I was really enjoying this until the final act. Julianne Moore is fantastic throughout this entire film, and I thought all of the characters worked well on-screen together in the various dynamics. I thought that all of the cons were pretty predictable, yet I was still interested and entertained. However, that changed in the final act, and I felt that the final act started to go a bit overboard with the whole thing, and the final con was simply too much and lacked believability. Still, I enjoyed the film and would recommend it.

There is a lesson about narrative tricks and overuse in here, and I think many could learn from it. Fool the audience once, that's impressive, fool them twice and you begin to push the boundaries of "clever" and tread into the realm of mild annoyance. By the third time, it's so telegraphed and predictable that you've lost all spark and also end up dulling the sharpness (heh) of the initial uses of the technique. Sharper does exactly this, and by the final hoodwink it's so obvious what it's doing that it collapses the house of cards they've built to this point. [spoiler]Julianne Moore's character claims to be a professional conwoman, but can't seem to see one of the most telegraphed plays in the whole movie right before her eyes? All integrity is lost, and the wrap up feels rushed and unsatisfying. [/spoiler] What begins as a slick, contemporary social-heist-thriller (what a mouthful) quickly devolves into a very predictable romp that doesn't feel satisyfing under the weight of the first two acts. Not a bad film by any means, but doesn't sort out the threads in the final act to jump to the 7 or 8 out of 10 territory. Fair, but could have been so much more.

The first half of the movie was actually good then quickly became boring.

This movie was a trip! It had me guessing the entire way through. I wasn’t too much of a fan how they did each of the character backgrounds but I get how it played into the overall story. The final act was a good one and had me saying, hell yeah!