No Sudden Move (2021) User Reviews

Ambitious & entertaining, but ultimately too confusing.

[danieljfarthing · 6/10 · 3 February 2022]

Veteran director Steven Soderbergh's '50s-based crime-drama "No Sudden Move" has a fine cast & upbeat noir tone, but is swamped by Ed Solomon's convoluted script ("Chinatown"-lite). Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro & tv's enigmatic Kieran Culkin (underused) are hired (via Brendan Fraser) by mobsters Ray Liotta (married to Julia Fox) and/or Bill Duke for a job involving David Harbour & family (inc Noah Dupe)... which goes awry, attracting cop Jon Hamm & slick corp fixer Matt Damon, as they all twist & turn on each other (or do they?) over growing $$$ and a catalytic converter conspiracy. Ambitious & entertaining, but ultimately too confusing.

Good actors but a very messy story.

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 27 July 2021]

The thing with Steven Soderbergh is that you're not sure what you're going to get. Sometimes it's very good ( like The Knick, The Report, or Traffic) but on a rare occasion it can also be pretty mediocre or even really bad (like Schizopolis). No Sudden Move has a very good cast. All actors that know what they're doing so that wasn't the problem. The problem was the story. It's a complete mess, with so many twists and turns that nobody with a sane mind can understand anything about the plot. I don't know what Soderbergh was thinking. It's all much too complicated to be a good movie. It's all shot well, all acted well, but if the plot doesn't make much sense it loses all credibility. Too bad because Benicio Del Toro and Don Cheadle did a very good job, even with a plot that they probably didn't understand themselves. Maybe you need to watch the movie two or three times to understand everything but that seems too much of a hassle to me. I'll just wait for a better movie from Soderbergh.

Too Clever For Its Own Good

[RonellSowes · 12 February 2022]

No Sudden Move is very much the sort of film you can expect from Steven Soderbergh: acomplicated crime scheme(involving numerous A-listers), with hidden intentions stacked on each other and all done with a distinct style. However, this movie's biggest setback is that this time the 'clever' plot goes a little too far. Even the most keen and attentive viewer will have issues following and eventually will probably be left behind by the ever evolving and frankly indiscernible story.

It Could Have Been Great

[Megan_Shida · 6/10 · 2 July 2021]

Was it a noir? Was it a heist caper? Was it a gangster movie? Was it an indictment of the automobile industries and the racism, gentrification, and pollution they heralded? Despite gritty performances and an interesting premise, the film is really all and none of those things: it is a mess. The tone is uneven and the film is not helped by a 360 kind of camera technique that often makes the film look like it is using google maps. If the film had maintained the very dark and brooding feel it began with, I think this film could have been excellent. Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro really were excellent. Sometimes a director tries to do too much.

Not As Bad As The Reviewers Claim

[dennisbedard · 7/10 · 5 July 2021]

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.

No Sudden Move, is a good watch!

[jonny-79233 · 7/10 · 10 July 2021]

I see nothing wrong with this production where the previous reviews are awful and disrespectful with that said feel free to watch. This is a 1950's period movie and in those days it was Vistavision which was widescreen on 35mm with more grain that was later discarded for finer grain film during the 1970's-90's but depicting or sculpting a film look is a difficult task requiring special cameras and lenses that aid in translating what we've watching. A good example is Quentin Tarantino's "Hateful Eight" where he salvaged retired Ultra Panavision 70 special cameras because the lenses were still intact and would give the film that period look of old westerns and even requiring special screens. Another example is CAPOTE starring Phyllis Seymour Hoffman, directed by Bennett Miller winning a nomination for Best Director also takes place in 1959 and in that film every item, object or scene is of great detail that directs the viewers attention that you are in 1959. There is great detail in this film and the acting is superb and it takes place in the 1950's and so it's very easy to take in with a large bowl of fresh popcorn to sit back, enjoy and watch this movie unfold.

No Sudden Move, produced by Casey Silver, Julia M. Anderson and directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Solid Crime Movie

[jfzettler · 8/10 · 6 July 2021]

Far better than many recent higher rated films. You need to pay attention to get the connections, and it has a dark feel, but the twists are great as was the acting.

Waste of a great cast

[reasons78 · 2/10 · 8 July 2021]

I feel like I need to watch this movie again to understand what I just watched, but it's so dull and uninteresting that I don't think I could sit through it again. The plot is so convoluted and the editing so choppy that it is really hard to follow the story. Soderberg drops you in the middle of the story with no explanation of the character's backstory or the landscape of the setting. He just keeps throwing characters into the mix without explanation as to why they are there or how they fit into the story, then they all just kind of crash into each other at the end. The first 30 minutes are pretty good, then the rest of the movie is a mess. There are so many elements that become annoying throughout the movie: the stilted dialogue, the scenes that don't seem unnecessary and don't fit into the storyline, the fisheye lens, the bad sound quality, Don Cheadle's weird voice, the choppy editing that interrupted the flow of the movie, and the fact that this flick couldn't decide if it was a heist movie, or a movie about corporate espionage, or a movie about environmental issues, or a movie about racism and the negative effects of gentrification. By the end, I didn't care about any of it. By the time the credits rolled, I couldn't tell who double/triple crossed who or what this movie was really about and I really didn't care. I was just glad it was over.

Much better than the reviews

[pellenbogen · 8/10 · 16 July 2021]

I don't usually post reviews but I felt compelled because of all the bad reviews. Yes its a complicated plot, but if you pay attention there are only one or two holes and I'm not sure about those. There were plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. I may watch even it again. The acting was good and the production design was exceptional. Beautifully captured the 1954 period. I would definately recommend this film.

Don't let the title fool you. A lot of Sudden Moves happen in the movie.

[pythatek · 7/10 · 1 July 2021]

Boy was it good to see Brendan Fraser on screen again!

That being said, it's a well crafted movie. Soderbergh doing what he does best. Amazing cast and performance. Engaging plot. The pacing falls at places, second half. Odd stylistic choices, weird fish eye lens, Dutch angles. But overall enjoyable crime thriller.

We find out who was being conned at the end...

[paulyew · 3/10 · 1 July 2021]

As with most Soderbergh movies, the movie itself is very stylish and packed with star power. In Soderbergh's earlier works, you took away the fancy wrapping and found exquisite gifts inside. Here, however, removing the fancy wrapping revealed a gift card to your local grocery store. Sure, some of you may be thrilled with a gift card, but for me, it was a major let down.

The story itself is very convoluted. How some of the characters come together and are put in certain situations are unconvincing or even not adequately explained. It seems like everyone has their own angle or play, leading to backstabbing and double/triple crossing. It's a movie about a bunch of characters (whom I could not sympathize nor empathize with) are trying to con each other. Then I realized at the end of the movie... The only sucker in this story was the audience who was conned out of 2 hours of their lives.

Stellar cast and director going nowhere

[siderite · 7/10 · 7 July 2021]

This is a heist movie. For any heist movie, you're better off just re-watching "One Crew over the Crewcoo's Morty". The genre is formulaic by design, often involves a cast of very well known people and movies in it should be performance pieces. I mean, no one cares about the loot or what happens in the end, they just want to be entertained by the loops and twists of the story and the way actors make you care about their characters. And on that metric, No Sudden Move is average at best.

Right now I am struggling to mention anything that might be worth mentioning and getting nothing. It's not like people acted badly, but their characters were completely uninteresting and the story went nowhere. Even if it was "inspired" from the story of the catalytic converter and the collusion of all big car manufacturers to keep it off the market, which is true, the rest was complete fiction. And the plot? Just people double and triple crossing each other. No action, no real stakes, no inspiring end. Just Soderbergh being nostalgic over the times when the Ocean's N movies were bringing him a lot of money.

Bottom line: I can't recommend it yet I can't say it was a bad movie. It was just... uninteresting.

A few sudden moves, but through the eye of a fish

[cardsrock · 7/10 · 2 July 2021]

Soderbergh heist movies are usually pretty reliable and this one is not an exception. The key word is reliable though. This film won't blow you away, but its rock-solid cast and stylish direction make it at least fairly entertaining.

The fish eye lens was an odd choice to say the least and I found it to be quite distracting throughout. The story doesn't cover any new ground and gets a bit too convoluted, resulting in losing some of its impact. Soderbergh knows how to film these types of movies though and his signature kinetic style keeps things moving at a moderate pace.

It definitely isn't Ocean's Eleven or Logan Lucky, but No Sudden Move is another engaging heist film to add to Soderbergh's resume.

Rear-View Mirror

[Cineanalyst · 7/10 · 4 July 2021]

I was going to pan "No Sudden Move," not for its contrived con or heist plotting--this being the umpteenth or whatever caper flick by Steven Soderbergh, but for its contrived stylistic choices. Upon reflection, however, and while I still think it doesn't look very good, I appreciate the felicitous symmetry of narrative and style here. Besides Soderbergh seeing other heist flicks such as, say, "Widows" (2018), "Triple Frontier" (2019), "Da 5 Bloods" (2020), and, perhaps, thinking he, too, should make his heists historically and socially conscious--what with the 1954 setting here and addressing issues of race, urban renewal and car monopolies polluting--it's a modern eye looking back at a period piece. It's distinctly shot with a modern eye, too, as Soderbergh has taken to using a phone camera. The extreme wide-angle lenses, as well, don't just resemble a mislocated Chicago Bean, or Cloud Gate, obscuring the period details of the picture, or offering the paradox of a narrative full of conniving crooks, doubles crosses and switcheroos while photographically there are few angles being played; it's the convex nature of automobile rearview mirrors, thus echoing the story set in America's car capital, or at least what used to be such. I'm not sure what the title, "No Sudden Move," has to do with it, but at least all of the above may be argued to have a purpose.

It also works for how these con/heist plots usually work, where information is withheld as we look forward and only begin to make sense in the end, if even then, as we look back and consider that objects may've appeared differently than where they actually were. Sure, the cast is stellar as usual, some of the talk-heavy set pieces are quite enjoyable in themselves, and there's some fun merely in watching all the pieces being moved--and transparently so for our entertainment, but oddly enough I especially admire how well the things I otherwise find garish--the phone camera fish-eye lenses and trying to make one of the most frivolous genres into social-problem dramas--work cohesively well in this case.

I wish they used different lenses.

[comicbookzookeeper · 6/10 · 25 March 2022]

I hate they way this movie was filmed. I really liked the story and performances, I just don't understand the lenses choices in this movie. What was it trying to say with them. I got nothing out of it except frustration. Was that the point? Also, welcome back Brendan Fraser.

So slow move(s) then?

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 29 November 2021]

What a cast! I mean I only saw the two "players" on that are on the poster - but let me tell you ... there are a lot more great actors in this than one can count (and certainly more than most of us have fingers on their hands).

If we leave that aside for a moment - the movie will not be something for a wide crowd I reckon. While the main story is quite intriguing or at least seems that way, the overall structure is quite complex. A noire woven into a real life story - or the other way around, not sure what is more apt.

We follow a couple of people who are hired for an "easy" job. I mean do I have to say that it is anything but easy? I think not - anyone who has seen at least one thriller will be aware that there is more to it than meets the eye. There is also more to the characters and their connections ... something that may be irritating to at least some viewers. Maybe as irritating as the crosses, double and triple crosses are ... yes you are not wrong to look over your shoulder there ... or there for that matter.

And even when we get introduced to characters we only have heard by name - the fact that really good actors play those roles gives the movie and the experience watching it quite the boost. An interesting movie that would have worked quite nicely in a cinema - a nice throwback - and one very well made.

Could they have paid for a second lens?

[carystegall · 6/10 · 7 July 2021]

The narrative is kind of interesting, although over-scripted. Are we allowed to have a simple through line without all the convolutions these days?

But my big question is about the wide angle lens. It seems like every single scene uses the same weird aspherical effect. I get it every now and then to amp up the paranoid feel, but every single shot? They couldn't afford a real DP?

Considering it was shot on digital RED, is it even a wide angle lens or just the wide angle digital effect filter applied after the fact? I think Mr. Soderbergh needs to consider the idea that his audience has both eyes and a brain, working at the same time.

Bad lens.

[molliegreeneyes · 2/10 · 1 July 2021]

I don't know what kind of lens they used to shoot this film, but it is annoying and distracting. Being from Detroit, I wanted so much more for this film. So sad.

Why the hate?

[willmaxr · 8/10 · 29 August 2021]

Solid crime drama. True, not fast paced but great cast make up for it. You gotta pay attention, it's not too hard. Some reviewers are making it sound like Tenet level confusion. A good watch.

If not for the brilliant ensemble cast, No Sudden Move wouldn't have worked as it's focused on its characters instead of a great plot

[Holt344 · 7/10 · 23 March 2022]

No Sudden Move is a crime-thriller with noir elements that's directed, photographed and edited by Steven Soderbergh. Ed Solomon wrote it. But it's very much a Soderbergh film and for good reasons as he got the chance to create the film he wanted to make, thus making the good crime film we have in front of us. The film features an ensemble cast including Don Cheadle, Benicio del Toro, David Harbour, Jon Hamm, Amy Seimetz, Brendan Fraser, Kieran Culkin, Noah Jupe, Craig Grant (in his final appearance), Julia Fox, Frankie Shaw, Ray Liotta and Bill Duke. There's plenty of great performances but Don Cheadle, Benicio del Toro, David Harbour and Amy Seimetz all give phenomenal performances.

In 1954 Detroit, Michigan, gangster Curt Goynes and a group of criminals are brought together under mysterious circumstances and have to work together to uncover what's really going on when their simple job goes completely sideways.

Though I really liked how character driven it was, I think for more casual viewers, they might find the pacing to be too slow. How it was photographed almost exclusively with a wide-angle "fisheye" lens which creates distortions around the outer edge of the frame, I think most will find it odd and not to your liking, but also how the plot isn't as important as the personal affairs and of its well written characters. David Holmes's musical score isn't mind blowing, but it sets the tone and atmosphere, the old noir vibes. If we're going back to the cinematography and how Soderbergh mostly used a wide-angle lens, it takes some time to get used to as it has this unique look but the huge amount of stuff shown in each scene makes most of the shots worth it. With us being able to see more of the sets, more of the characters and it's executed perfectly. But again, the wide-angle probably won't win everyone over. Though Steven Soderbergh have an eye for cinema and a vision, I think he didn't make it gripping enough, most of it has to do with Soderbergh trying to say too much and how the plot can be confusing. Though I really liked his direction, I felt the more action heavy sequences could have been better, but as a slow paced crime-thriller, the direction was phenomenal. I just wish the second half of the movie would have held up as much as the first half, as I loved the first half.

Boring as hell

[koschwarz · 5/10 · 12 March 2022]

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.

Soderbergh's twisty neo-noir works based on cast & period details

[gortx · 10 July 2021]

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.

Lies lies lies

[rsb-82035 · 7/10 · 16 July 2021]

Living in the land of the Studebaker, I enjoyed the movie, although, truthfully, I only intended to watch it to admire Benicio Del Toro.

Towards the end when one of the characters said "how do people do this? All of this?" I completely related to her and wondered how many lies I'm totally blind to in my own day to day life.

Another great cast, not so great story movie

[margineanvladdaniel · 7/10 · 1 July 2021]

It was very complicated at a time, then it became obvious. Just another mob lying and not trustful movie where you can't expect something happening right for someone at the ending.