amesmonde A seasoned con-artist's most recent trick goes wrong when his team steal money from the mob, they then go about arranging another hustle to get the money back.Director James Foley's Confidence pretty much set the formula for the UK TV series Hustle (2004) that appeared a year later and the more recent Leverage (2008). It's flashy and slick and with stylised lighting, camera work and editing.Rachel Weisz is debatably miscast, nevertheless Edward Burns is excellent in the lead role and rest of the cast are adequate. Both Andy Garcia and Dustin Hoffman are underused but what is there is, is first class. The flashbacks and narration from Burns guides you though the film, written by Doug Jung, the script is witty although there's a little too much exposition and the tone feels inconsistent at times.If you've already seen the aforementioned TV series the twist will come as no surprise but if you want to see the seed of these shows and what a gritty film version would be like - look no further.

witster18 ....only very mild spoilers...."Confidence" is a decent little con flick with some nice twists in the latter-half.The main strength of the the film is the performances from Edward Burns, and in particular, Dustin Hoffman.Hoffman plays "The King", a sick, twisted "recovering" sociopath who takes a liking to Jake(Edward Burns) even though Burns stole a bunch of his money.Their interaction early in the film really is the highlight. The next best part is a nice final twist.The film has style, but nothing we haven't seen before. There's a huge dose of Steven Soderbourgh going on here with the shots and the music, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, albeit unoriginal.The film also lacks action, and doesn't really have any stand out moments of greatness.All that said, I found this to be worth my time. Not sure I would go out and buy it, but Hoffman and Burns are personal favorites, and if I did buy this one, they would be the reason why.Rachel Weisz is fine in a supporting role, but the film could have used a little more character development with her and her budding relationship with Burns. Giamatti's character suffers in much the same way.In summary: While we've seen this before, the lead characters jump off the screen and the rehashed style is still effective. I could give this a mild recommendation.You'll like this if you liked:Out of Sight(better), Albino Alligator(worse), or Money For Nothing(slightly worse).

kenjha A group of con artists plans to swindle millions out of a banker while dealing with a crime boss who wants a cut. Another in a long line of con movies, this one is stylishly directed by Foley. The problem is that Foley's style is extremely annoying, constantly calling attention to himself with his distracting camera-work. The script is anemic, with the dialog relying too much on a certain four-letter word. Burns plays the leader of the con gang, but lacks the charisma to carry this film. Weisz is a capable actress but is pretty much wasted in an inconsequential role. The only bright spot is Hoffman, who is quite amusing as a crime kingpin named "King."

huggingdelusions I was just kicking back feeling lazy when this fine movie appeared on TV. I figured it was a cheaply done film , but having no other use for my time I decided to give it a chance. Turns out the movie eclipsed my expectations a thousand times over. Not only was the acting good, the plot well put together, but the twist was amazing. Movies like Oceans Thirteen should take a notepad, a pen, and copy down how this movie was done because there is a lesson to be learned. Money and big actors may attract the crowd ,but it doesn't make a good movie. This my friend lacks the big actors and money, but its A GREAT MOVIE! I give this a 9/10 and i'm sure you will to.