Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

MARIO GAUCI After the dismal box office and critical reception of SORCERER (1977), William Friedkin went for a change of pace with this light-hearted piece which, however, proved that his previous misstep with was no fluke: in fact, his career never really picked up after that costly bit of self-indulgence (even so, I’ve only just acquired the director’s fair update of his own THE FRENCH CONNECTION [1971], namely TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. [1985])! Anyway, this concerns – in a somewhat uneasy comedic vein – the famous January 1950 robbery from the Boston branch of the titular depository of payrolls destined to various key firms; incidentally, the same events had previously been depicted in the 1976 TV-movie BRINKS: THE GREAT ROBBERY. Its coup is in the meticulous period reconstruction (which earned production designer Dean Tavoularis, already responsible for BONNIE AND CLYDE [1967] and “The Godfather” films among others, an Oscar nod) – Friedkin himself had earlier demonstrated his prowess in this area with another comedy about an equally notorious incident i.e THE NIGHT THEY RAIDED MINSKY’S (1968).Interestingly, too, the cast of daring crooks here comprises several reliable character actors of the era – Peter Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Paul Sorvino and Warren Oates; 1940s Hollywood veteran Sheldon Leonard turns up towards the end as J. Edgar Hoover(!), but Gena Rowlands is wasted in the role of Falk’s wife. The comedy revolves around Falk and Garfield’s bumbling duo – the former is the mastermind and the other his often resentful relative/underling. After a number of ‘jobs’ go wrong (with Falk even doing a 6-year stretch in jail) or the ‘funds’ don’t last (one amusing sequence has them following a payroll van around and lifting a handful of money bags with every stop it makes – since the officer left to ostensibly guard them is apparently in continuous slumber!), they set their mind on robbing the Brink’s warehouse.After studying the place from the outside (such as time of arrival and departure of the various employees, and their toilet habits!), Falk manages to get inside the building to get an idea of how it’s set-up; with the place left unguarded during the night, he’s able to break in with relative ease to look for possible alarm systems and determine the model of the safe – the former is an ancient device, but the latter is up-to-date and unassailable. Oates, a war veteran, proposes to dent its surface with a bazooka fired from the roof of the opposite building(!) – however, saner heads prevail and they organize a good old-fashioned stick-up (complete with the gang putting on grotesque masks). Eventually, the sum they make off with is over $1.5 million – which, at the inflation rate of the day, was considered the biggest haul in U.S. history…thus bringing the F.B.I. in on the case.I’m not familiar with the facts of the real case but, here, the denouement is rather unexciting as Oates is brought to justice for another (minor) theft and, since he has a very sick sister and can’t possibly make the whole jail-term, he spills the beans on The Brink’s Job! Still, the gang apparently had the last laugh as, in spite of Hoover’s promises, a very small percentage of the money was retrieved over the years (as per the postscript) – and, following the lapse of their individual sentences, one assumes each picked up where they had left off… Ultimately, the film is O.K. (though curiously undistinguished among the spate of heist pictures made during this cynical era) – and especially disappointing given the intriguing subject matter and the welter of talent involved (including a script by THE WILD BUNCH [1969]’s Walon Green).

willab I've been trying to pick up a VHS of this flick for 2 years and finally won it on an auction. It was on AMC a few years back and I caught about 30 minutes of it. I was so intrigued that I started to look for a chance to buy it.I thoroughly enjoyed this film, a great cast with a young Peter Falk leading the way. Peter Boyle was realistic in his portrayal of the money launderer. Used VHS tapes are out there and although this robbery occurred in the 50's there is enough suspense and a ton of surprises for you. Sometimes a true story beats the best fiction a writer can come up with.

angels_egg1 Whatever that word is, this movie is it. A who's who of nineteen seventies character actors. Peter Boyle was churning them out like crazy in the seventies, appearing in Slither, Hardcore, Where the Buffalo Roam etc. Alan Garfield and Paul Sorvino in one movie together!? Alan Garfield who was in Mother, Jugs and Speed, Slither, Busting ... and Paul Sorvino who was in Where's Poppa, The Gambler etc. And then Warren Oates as well!? The most recognizable character actor of the decade!! Warren Oates was the Steve Buscemi of the 70s. Cockfighter, Race with the Devil, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, The Border, Dillinger etc. etc. etc. The Brink's Job is funny and tight, with a once in a life time cast for 70s movie buffs.

Jakealope Compared to the hyped up, over violent fare that passes for crime movies, this movie is no contender. But it's a warm, funny, well paced caper flick about some North Boston Italians who stumbled on to the fact that the great Brink's was a paper tiger.