not as good as all the hype

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This is my first time posting a review, but I felt that this picture in particular needs the introduction that I can give to it:When initially asked if I would recommend this film I responded, "Ah, recommend? ... I don't think so." In retrospect, I think that it can be appreciated, provided that one understands the viewpoint of its Israeli writer/director.I'll digress briefly to address the elephant in the room: Richard Gere. I was initially offended that he was allowed to (and that he had the gall to) play a Jew, but he was actually very good in the role. Without chewing the scenery, he showed that he's a talented actor who can "just go into character," and for him "less is more."Now, there are two main points I think every viewer needs to know: First, it's a very Israeli movie (and that's what it is); you either know what that means or you simply do not. And, secondly, Israelis are looking for "the message" or "the lesson" of the film, which isn't clear, and most complain that "it has no plot." Non-Israelis, on the other hand, are left asking themselves if there are gaping holes in the film that are just not filled in, and thus find it "very confusing" or "totally unrealistic." I, however, understand what the director is going for. He's seeing Israeli politics through the eyes of 90% of Israelis (who all want pretty much the same thing: "to part with the Arabs"). Through that lens, he presents the image an ideal Israeli political candidate who's actually capable of making a difference (i.e. "peace"), and when the wheels start moving to oust him, as they do in Israel with any successful politician, our attention is focused on the internal conflict of his "Diaspora Jewish businessman" vis-à-vis whether he can be altruistic enough, or just desperate enough, to realize the greater picture and appreciate the sincere relationship he has with this great scion, and perhaps to be ready to give up the short-lived glory he can finally reap from these events and even to fall on his own sword for the sake of the greater good.Once I realised what it was, I sat back with no vested interest in the outcome and just enjoyed it like a foibled fairytale (or a story submitted by a child) portrayed onscreen by an A-list cast.Without actively recommending it, I'm just telling the public what it is. A fourth-to-sixth grader's story (including that child's perception of reality and wishful thinking) presented by an A-list cast ... in which, if any of it were to happen then this is actually how it would play out. When you accept that this is the case, that you're missing nothing and that this is how Middle East politics actually plays out on the ground (that's right, you're not missing anything, this really is the circus of politics in Israel as it's portrayed in this film), then maybe you can sit back and allow yourself to enjoy it too.

This film is, above all, a pleasant surprise, and brings really good role of Richard Gere. It does have flows in the story, sometimes it is a bit difficult to follow, it requires quite a focused viewer, but it might not be necessarily a disadvantage after all. One of the best touches in the film is a few celebrated actors of the contemporary cinema, including European ones, who show up in really small roles, so this makes a film more hype and enticing than it would be otherwise. Its a nice touch, given that the main character is a gray-looking guy around 60, and Gere is playing him without much effort, it seems. The plot is placed mostly in New York, in the winter, and the freezing weather contributes to the atmosphere of the film, it suggests the uneasiness and constant discomfort of the main character who always must be on alert and watch his own moves, being constantly tossed by powerful people, and only occasionally accepted, sadly, for what he is. actually, not. So, Norman is, basically, a con, who pretends to be a consultant who offers business people to put them in the connection with other business people, for a small fee, or a favor, of course. The core of his scheme is the fact that he, actually, always lies about the people whom they pretends to know in person. He is usually claiming to be very close to people whom he has never met. His very well developed scheme means that he presents the same story to both the sides he wants to put in some business connection, so that, sooner or later, one of the sides really starts believing in that connection and invests some assets in the vendors of the other sides. More often than not, the move does not work out, and he gets discovered, however he always manages to escape since he is a small discrete guy with no office and no address who easily disappears when necessary, giving no much reasons to anyone to take a serious vendetta over him.However, he does have a relative, a nephew, a young successful layer, whom he sometimes asks for minimal favors, and who actually seems to know, at least partially, that Norman is doing these kind of cons around, but he does not take him seriously. And, at this point we see the irony of all this position: although Norman apparently lies about his status, contacts etc, many of his business strategies are quite acceptable for business people, once they can benefit from them . His nephew seems to be quite ready to accept the result of Norman's moves, when they work for him. That is visible in the end of the film, when he, in panic, quite obviously warns Norman to stay out of his usual ways, because it has become "too serious". The most intriguing part of Norman behavior is that he is actually not doing all this predominantly for money. What prevails is his desire to be important, to be part of the elite life, big decisions, to be appreciated by people, which is a striking contrast given his modest appearance and clumsy behavior. Although he constantly talks about millions, he is a stroller who walks around the city, as a small man, practically a homeless guy who seems to hang around a synagogue, when he does not do the "business". He is quite used to this kind of life, and his fatal problems start when he practically, makes a success unexpectedly well: one of his "business clients" becomes a prime minister of Israel. At that point, Norman gets a dangerous attention of the public, and starts getting involved in the things that overcome him. Here we come to the main point of the film: once Norman really gets in real, human contact with some of his clients, and creates something that resembles of friendship with someone, he gets in the trouble. He gets carried away, desperately trying to do the best for "his man". Once he has got a real recognition, he starts telling a truth, and than he puts himself really in danger. After the Israeli politician, he tries to make some human connection to a random passenger in a train, a mysterious woman, unaware that she is actually a deadly dangerous Israeli appointed secret service prosecutor. All of a sudden, when he becomes truly known in the circles of powerful Jewish businesses, Normans gets in a huge mess trying to do his usual schemes of connecting people. They were created for a liar, not for a real person. Also, they were created for business transactions, not for international politics and wars, and Norman, ironically, starts to be involved in the sphere that overcome him. The worst nightmare for him starts when he realizes that he has got his shadow on the streets of New York, who looks like a lunatic version of him, who became his imitator, and who even might have been sent out by Israeli secret service to spy on him.The end of the film somewhat looks a bit over-epic for my taste. Norman is heartbroken, and in serious danger, so he decides to practically sacrifices himself, tor a feeling that in the end, he has done a beautiful masterpiece of making all of his contacts connected and satisfied, and that he did it for a greater good, peace in the world, etc. The end is kind of over-romantic, and it does not really follow up a cynical atmosphere of the film. The story has other flows too - it seems unbelievable that Norman is so unaware of the seriousness of the high politics in the middle East, and that he believes that Israeli prime minister could be just as reachable as a usual contact, or that a secret service high officer in the train is just another business woman whom he should offer his services, and talk about his presents to prime minister. However, as he lies about everything, it also might be that he also just pretends to be Jewish, in order to be closer to business circles, which seems to be the case with his nephew too, who also in the end turns out to be a fake convert. It is, however, possible that Norman all the time acts like a big, naive child, who comes with all this crazy idea about approaching an Israeli politician, because he wants to save the synagogue which is in danger, and raise money for the simple reason: he is actually incognito living inside it, and he is fantasizing about being remembered as a donor . There are however some brilliant touches in the film, such is these: Norman is usually in a danger to be sentimental, or exposed, or caught up, or revealing too much, only when he is inside some spaces, some buildings, etc. When he is outside he seems to be functioning very pro, in the freezing weather, and that is why all his business conversations happen when he is outside. Also, the meeting with a mysterious Israeli prosecutor, of an European origin, shows Norman's naive, New York centered point of view, unaware of the bigger interests than simply making a small fees out of "business speculations". It is also moving , when In the end, Israeli secret service suggests to him that he is actually more of a clown, than a con, more a lunatic than a criminal, that is why they propose him a deal, which would help him walk away, cause they apparently know more about him than he himself, the deal he proudly will not take. And also, in the end of the film, we see that Norman actually new somebody really in person, out of all powerful people in New York - a guy who did a business fraud and was disowned by his community for that, but stayed remembered as a synagogue donor. That explains Norman's desire to do something like providing himself a better place in history, in spite of his mostly undignified life. .

I liked the movie. I know it's fiction, but I always make an analysis as if it were true.1. The guy who was stalking Norman, towards the end of the movie, and was a con artist, like Norman.....My question is....WHAT WAS THIS GUY TRYING TO CON FROM NORMAN? 2. The dinner at Arthur Taud's house. Norman got kicked out because Micha did't show up. When all the names of the guests were shown, they showed Mica's name,having a dinner seat, but not Norman's. And Mica's name was there because of Norman's con game. Norman was kicked out of the house because Mica wasn't there. So my question is....SUPPOSE MICHA HAD COME TO THE DINNER...WOULD NORMAN HAVE STILL BEEN KICKED OUT? AND IF NOT, WHERE WAS HE GOING TO SIT?

Talk about a little-under-the-radar wonder! The trailer for Norman (or: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer as its full title tells us what will occur) seems like this will be a sort of comic take on what one might've seen in Michael Clayton - or, as it becomes more apparent as time goes on in the movie (and by time I mean a few minutes) Better Call Saul's Jimmy - that this is a 'fixer', or a guy who will do what needs/must/wants to be done by any given businessman or individual or, as the Norman Oppenheimer (Gere) of the title suggests, other consultants who consult the consultants (as he is). It turns out to have some laughs here and there, but really this is a drama and one of almost (or just) Talmudic proportions. This is a story set in New York City but also concerns Israeli politics (up to a point, sort of, just deep enough for us to know that "peace" is possible somehow due to this one guy, Micha Eschel (Lio Ashkenazi), who manages to ascend to prime minister of the country and who Norman is considered a "close friend". Or, really, almost a close friend, as Micha trusts him while his other advisers don't; they met under circumstances that Norman basically, literally, chased down, following Micha when he was an assistant to an assistant to the PM, and bought him a pair of ludicrously expensive shoes. For the moment of grimacing Norman has ends up paying off for him a mountain of connections, which is what he's all about... though it's not all on the up and up exactly.This is a story that concerns how Norman, as well as the other characters, try to act (or decidedly don't act) moral or even fair in the circumstances. For Norman, it's all about first getting this one connection with Micha, and once he gets it, it seems like it should be all gravy. But Norman is also as Jewish people say a "Macha", someone who can run a big game through talk but may not be the most trustworthy person. Like with 'Saul', it's hard for us not to feel in Norman's corner because of how much of a hustler he is, and movie characters like this have an innate sympathy: despite the shady ways (or even because of it, that they're on the edge, an underdog, at worst an anti-hero), we want Norman to be the best of the "Normans" out there. And then comes the Jewish Synagogue and Steve Buscemi's Rabbi (yes, he's a Rabbi, and it's awesome), and things take more twists and turns.Joseph Cedar's script is sharp as a tack, but I was also impressed by the visual side of the film; Norman's on a train coming back from a DC event at one point and we see lots and lots of heads floating in the window of the moving train, and it's amazing how he is able to manage this sequence that could've been out of Capra or something (maybe a cinematic forefather of this sort of morality fable). And at the heart of it is Gere as Norman, making him so vital and amusing at times, but then also so sympathetic and sad and going across all the emotions that's necessary - and then some! If you've wondered where Gere's been for a while, there's the Dinner and then there's this. The latter is among his top, top performances of all time.Add on a wonderfully ambiguous ending and a thrilling final act, and you got a sleeper, buddy.