was very worried that there would be no good fat point in this work. But it happened, even in symbolic red. Without this, we will say figuratively: ' I would not show this film to my children who have not yet had time to cultivate critical thinking'.
Cinema worth attention, partly topical, and most importantly relevant in the light of the current liberalism.
PS: It is a pity that the movie has such a rating (at the time of writing these letters it has a rating of 6.6). In my opinion it deserves a minimum of 7 points. One gets the impression that most reviewers did not look at it to the end point and perceive the realism criticized in it as a cliche of modern propaganda.
There are two types of people in the world: those who run to a goal and those who run away.
British director, screenwriter and producer J. Blakeson once said in an interview that the idea of a crime thriller with elements of comedy & #39; Scammer & #39 came to him when he learned about a social worker who blasphemously used the laws for his own selfish purposes. So the script was written, and then it fell into the hands of actress Rosamund Pike, who after reading it made it known through her agent that she was ready to embody the image of Marla Grayson - an enterprising lady who, using her charms and eloquence, seeks custody of the elderly, and then cleverly transfers all their property to herself. And studios ' Black Bear Pictures' and 'Crimple Beck' allocated funding for the filming ' Scammer' and distribution was interested in the powerful now multimedia company 'Netflix'. Following Rosamund Pike, Peter Dinklage, Asa Gonzalez, Dianen Uist, Chris Messina, Alicia Witt and Nicholas Logan gave their consent to the shooting. The composition may not be particularly impressive, but in any case, these people are professionals in their field and it was interesting to observe what we have prepared in '.
And J. Blakeson could hardly be called a famous cinematographer and in the feature-length feature film he had before ' Scam' there were only two films: low-budget thriller ' The disappearance of Alice Creed' (2009) with Gemma Arterton and Eddie Marsan in the lead roles and fiction '5th Wave' (2016) with Chloe Grace Moretz. '5th Wave' was preparing for the premiere as a blockbuster ' (2009) with an active production budget of $ 110 million. But the audience’s reaction and critical responses were neutral and mixed at best. As you can see, J. Blakeson is experimenting: a low-budget movie, a blockbuster, a thriller, a fantasy. And here'Swindler' can be attributed to films with an average budget, and the genre, as already mentioned initially, is criminal. And, most likely, that is ' Scam' at the moment - the best creation of J. Blakeson. And I will say from myself that after watching this picture I really wanted to know what new plans the director has, because this work of his really impressed me.
It is already somehow customary that Rosamund Pike's career goes with arrhythmia. According to many, she reaches the pinnacle of her career, playing in the thriller David Fincher & #39; Gone & #39; (2014), receiving a number of prestigious awards and nominations, including a nomination for ' Oscar & #39; for Best Actress. And then there is the utterly disastrous film 'Return to the sender' (2015) with the frankly depressing play of Pike. Then there is the passing military-historical action film ' Operation Lightning Ball ' (2017) with a static Pike, and then she feels confident in the saddle in the western ' Nethers' (2017). Then she apparently prepared to receive awards for her role as Maria Skłodowska-Curie in the biopic ' Dangerous Element' (2019), but failed to convince critics. And a new breakthrough and recognition for Pike occurs with the tape ' Scam' for which she receives the award ' Golden Globe' in the category ' Best Actress' (comedy or musical). It turns out that Pike perfectly manages to play not the most decent, but insidious and cunning characters. From such ladies literally frost runs through the skin.
But at first, her character was not attracted to her and Pike was not discouraged by her play. But then after each episode, her Marla Grayson evoked more and more emotions and feelings. And although they were ambiguous, it is safe to say that this woman will never stop if she has a goal, she is not afraid of anyone, even if she is confronted by the mafia, and her intelligence will find a way out of any situation. She's a vamp woman you both fear and respect. Peter Dinklage acted as the criminal boss of the Russian mafia. Initially, you can not understand how to play it, but it turns out that he is very harmonious and convincing in this role and also exudes danger. Good and Diane Weist in the role of a lady of venerable age, who has a double bottom and in vain she was contacted by the mercantile and cynical heroine Rosamund Pike. And unexpectedly liked in the secondary role of Nicholas Logan, which was the greatest comedy component ' Scam ' And fit into the concept of the film character Chris Messina.
The first impression of ' Scams' was that this is another comedic variation on the theme of fraud, reminiscent of the tapes ' Scams Dick and Jane' (2005) and ' Harsh scams' (2019), but everything turned out to be different. The starting raid of the adventurous comedy flew off and began to see the action-packed thriller, where two very dangerous and intelligent people collide in a fight. The psychological duel between the characters Pike and Dinklage is a diamond & #39; a picture by J. Blakeson, in which no one is given priority. And the acting is admirable. But even more emotions are caused by the finale ' Scams' where it is rewarded, but it is literally discouraging. I really liked the film and now I am looking forward to new projects from J. Blakeson.
9 out of 10
The most disgusting film with a disgusting main character.
The authors tried their best to achieve the effect of “bad girls can also be the main characters”, of course, but not when the director of the film J. Blakeson. In this case, the main character is simply disgusting. After 15 minutes of the film, I want this drama to suddenly turn into a slasher and her head smashed against someone’s hammer. Towards the middle of the film, you begin to think about why she is so often shown in the frame, and towards the end you are already finally convinced that there is not a single reason to empathize with her.
The main character deceives old people, takes them home, sells all their belongings, does not allow them to meet their relatives and behaves like an underage feminist from Twitter. Putting in absolutely stupid quotes. There is absolutely no sympathy for such a main character.
In parallel, we see the Russian mafia, which most likely drove its large and black GMC jeeps out of the circus. Because they all look more like a bunch of clowns than a mafia.
The worst part is that there is no humor in this movie. They're really giving it all away.
If you want to make films about LGBT and strong women in 2021, then you need to do it at least qualitatively and interestingly. There are a huge number of films with strong female characters, but directors show them through the means of art, not by inserting quotes from Twitter into the script.
The only good thing about this movie is that Peter Dinklage is in it.
It is worth saying that going to the cinema for this film, I knew perfectly well that it is unlikely to do without a new agenda, which has penetrated most of the modern cinema, and recently more aggressively imposed on the audience. However, despite the fact that I resent any kind of propaganda, I decided to go to this movie, primarily because of Rosamund Pike, who impressed me in '. The role of an imperious, ambitious swindler with a rare name Marla, ready to go on heads, as in my opinion, also succeeded the British actress. The Western world dictates its own rules. In this movie, of course, was not without flirting with the liberal left. In addition to making Marla a lesbian, he also decided to give her the qualities of radical feminists who, being successful, do not miss the opportunity to remind men of their superiority. I will say at once that I am against discrimination against women and not against their superiority in this or that sphere, and I do not believe that they should be in any way infringed on their rights, however, I do not like that such a type of women as Marla (and he is increasingly found in our & #39; renewed life'), believes that all men around and strive to annoy them only because they have a vagina between their legs' I made a decision for myself that no matter how much I liked the film, I would shoot a minimum score for aggressive propaganda. I really liked this movie, from the actors to the story itself. I would like to say that thanks to the end of
What drew me to this film was the actors. Rosamund Pike is beautiful and charming, and Peter Dinklage (the same Tyrion Lannister of small stature from "Game of Thrones" #39) is caricatured, but very unexpectedly organic in the role of a mobster who loves sweets.
' Swindler' is a film about a woman who owns a small law firm and takes care of old people who have no relatives. But it's not really that simple. It sends the elderly to shelters and takes full control of their property - essentially using pensioners as cash cows. One day, however, Rosamund Pike stumbles upon an old woman who could ruin her entire business. . .
Of course, if all this happened in reality, the clash with the mafia would end for the lawyer simply and frighteningly: she would probably be found somewhere in the ditch. Or maybe they wouldn't have found it. But before us is a movie, a thriller whose authors certainly believe in the supremacy of laws over crime. As a result, a film appeared on the screens, which has little to do with reality, but in which it is curious to follow the development of conflict and the game of mind against brute force.
About ' Scam ' already written 140 reviews. I don’t think I’m going to say anything new about him. The acting duo are curious. The plot is interesting.
From the fact that I personally was a little tense - clearly bulging fem-subpoena and playing the theme of a strong woman - just like in the British film & #39; Girl, promising'. In addition, the heroine, as it is now fashionable, is a lesbian. However, this is now found in imported cinema all the time - and in this case, perception is not particularly disturbing.
The finale of the confrontation between the lawyer-swindler and the mafia turned out to be absolutely fabulous, which further aggravated the unreality of the battle taking place on the screen. However, the film initially reveals to the audience the rules of its internal game - and we have to accept them or not. I did, mostly because of those two actors. The duo was really interesting.
Bottom line: the film is not quite perfect, but at least curious.
When elderly people do not have enough intelligent children (or any relatives at all) to protect them from scammers, then a couple of moves are enough for skillful hands to hide such pensioners in a nursing home, and put all their property under the hammer.
And all is well with the arrogant, cynical, unprincipled and successful heroine, who is so beautifully played by Rosamund Pike (' Disappeared'), that the blood boils right until another elderly goose, realizing what exactly was done with her, does not begin to laugh in her face and say ' Honey, if you now let me go, maybe, he will not kill you'
Well, then the battle begins - mainly the emphasis is on cunning, but also brute physical force there is somewhere to walk around. The swindler is confronted by the character of Peter Dinklage (a dwarf from 'Game of Thrones' & #39), and he also has something to oppose her.
In general, it was not gloomy, not scary, and quite entertaining. Strangely enough, the acting of Peter himself pumped up the very drop (the character was not the most convincing), and the script could theoretically be worked out the very little bit better, but I am already nagging and grumbled, because I had a good time, but I feel that I could have spent it even better.
6.7 out of 10
Analogue 'Wars Rose' or 'Waving the Tail' or 'The Honest Candidate' but without politics, with a drop of any series about any lawyers. You can call it a highly diluted combination of Guy Ritchie's crime films and light comedies from the heyday of Depardieu and Richard. But neither before nor before the film does not reach.
There will be a little blood, and there will be a few kissing women (the main character goes everywhere with a partner), fixated on the competition between the sexes. If this is not embarrassing, I recommend watching.
Old women are like that. You never know where the catch is.
A light, unassuming film that brightens the evening. But no more.
Machinations, battle 'ums'. This is not a social or criminal film that reveals the underbelly of power and personality. And the story of how two 'bad' crossed each other's path and what came out of it.
Rosamund Pike shines in his antiheroic character. I think wake her up in the middle of the night, schedule a mission, she'll give her a character away. Peter Dinklage plays a dangerous bandit/parody of dangerous bandits. It's not quite clear, but it's fun to watch. Asa Gonzalez is a film decoration. She has wonderful chemistry with Rosamund.
The film clearly has its own reality: a bit absurd, exaggerated. But at the same time as the taste of bitterness. Perhaps the creators were planning a satirical comment. I'll never know. Satire is either read or not.
Overall, as a one-time movie, it’s perfect. To laugh, to be angry, to grieve about script stupidity. Surprised by the final ring. The whole set of emotions.
Yeah. It's rare. No positive hero. After watching it, it feels like I'm dirty in shit. The actors tried, but the script and the direction sucked of rare power.
I have to say, it's been a long time since I've been so disgusted with the protagonist of history. Pike’s heroine Marla is a rare creature, which is not saved even by the fact that she is a strong woman in the terrible world of men, a lesbian and allegedly feminist. All this is small, because its main quality is its complete unscrupulousness and sociopathy. She's just a spherical scum in a vacuum and doesn't elicit any sympathy. The whole film only wishes her a painful death.
This is the most anti-feminist film I've seen in a long time. Precisely because the main character on the one hand is positioned as a feminist, and on the other causes only disgust and hatred. It is difficult to see ' strengths ' in a person who constantly wishes only death and failure.
And no, this is never a comedy thriller. Black humor, you say? Didn't notice. To laugh, as for me, there is nothing at all, only to burn and swear. And fear the approach of their old age and infirmity.
And it's a great movie. The footage is beautiful, juicy. The scenes are dynamic. The actors play beautifully. The film keeps in suspense, but causes most of the screen time facepalm and such a burning annoyance from what is happening that it is completely not funny. The finale is not the most cathartic either.
But emotions - yes, the movie is clearly emotional. Just not the most positive. If this is the response the authors sought, then praise them. They managed to draw a very vivid portrait of a rare rubbish.
I can recommend this film to anyone who wants to experience two hours of burning butthurt and a wide range of negative emotions.
Not so long ago, I saw some research that addressed, among other things, the issues of villainy, and gave examples of male villains and female villains. That article contained the remark that finding the perfect villain—that is, an indefensible evil—was a big problem. Well, the authors clearly haven't watched "The Scamster!" The heroine, which Rosamund Pike embodied on the screen, exactly fits the definition of the incarnation of hell on Earth, even if she does not have any superpowers, does not seek to capture the world, but is limited to quite earthly and banal goals. This is because a real villain is measured not only by the scale of his deeds, but also by the characteristics of his personality, character and the meanness he shows.
To understand the phenomenon of villainy, demonstrated in “Swindler”, it is worth saying a few words about the chosen victims. The greatest baseness, the most vile crime a man is capable of committing, is usually a crime against the most defenseless. Traditionally and at all times, children and the elderly were considered such. Given the heroine’s unselfish and sincere love of money, it is quite predictable that she chose the second category as her victims. This one step towards the destruction of the lives of those who are not able to stand up for themselves makes the main character (or antiheroine, because there are no positive characters in the film at all) Marla a reference villain, whose failure you crave from the very first shots. This choice of victims characterizes the heroine as completely incapable of any empathy and sympathy, and although in terms of achieving her goals this advantage is her most important weakness, because it does not allow you to understand the essence of human nature.
The main opponent of Marla is a consequence of the above inability, and although they share the same field of berries with her, he is not only similar to her, but also opposite. The very sphere of his activity, let us say, signifies the great importance of the element that the heroine always misses, that Marla never considered as a person who could not value anyone except herself and her ego (her mistress I would not take into account, since these relations are more like relations of animal-biological properties than sincere attachment). So, in the film there is a confrontation of certain values and the absence of values in general, a fight on equal terms, where it is completely unclear until the last minute who will prevail. However, although the goals of Marla’s opponent are clear and understandable, it is the opposition of a moral nature that is not built in The Scam, and everything boils down to the confrontation of specific people, even if they embody two opposite extremes.
Interestingly, the lack of the ability to empathize with other people is accompanied by the same inability to feel sorry for yourself, as well as a complete absence of fear, therefore, and a sense of self-preservation. I would like to say that this trait makes Marla stupid, albeit brave, but it is not. The antiheroine is not stupid, and the zero sense of self-preservation plays not only a cruel joke, expressed in the inability to stop in time and correctly assess the situation, but also gives an advantage when in a critical situation Marla retains the ability to think coldly and calculatingly, not to give in to panic, which ultimately allows her to overcome crisis situations of almost any degree of hopelessness. Although brave heroes have been seen on the screen, usually each of them has its own limit of courage, and this unpleasant lady has no such limits, as well as any brakes. From this point of view, the meaning of the introduction to the plot of her lover is not fully understood, since, although Rosamund Pike faithfully acts out the excitement for the second half, in fact Marla does not even take her into account. Why then is this character that does not influence either the plot or the heroine? Screen time wasted.
Another curious element is a look at the very system of care for disabled U.S. citizens. Although “Swindler” shows its weaknesses, allowing unscrupulous people not only to steal, but also to ruin people’s lives, the film does not condemn the system. He sees what is happening as an accident caused by several unconscionable caregivers, doctors, employees of nursing homes, that is, events are caused by the human factor, and are not the result of a flaw in the system. “Swindler” does not show the system is rotten and corrupt. For example, a key element of Marla’s criminal schemes – the judge – acts honestly and on his inner conviction, and it is not his fault that he was misled. On the other hand, the very fact that such a story has become possible does not characterize the system from the best side, because it does not have protection from a fool, from a criminal, does not have its own system of checks and balances, as in a healthy political system, and it is based only on the integrity of people, which is by default risky. The happy end would be the reform of this system, avoiding dependence on specific people, but “Swindler” does not even look in this direction, does not offer, it only demonstrates a specific situation, without drawing conclusions, especially not pushing them.
At its core, “Swindler” is an action film, albeit borrowing elements from a wide range of genres: from court drama to melodrama and comedy. He is characterized by the dynamics of action, and the heroine is always in motion, in the generation of ideas and in their embodiment, there is even some moderate action. In terms of audience interest, everything is quite good, the film is able to hold attention for all two hours. At the same time, I would call it a drawback of the abandoned storyline baked into the nursing home of an old woman who looked at Marla with an open challenge: the film enthusiastically followed the events around her, but it was worth paying attention to her as a heroine opposing the antiheroine, also doing something for her salvation, and not waiting for rescuers.
This is a very sassy story, a story of unprecedented arrogance and cynicism, one from which there is neither salvation nor protection, when you can trust only in case. But this is also a demonstration of a phenomenal in its human qualities (or rather, their absence) heroine, to watch which is quite curious. The “swindler” reliably retains attention, tells a story well, although it has certain shortcomings, such as, say, insufficient disclosure of the line of moral confrontation, or, say, the presence of optional characters. In general, we have entertainment that can brighten up the evening of a working day or a weekend.