Desperation pays darkly comic dividends in Steven Soderbergh’s No Sudden Move
Soderbergh returns to his crime-movie wheelhouse with a twisty new caper
Film Reviews Steven Soderbergh
Movies routinely place characters in desperate, life-or-death situations, but rarely do we see them behave in a genuinely desperate way. No Sudden Move, a period crime drama written by Ed Solomon and directed by Steven Soderbergh, corrects this oversight in a way that’s at once hilarious and distressing. With masked men holding his wife and young children at gunpoint back at home, mild-mannered businessman Matt Wertz (David Harbour) shows up at his boss’ house, demanding a certain hush-hush document that the criminals seek. When the boss refuses to comply, Wertz increases the pressure with a series of quasi-apologetic threats, flailing in his effort to communicate just how serious he is without actually explaining what’s going on (since another masked gunman is listening from just outside the door). “I’m gonna punch you now, sir,” Wertz warns, practically in tears, after tackling his boss to the floor. “I’m punching you. This is gonna be a punch.” Refreshing words to hear from someone who’s clearly never thrown one before.
Memorably offbeat moments of that sort, executed by a superb ensemble cast, keep No Sudden Move humming even when the film’s convoluted, MacGuffin-heavy plot threatens to bog things down. Set in 1954 Detroit, it opens with the gunmen: Curt Goynes (Don Cheadle), who’s just out of prison and seeking quick cash to buy back some land he claims was taken from him; Ronald Russo (Benicio Del Toro), suspicious of everyone; and a vaguely psychopathic-seeming dude named Charley (Kieran Culkin). All three have been hired by a kingpin’s henchman (Brendan Fraser, who’s somehow turned into Sydney Greenstreet) to “babysit” Wertz’s family while he retrieves the document, which is supposed to be in his boss’ office safe but turns out not to be. Among the numerous complications that ensue are Wertz’s wife (Amy Seimetz) learning that he’s been planning to run off with his boss’ secretary (Frankie Shaw) and Russo’s secret romantic involvement with the moll (Julia Fox) of the aforementioned kingpin (Ray Liotta). Also, was this really a three-man job, or is it possible that certain parties are considered very expendable?
It’s a lot to keep track of, and that’s without even mentioning the corrupt cop (Jon Hamm) investigating an ostensible act of lethal self-defense at Wertz’s house, or the late-breaking, significant, unbilled cameo appearance by one of Soderbergh’s regular collaborators. Solomon’s screenplay lightly flirts with some socially conscious ideas: The MacGuffin, when revealed, reflects real-life corporate chicanery from that era, and Goynes’ personal crusade involves “urban renewal” measures that seized land from African-American homeowners via the abuse of eminent domain, though you’ll need to listen carefully (or be familiar with the former Black Bottom neighborhood) to pick up on that. And it’s easy to be distracted, because there’s always something wonderfully tangential or goofy happening. Plenty of movies like this include a scene in which someone has to answer the door with a gun pointed at them and pretend that everything’s fine; very few expertly build the tension and then immediately defuse it by having the victim look out the window, see the neighbor lingering, and mutter “Well, I don’t think that’s the end of that.”
Speaking of distraction, Soderbergh continues to favor wide-angle lenses and unconventional camera angles—a practice that began when he started shooting movies on a modified iPhone a few years ago. He clearly knows that this look annoys some people, and just as clearly doesn’t care. It’s particularly out of place, though, in a film that otherwise emulates pugnaciously melodramatic (but visually unemphatic) ’50s classics like Nicholas Ray’s On Dangerous Ground. Those films didn’t feature the minor irising effect seen here, with the corners of the frame slightly dimmed, and they almost always avoided lenses that warp any object not located at dead center. One especially bizarre shot in No Sudden Move places Cheadle at the frame’s extreme left and another actor in the middle, creating a physical disparity between them so dramatic that they might as well be standing in an Ames room. There’s no plausible reason to emphasize distortion in this way, on either a conceptual or a thematic level. It’s just a weird directorial choice—one that’s easier to ignore, or to forgive, when a group of talented actors are having this much desperate fun.
35 Comments
David Harbour’s character is Wertz in the first paragraph, but Mertz in the rest of the review.
Spoilers
What range!
Wertz, Schmertz.
So, no one has gotten around to telling you that you’re dsleyxc
Ha! That was probably me getting Fred and Ethel in my head.
Ha! That was probably me getting Fred and Ethel in my head.(LIGHT SPOILERS)Only if Ethel and Lucy were planning to sneak off on a romantic getaway together.
First, great review! I like how you went into the different camera angles and setups that Soderbergh used. And second, it sounds pretty good and hits all the sweet spots of stuff I like:1950’s setting? CheckCrime Film but offbeat? CheckJon Hamm (who has Charismaaaaaa), David Harbour, Don Cheadle AND Del Toro? That’s a pretty good castLooking forward to this. I’m a big Noir fan who will argue the best of the bunch is probably the cheapest, “Detour” and this film based on your review looks perfect to my tastes.
Hamm!I love that episode of Toast of London, and it’s infected my response to him whenever I hear his name.
I liked High Flying Bird but there were some weird camera choices in that too, people really far apart in the frame for no reason I could make out. Interesting how this one also seems to involve convoluted plans around Black people reclaiming value taken from them.
How did that film look? I haven’t seen it because the film snob in me wonders how well an iPhone can capture scenes.
Aside from the odd angles and setups at times, it looked fine I believe? I don’t recall much one way or the other. But I liked it, though it is hilariously perverse in how it goes to great lengths to be about basketball players and never show them actually playing basketball.
Nice to see Antonio Banderas getting work again.
D- see you on the quad
“the late-breaking, significant, unbilled cameo appearance by one of Soderbergh’s regular collaborators”I’m just going to assume it’s king of cameos Matt Damon?
I’m betting a loonie on Clooney
Considering the Magic Mike article, I was guessing Channing Tatum.
Don Cheadle remind you of seventy year old Anne Hathaway alone in her apartment in New York’s Upper East Side with a beautiful view of Central Park slowly drinking herself to death? Benicio Del Toro a homicidal methhead on a Native American Reservation waiting to shoot Elizabeth Olsen in the face with a shotgun? David Harbour some lucky teenage bastard shagging wonderful Mila Kunis? Ray Liotta a gambling junkie who likes to play the ponies and the sports book in Vegas when she’s isn’t on the professional poker tour? Jon Hamm incredible Fabulous Baker Boys era Michelle Pfeiffer? Brendan Fraser remind you of Jamie Lee Curtis’s perfect breasts? Kieran Culkin of naked Teri Hatcher the sweat slowly dripping down her body in the Louisiana plantation heat? Hate women? Enjoy making the cinematography in your movies look like shit? Congratulations! You’re Steven Soderbergh! You just got someone who looks like someone who looks like Julia Fox murdered in reply. Also you made another ugly movie that just made the world a slightly worse place. Have another Academy Award ya fuckin’ douchebag.
A good review is helpful, but I was already sold on this one just based on the fact that the last time Cheadle, Soderbergh, and Detroit came together we got Out of Sight.
Vignetting*, not irising. Just to be a pendant. Also Bill fucking Duke is in this movie so I’m on-board.
Pedant, not pendant. Just to be a smart-ass.
You can’t prove I’m not a pendant!But right you are. Autocorrect will be summarily executed.
De Nomolos!
Had no inkling of this being released so thanks for the heads up. However, I eagerly logging into HBOMax to watch and it’s not available. The release date is tomorrow (July 1) for anyone else trying to watch today.
This movie has one of those annoying kid tropes and I just can’t get with it…The son makes me want to punch the screen…
One especially bizarre shot in No Sudden Move places Cheadle at the frame’s extreme left and another actor in the middle, creating a physical disparity between them so dramatic…I really liked the wideangle shots throughout this…except for that one which was so distorted that it crossed from style into distracting. I know Soderbergh often doesn’t do a lot of takes, and I wonder if that one ended up looking weirder than what he’d intended, but he didn’t have anything else to use?Overall this had a fun vibe to it, but I didn’t love it. It’s nice that Soderbergh finds a way to employ every actor he’s ever met, but I think a few of the characters could have been trimmed, along with their plot twists and turns.
I get motion sick really easily and the camera angles had me nauseous but I still enjoyed the look, especially the opening. Yes, I actually loved Frankie Shaw’s and Julia Fox’s performance but their character could have been absorbed into each other perhaps. Or maybe the whole plot line of Harbour and his family could have been edited down? Not sure, but the second half of the movie was a lot more fun I thought!*spoiler* I was really hoping Hamm got the wrong briefcase in the end, and thought it would have been a better commentary on how all these men never calculated women into their plans.
When we watched, one of the guys was convinced that actually the women were running the caper and they were all in on it somehow, but, alas, that was not the case.
So, right off the bat, when Matt goes to his bosses house with Curt and Ronald there aren’t any masked men holding his family hostage. One masked guy is dead, two are with him and his family is at the neighbors house.
Judging from a lot of the shots and music Fraser is way more of a dead ringer for Orson Welles in Touch of Evil than he is Sidney Greenstreet. Don Cheadle runs around a lot like some scenes with Charlton Heston in Tijuana.
The fisheye effect or whatever was going on at the edge of the frame from what you referred to really bugged me throughout. Took me out of the film which otherwise was very well executed.
From the few responses on here I am guessing this one didn’t exactly catch fire. *Spoilers*
So, “Let Them All Talk” was awful. This is better but still feels disposable, as have most of Soderbergh’s efforts for the past several years. The plot is twisty to be twisty, Noah Jupe’s character should be killed, the nods to social justice come across as just nods, and yes the camera shots are dumb and distracting. I also did not understand why Don Cheadle would bump up to a higher number and greatly increase the chance that he would be in danger, involving a complete higher boss and everything, if he is just trying to get out with $5,000. Did I just completely misunderstand that? Anyway, another disposable sameday HBO Max release, it looks like WB might have the better of this deal after all.