First-- a disclaimer-- I live in the Houston Metro area and I love how the city was depicted in this film. The opening montage really shows off the beauty of the downtown area. But the movie wasn't made to attract commerce or tourism to Houston, it was made here because Houston is an underused film location with a lot to offer.
Now-- getting to the film: It is not perfect and it does have some of the features of many other lower-budget, independent films, like music that sounds generic and detracts from a scene. But it succeeds in being funny at times and at creating a story with characters you care about. The brother and sister twins who carry out multiple cons, sometimes taking advantage of vulnerable, charitable people should be beneath our contempt, yet we can't help but identify with them. We even sympathize with Rachel, the female half of the team. Her brother, although charming and clever, shows a certain creepiness from the start. He has cold eyes.
Michael McKean is superb as their mentor, a recently-released-from-prison manager of a rundown roller skate rink who can't resist getting in on a good sting. Their target is a wealthy fellow who is full of despair after losing his daughter in an accident for which he feels responsible. McKean plays the role of God and meets with the guy on the roof of a downtown hotel. It is fun to see McKean getting into "the role of a lifetime." The filmmakers could have explored this aspect a little more and had fun with it, but perhaps that would have been too much of a good thing.
The movie is light and funny overall, but it does delve into some dark places. Rachel in particular shows empathy and guilt over her role in swindling and defrauding people she has come to love. But the plot thickens when a gangster threatens the twins with torture and death if they don't pay him the money they owe him. So, whether conflicted or not by her grifter crimes, Rachel has a lot of motivation to carry through with the scheme.
WARNING-- Spoliers ahead---
A few problems I had with the plot: The twins in one scene appear to be in a Mexican market where they meet a woman who offers them info on the wealthy man and his search for God for $10,000. First of all, why is a woman who operates out of a market stall able to obtain all this information? And is her little file worth that kind of money? It seems to me a Houston billionaire who is going around the world seeking redemption would be the talk of the town. They could have saved money and read about him in a local paper or in a feature in Texas Monthly. But what really shocked me is that when they say they only have $5,000. She caves in immediately and gives them the file. What kind of criminal informant would do that? That whole scene should have been dropped. It would have been more believable if their source had been some former business associate of the billionaire they come across who tells them the story.
Another problem is towards the end when suddenly thugs with guns appear. If you are doing a caper film the audience is expecting tension and uncertainty as the criminal protagonists try to pull it off. That's part of the fun. The gun play ruined it.
Then there is the disclosure about the billionaire and his connection with the twins that the brother gives to Rachel in order to keep her in the . This stretches the limits of what an audience is willing to accept in such a story. The coincidence is a little too much especially after we see them go to some third party in a Mexican market to get their basic info on the guy. If the info was so valuable it should have provided a lot of basic information that would have revealed the connection from the start. But I am being a bit picky. This is not "The Asphalt Jungle" or "Topkapi" or "The Sting"-- it is a film that entertains if you don't think too much about the details and sometimes that's just what you need.
Now-- getting to the film: It is not perfect and it does have some of the features of many other lower-budget, independent films, like music that sounds generic and detracts from a scene. But it succeeds in being funny at times and at creating a story with characters you care about. The brother and sister twins who carry out multiple cons, sometimes taking advantage of vulnerable, charitable people should be beneath our contempt, yet we can't help but identify with them. We even sympathize with Rachel, the female half of the team. Her brother, although charming and clever, shows a certain creepiness from the start. He has cold eyes.
Michael McKean is superb as their mentor, a recently-released-from-prison manager of a rundown roller skate rink who can't resist getting in on a good sting. Their target is a wealthy fellow who is full of despair after losing his daughter in an accident for which he feels responsible. McKean plays the role of God and meets with the guy on the roof of a downtown hotel. It is fun to see McKean getting into "the role of a lifetime." The filmmakers could have explored this aspect a little more and had fun with it, but perhaps that would have been too much of a good thing.
The movie is light and funny overall, but it does delve into some dark places. Rachel in particular shows empathy and guilt over her role in swindling and defrauding people she has come to love. But the plot thickens when a gangster threatens the twins with torture and death if they don't pay him the money they owe him. So, whether conflicted or not by her grifter crimes, Rachel has a lot of motivation to carry through with the scheme.
WARNING-- Spoliers ahead---
A few problems I had with the plot: The twins in one scene appear to be in a Mexican market where they meet a woman who offers them info on the wealthy man and his search for God for $10,000. First of all, why is a woman who operates out of a market stall able to obtain all this information? And is her little file worth that kind of money? It seems to me a Houston billionaire who is going around the world seeking redemption would be the talk of the town. They could have saved money and read about him in a local paper or in a feature in Texas Monthly. But what really shocked me is that when they say they only have $5,000. She caves in immediately and gives them the file. What kind of criminal informant would do that? That whole scene should have been dropped. It would have been more believable if their source had been some former business associate of the billionaire they come across who tells them the story.
Another problem is towards the end when suddenly thugs with guns appear. If you are doing a caper film the audience is expecting tension and uncertainty as the criminal protagonists try to pull it off. That's part of the fun. The gun play ruined it.
Then there is the disclosure about the billionaire and his connection with the twins that the brother gives to Rachel in order to keep her in the . This stretches the limits of what an audience is willing to accept in such a story. The coincidence is a little too much especially after we see them go to some third party in a Mexican market to get their basic info on the guy. If the info was so valuable it should have provided a lot of basic information that would have revealed the connection from the start. But I am being a bit picky. This is not "The Asphalt Jungle" or "Topkapi" or "The Sting"-- it is a film that entertains if you don't think too much about the details and sometimes that's just what you need.