The Two Faces of January (2014)

Not even bad in a good way

From my favorite movies..

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Strange title for this movie. Maybe I just don't get it. But the movie itself is watchable. It's not the greatest even though I can see people really liking The Two Faces Of January. For me it was just a little bit too slow, but that's my opinion. It could have used a bit more conning since the main characters are both con artists. Other than that the story is enjoyable and easy to watch. The main actors are Oscar Isaac, Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst. The three of them are basically the only important actors of this movie so a bit of variety could have helped. But you can't fault any of them for their acting. That was all very good. Do I regret watching it? No. Will I watch it again in the future? No.

A wealthy American couple, Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen) and his much younger wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst), are enjoying the sights of Greece when, by chance, they meet Rydal (Oscar Issac). Rydal is also an American. He speaks perfect Greek and works as a guide, scamming tourists a few dollars at a time. Rydal is immediately drawn to Chester's money and Colette's beauty. But the MacFarland's aren't what they seem. They have secrets to keep much darker than stealing from unsuspecting tourists. It took me awhile to get through The Two Faces of January. I was interrupted several times by family issues. Each time, my wife asked, "How's the movie?" - my response, "I don't know." But I knew I couldn't wait to get back to it. The Two Face of January is slow- burn, old-style film making. You really have to take in the whole thing before you can make a decision. The movie is set in 1962 and it could have easily been filmed in 1962. It's all about plot and story and not special effects and other film making trickery used (actually overused) today. Many of the other IMDb comments compare the movie to a Hitchcock thriller. And while I agree, I compare it more to a film noir of the 50s. You know, one of those stories where a woman is the cause of a man's downfall and, in the end, everyone is damaged and no one comes out looking good. That pretty well describes what happens here.While I really do love this movie for the reasons I've written about, it's not without fault. First, the acting is inconsistent. Mortensen and Issac are fantastic, but Dunst is just good. She's nowhere near the caliber of her two co-stars. Second, there are a couple of places where the movie drags. It's never a deal-breaker for me, but I do think some scenes could have been better paced.Finally, I want to mention the locations. Stunning is the best way to describe them. Greece, Crete, Turkey - all film exquisitely. I think my favorite might have been Crete. The remote landscape perfectly matched the isolation felt by the characters.

It's 1962 Athens. Rydal (Oscar Isaac) is a tour guide charming and scamming his female visitors. He finds a mark in American couple Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen) and his wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst). A man looking for Dunleavy intrudes into the couple's hotel room. He's been hired by MacFarland's former clients and pulls out a gun. The man is killed. While trying to dispose of the body, Rydal comes up to return a bracelet. Rydal gets pulled into the suspicious cover-up that Chester initially claims to be a drunk making a pass at Colette. Rydal tries to help them escape while skimming off the top.This has the feel of 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' which is another novel from Patricia Highsmith. However there is a fun and audacity of the con that is missing. It has the Hitchcockian backbones but the story feels tired. Isaac is a bit detached playing it more like supporting role rather than the staring role this is supposed to be. Mortensen is smoking up a storm and has a bit of fun. Dunst is beautiful but her character is too clueless. I rather she not play the innocent. All the material seems to be here for a great psychological thriller but it comes together as more flat than exciting.

Acknowledged Screenwriter Amini's Directorial Debut is a stunning Old School Thriller that embraces its Retro Roots. A Slow Burning Suspense and Film-Noir's fatal fall from the Everyday, to the extraordinary webbed World of Crooks, Scams, and Con-Artists. Of course Money and Dames are at the Center of all of this, as it should be.It's Set in 1962 and the Tone is something of a Bygone Era without Flash and Hyperkinetic Hoopla. The Characters and Their Deceit and Desires are at the Forefront and its a Tangled Triangle of Wrong Turns and Wrong Doings.The Three Stars Shine as does the Grecian Locales and it is a Pretty Picture with the inner workings of Human Fallibilities. The Weakest Element in an otherwise Very Good Film may be the Unfulfilled Realization of the Extramarital Affair. It is sort of Off Screen and might be the Film's biggest Mystery.Overall, this is a Throwback and throws its Punches Effectively and Below the Belt. It's the Style of Filmmaking that Hitchcock is well Known and as an Homage it works beautifully. May be too Calculated and Slow going for Moderns with a Taste for Tastelessness, but that is Their Loss.