Good concept, poorly executed.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Crime is a 2003 film based on a foreign one, Nueve Reinas.Rodrigo (Diego Luna) is a young Mexican male who, while in a casino, tries the old screwing up the waitress so she gives the wrong change con, when he's spotted by Richard (John C. Reilly). He gets Richard out of the casino by claiming to be a cop.Richard no longer has a partner, so he offers to take on Rodrigo. Rodrigo has a little money but he needs more to pay his father's gambling debts.Richard has his own problems, namely, his sister (Maggie Gyllenhaal) whom Richard cheated, along with their brother, out of their part of their mother's estate. She's suing him.Richard is contacted by a businessman, once an associate of his, who wants help selling a forged treasury note to someone who needs to leave the country the next day due to his visa expiring. Another man intrudes on the deal, and Richard needs more money and asks Rodrigo to use his savings. John C. Reilly is a wonderful actor. Here, playing a crook through and through, a racist, an anti-Semite, a man who cons his own family, he's excellent, actually bringing humor to a character who is reprehensible. He was actually cast as Stanley Kowalski in the Natalie Richardson "Streetcar Named Desire," a casting I'll never understand, although I'm sure he was excellent, if the wrong type.Diego Luna is sweet and unassuming as Richard's partner, who seems out of his depth.I felt this film moved a little slowly and also, I have to admit that I'm tired of this type of plot. I saw it coming a mile away. It was somewhat fresh 40 years ago. No more.I love suspense, mystery, crime drama, etc., so I wonder how many of this type of movie I'll have to sit through over the next 30 years.However, it has entertainment value and good performances, and if you don't watch these films as much as I do, you may love it. Hope so.

I liked Criminal. Almost a lot. This is a good film about the art of the con. Not a great film, but a good one. The Grifters, The House of Games, and, of course, The Sting, are great films about the con. Criminal is a peg below them, but still very enjoyable. The film stars two standard bearers, John C. Reilly and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and an actor I had not previously known, Diego Luna. Reilly plays Richard Gaddis, a professional con man who thinks he is something special. Gyllenhaal plays his sister, Valerie, a concierge at a swanky hotel in Los Angeles, who is more cunning than she lets on. Luna portrays Rodrigo, Gaddis' seemingly compliant understudy. All three give solid performances.The film is well crafted in every respect. I understand now that the film is basically a remake of a foreign film, Nine Queens, which I didn't see. Maybe if I had seen that film I wouldn't have enjoyed this one as much. Since I didn't see it, I don't really know. But since you probably haven't seen that film either, I recommend you see Criminal.I have yet to see a film yet in which Reilly puts in a bad performance, so I wasn't surprised that he did well in Criminal. As a good con man, and as an accomplished actor, he doesn't tip his hand, he's polished, and he is credible. Actually, that goes for the other cast members as well. Unlike The Sting, where you know who is getting stung, and by whom, and even why, in Criminal you think you do, but you don't. It's more like The House of Games, where you don't know what you think you know. Suffice it to say, I didn't see the curve coming. One thing I didn't like about the film is its title. Its bluntness undermines the skill of subtlety with which this film was made. So enjoy this film and find out what you know. And what you don't know.

The biggest complaint I have with movies about intricate, complicated cons is that everyone says exactly the right thing at the right time. In real life even the best con man can't count on that level of predictability.Take, for example, the first scene, where Rodrigo is conning the casino waitress. Who's to say that Richard will automatically jump in and save him? An experienced con man would more likely just sit and smile to himself, watching the inexperienced kid; at most he might try to intervene on the kid's behalf, but to assume the identity of a police officer? Not believable. And for the casino security guard to just back off like that is implausible too.Or take the scene where Richard presses the call buttons looking for an old lady and finally finds one. He pretends to be the woman's grandson. How can he be so sure the woman even has a grandson and if she does, wouldn't she know the boy's voice and know that she wasn't talking to the right person? What lonely old lady would spend 10 minutes talking to someone over an intercom without once saying, "Come to the house and visit with me"? John C. Reilly must have studied "House of Games" for his character because at times he sounded just like Joe Mantegna, but that's where the similarity ends.I agree with the person who said that the movie should have ended with Rodrigo/Brian meeting with Valerie. Why can't filmmakers give their audiences a little credit for common sense? Don't they think we could have figured out that it was a double-cross from a simple scene like that? No, they have to spoon-feed us by showing all the various other characters gathered around a table (once again, just like in "House of Games").As for the part where the "mark" pays for the forged note with a check, I can't believe that any con man worth his salt would allow someone else, even his sister, to take the briefcase and have sole control over it and then patiently wait several hours for the results and then accept that it took the mark eight hours to get a certified check and not cash.And if that wasn't enough, what idiot goes into a bank where he is not known, with a check for $750,000, and ask that it be cashed on the spot? A true con man would know to open an account with a nominal amount, deposit the check, let it clear, and then draw against it the next day.I haven't seen "Nine Queens", but for a better con double-cross I would recommend "House of Games".

i cant remember the name of the main actor...john?james? anyway he is the one with the short brown curly hair. He has the stage presence of a dead vampire wearing a garlic necklace and charm bracelet. Every time he opened his mouth the words just stunk. I dunno if it was the actual writing or if the fault lies squarely with him but the dialogue seemed amateurish and the little tricks of the trade which helped us to understand his character, seemed childish. It's like we're supposed to be thinking "oh my, wasn't that so very clever" but in actual fact, it gets a "meh." This movie sucks. do not watch unless you wanna be shocked that they make movies like this.