User reviews

The con is on is by far the worst movie of 2018 don't waste your time and your money on this movie bad screenplay , bad directing , and so on but surprisingly great cast of actors and good performances I hope this cast would have done different movie

I don't understand how and why previously successful actors become involved with toilet humour projects like this. The Mexican housekeeper is funny though; hence the 3 stars.

This is a strange and disappointing film.

I think this was supposed to be a crime caper but it fails miserably.

Considering the strong acting pedigree of the cast I was surprised that the characters were so one-dimensional. This did nothing for the story or production whatsoever. A character did 'x' - and mostly only 'x'. That was it.

This film isn't worth wasting your time on, and considering it has taken three years to be released perhaps it should have stayed in some archive never to have seen the light of day.

Managed 40 minutes of this before I turned it off. Bad acting, terrible accents and definitely not funny. I normally like Tim Roth and Uma Thurman and Maggie Q was good in designated survivor, but this is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time.

This is a complete train wreck of a movie. Great cast phoning in their performances, presumably for the money. It's taken three years since it was made for it to be released. They shouldn't have bothered.

I can't figure out what the purpose of this movie was or what it was trying to do. I don't know if it was attempting to display overacting on purpose as a parody of itself or if they were actually trying to be serious. Whatever it was it failed miserably. The result was an awkward movie that I had a hard time watching. It was caught in between something and something else. Very strange that they would even release this the way it turned out. They should have saved themselves some embarrassment and just shoved this one into the archives. It was absolutely terrible on all fronts. Not one good thing I can even think to say about this movie (well maybe that every scene didn't have them smoking fake cigarettes like a lot of others are doing these days) and I'm being generous. This is Hollywood at it's worst but hey, they've been doing a lot of this kind of garbage lately so this is nothing new. This is one of those flicks that almost makes me want to stop wasting my time watching movies. Luckily there are still some decent ones around but this is not one of them. Now I need to go find some deodorizer to get rid of the stink that is still in my nose. What is that smell anyway?

I cannot even go into depth about this movie it was so bad. I have no idea how i made it through the movie, but I Said i would finish it. Please please do not watch this as you will be begging for the time back that you wasted on watching this movie. I never write reviews, but this was that bad

I can't believe I paid to watch this on sky, managed 20 minutes before turning off. Uma and Tim, what were you thinking.

Despite a good cast and decent cinematography, this film is a complete fail. The script is horrendous; it drags along and goes nowhere. I think it is supposed to be comedic, but there is not a single laugh in the entire movie.

There was no reason for Hollywood to waste money on this script...it should be a career-killer for the writer(s). I can't believe this project looked good on paper and can't imagine why this project was green lighted.

The positive reviews must be for people involved in the film, because I can't imagine anyone actually enjoying this film. Troma would have passed on this script.

This is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. It is mind blowing that a group of talented actors (Alice Eve, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman) can sign up for such a bad project. The directing is bad to very bad. 1/10 is too much but the lowest I can give it.

I've said it so many times - "It doesn't matter who the director is, who stars in it (and here there are so many talented people) or how good the special effects may be - if it doesn't have a decent script then it will be rubbish." Here's the proof.

At one point, Tim Roth's character says; "The charm of this little escapade is rapidly wearing thin." That really sums it up.

I'm quite surprised about the low rating this movie is getting, the movie was quite entertaining and well acted. It's funny, keeps you well entertained, Tim Roth was awesome, Maggie Q was great and uma Thurman was fun to watch. The movie was really funny, reminded me somehow of snatch. If you are a Tim Roth fan then you'll love this movie.

This is one of those movies where the cast can be trully misleading in what concerns the quality of the movie.

Confronted with miserable and disconnected dialogues and a narrative that looks more like a patchwork, unrelated, lackiing any aesthetic or dramatic notion, one can only expect the actors to have been generously paid to submit to such a poorly produced film.

Such a cast - with actors who have proven themselves several times, over the yeras in both cinema and television - deserved a far more inteligent and challenging film. It looks like as if the Director just grabed a series of clichés from parts previously played by some of these actors and poured out senseless into a narrative with so much more potential.

Tim Roth appears as drunk and desoriented,Sofia Vergara a derranged over the edge woman, Maggie Q as a cold blooded killer... well, you get the point.

Being advertised and titled as a "con movie" kind of film, I was expecting, action, some witty and cuning dialogs, maybe a few satirical remarks and some action... well, not even close. What a waste of good actors!

The real con was using fine actors to attract people to see such a mediocre film..

Where to begin. The opening credits were lifted from Catch Me if You Can and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. It fails to capture the essence of either. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, half of which are title sequence, you become quickly aware that the editing was created by Stevie Wonder's stand in, Blind Freddie. Blind Freddie is actually only 10 years old and suffers from narcolepsy, evidence of which can be seen in the panning shots which are supposed to create a segway to the next scene but linger way too long. The acting is, for the want of a better term, dire. It is quite clear that most of the actors are low on cash and have done a turn for a quick injection in their pocket books, which only helps to seal the fate of this abomination. I liked most of the actors in this movie prior to seeing it, now their credibility along with my admiration have dispersed quicker than a whale turd. Whoever suggested this is a movie to stick at an enjoy, or the viewer has to work to enjoy, must be from the cast, crew, family or financiers. Truly awful suggestion.

After 'The Disaster Artist' something might have changed. And maybe now, some amongst us, might feel inclined to give a second chance to things that once we should have simply called 'trash'.

In this view, and in this view only (and only if you think you might be one of these persons), I could recommend you to watch this film.

Despite the fact the main characters are actors I usually like, the movie itself is a disaster. The plot seemed kind of interesting at the beginning, it presented some good elements, cars, houses, beautiful photography and beautiful location but everything was just superficial and the characters' storyline doesn't get deeper, real nor interesting. The script seems messy and the action is going nowhere. I got bored halfway through it and still expected something interesting to happen but there wasn't a single interesting moment during the 90 minutes of the movie. It lacks consistency and purpose.

Wow considering who is in it and how BAD it is .... speechless.

The Con Is On (2018) feels as if it is about three re-writes short of a finished sceenplay. It strives for a sort of Elmore Leonard / Steven Soderbergh vibe, but falls short of any vibe whatsoever. It has some great elements, including a talented cast, stunning locations, and beautiful automobiles. Production values are solid, with a refreshing lack of jiggly-cam shots and no detours from the plot to present sophomoric political views or allegories. The characters are interestingly self-absorbed, amoral and corrupt. Several have histories together, which are displayed in flashbacks or exposition - tools which need to be used more adroitly to maintain the pace. And yet, they somehow seem superficial. To an extent, there is an obvious effort to ridicule vacuous, self-indulgent hi-so types. The characters are absorbed with superficial concerns and seem a bit flighty and vacuous. But they also seem superficial in being underdeveloped.

Despite several strong elements, the script falls flat in executing several Screenwriting 101 elements. The protagonist is presumably Uma Thurman's Harriet; however, this character doesn't fit the role of a heroic lead, much less a sympathetic protagonist. One view is that the protagonist is the character with whom the audience identifies and wants to see succeed. But Harriet is a self-centered, conniving, self-indulgent sociopath and isn't very likeable, so it's difficult to identify with her character or to care whether she succeeds or gets her comeuppances. She's not an antihero, simply a lousy protagonist. Another view is that the protagonist is the character who must change the most, acquire new skills and knowledge and forge new alliances in order to overcome a seemingly unsurmountable obstacle. But this is a Point-A-to-Point-A story, like U-Turn and After Hours, where the characters have a series of misadventures, but wind up pretty much back where they started.

The movie lacks a consistent dramatic perspective. Flashbacks can be a very effective technique, particularly in detective stories, to visualize the possibly conflicting accounts of potentially unreliable witnesses, as in Rashomon or Lone Star. Otherwise, flashbacks and dream sequences should be limited to one character.

Tim Roth's Peter is good as a cynical, sardonic sidekick, but is practically catatonic in most scenes from drugs and alcohol. Stephen Fry's Sidney is irredeemably corrupt - one of those characters you love to hate. Alice Eve, Maggie Q, Sofia Vergara and Uma Thurman have each played beautiful, seductive characters in the past, but despite various subplots centered around unbridled passion, infidelity and unrequited love, TCIO is not very sexy. The con involves exploiting mistaken identities and deception, but no confidence game. The characters cook up a plot that isn't particularly devious or ingenious. The pace is ponderous. Despite a relatively brief ninety-minute length, it seems to drag.

I cannot believe that somebody (or somebodies) allowed the making of this for 13,000,000. They would have been better off to go out into the woods with the money and burn it. There's not a single likable character in the whole film. All of them are what I call "Darwin Award" winners (for service to humanity by removing themselves from it). Unfortunately, none of the main characters gets killed. They just go on with their idiotic behaviour. Is this what the "film" makers are trying to say: That the world is just full of alcoholic, gambling addicted thieves and killers, and we have to get used to it to survive? Even the Catholic Church? In short, neither clever nor funny (okay, one genuinely funny scene with the ring - but highly improbable). And it took 5 (!) production companies to get this mess made. Maybe that's what it was - an elephant designed by a committee that came out an aardvark (with apologies to aardvarks). Too bad there aren't negative ratings here. I expect this to win all sorts of razzies from wherever they give them out.

You won't see a worse movie than this. No surprise it took 3 years to get released.

What I wonder is, how does something like this work? It is inconceivable there could be any good reviews or word of mouth recommendations. Does it aim to get its production costs back purely through product placement?

Incidentally.....I gave 2 stars solely because I've read that 1 star reviews don't get counted. It should really be 0 stars.

I liked the movie as much as "Last Looks" (2021). The reason is that the director has the courage to present the narrative in a post-noir (neo-noir) style that is very difficult to understand. All Hollywood clichés and stereotypical characters are used in the movie. This amazing cast is sure they are aware of which movie they are playing in. Contrary to the comments about the movie, Tim Roth and Uma Thurman in particular are amazing. The film makes fun of the film industry in its own narrative. On the other hand, it reminds us that today's cinema is an art. I was very surprised when I learned that the production was completed in 2015 / release date is 2018. The expectations of the audience from the films are different. Movies are no longer watched in the movie theaters. Digital platforms are domained by Generation Z and Y consumers. Congratulations to James Oakley for his movie! I think it will be one of the films that those who are interested in the art of cinema like me will one day discover and add to their cult archives. I wish more movies like this were made. Generation X moviegoers like me are longing for such movies!

This is not a good movie to see if you have a drug or alcohol problem. Tim Roth is chugging Vodka in too many scenes, and various people pop pills or cut cocaine as their need arises. Gambling and theft is a way of life and many icons are smashed. I laughed out loud a few times.

Some scenes shot at Chateau Marmont where John Belushi snorted his last snort.

Anti Hollywood and Movie star madness of any generation. If you are in the industry, forget it. Has very cute dog who was the real star!

No spoilers here!!!

This movie is an absolute POS...Tim Roth's dreadful cockney London accent will drive you mental as his lines are pretty much "fahking 'ell" or "fahk this". The story is predictable, pedestrian and subsequently, utterly boring. It looks like it was shot on a very tight budget but trying to look like a jetsetting blockbuster because I noticed that at one point, when they were supposed to be in America, you can see the cars on the road behind them driving on the left...rubbish attention to detail. The acting was cringeworthy in the extreme. A very poor attempt at an old English style "Ealing Comedy" executed disastrously. Trust me 3.5 is a generous rating for such utter rubbish

There's a great script here struggling to get out. Alas, it fails to even open the door.

Writer/director! When will producers learn!? I'm guessing Never so we continue to be plagued by these half-a**ed screenplays that desperately need a 2nd or 3rd eye to curb the writer's sense of brilliance! (That's irony for our American friends.)

Let's start with the title. It's not a movie about a con. Jesus! C'mon guys, at least get the terminology right. It's more a sort of comedy caper/heist movie, but it's not even that.

The worst character by far is Tim Roth's Peter. No doubt Roth enjoyed playing him although it would be as challenging as waking up in the morning. He's so lacking in couth it's absolutely impossible to imagine he could ever have gotten involved with Alice Eve or Uma Thurman, zany and cracked though their characters may be.

Maggie Q must have had a similar challenge with her character.

Highlight of the movie is Stephen Fry playing, well, Stephen Fry's "Dear boy" character, but he does it so naturally and so well. Although not a major character he does help redeem it from the pit.

It's not totally unwatchable. Well, if you're looking for a good plot or well-defined characters or well, anything, then it is...

Okay, it has good production values and a stellar cast but they're simply wasted, wasted, wasted.

I didn't think it was quite as bad as other reviews suggest which I find hard to believe! But it is extremely disappointing.