Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Lilian van Ooijen I'm a sucker for Pierce Brosnan. Hence I could not let this movie be unseen. In addition, it would be about a rich playboy who steals art, which provoked my interest. A 6.8 on IMDb, I just dared it.In retrospect a good choice. You'll be back in the 90s with this smooth movie. Simple tension, sincere love, cuddly humor and more of those concepts that have totally disappeared from the contemporary film industry. Nowadays everything is complex and complicated. In the nineties you could still enjoy the genius of a wealthy businessman.I was not really attracted to the screen every moment of the movie so I cannot call the story extremely good. Yet, the quasi-nonchalant act of Pierce Brosnan - Thomas Crown in this story - combined with a fascinating image, forms the quality of this film. Think of tropical holiday homes, luxurious dinners and exciting nightly scenes.Should you see this movie or not? Watch this movie if you like to watch nineties movies. If you do not feel the urge to see The Thomas Crown Affair based on this description, I have to confess that you probably do not miss anything. This is not a must-see, but a want-to-see.

elg-35534 This review CONTAINS SPOILERS, but to be fair it's pretty much impossible to spoil the experience of watching this turkey beyond what the movie itself achieves. To illustrate how bad this movie is I'd like to call your attention to one small scene. The film begins with a classic intricate heist of priceless art from a high-security museum. That plan is quickly revealed to be an elaborate cover for the real theft of one painting by uber-cool billionaire Thomas Crown, played by the steely-eyed wooden-expressioned Pierce Brosnan. The actual theft is facilitated by Crown's placing his briefcase to prevent an absurdly hefty security gate from fully closing on the room housing the painting. The briefcase is later shown to contain a highly engineered titanium structure built to sustain many tons of pressure. Keep that fact in mind.The female lead, Catherine Banning played by Rene Russo, quickly identifies Crown as the thief based on nothing in particular. Feminine intuition, perhaps? Anyway, she sets about trying to extract a confession from Crown by means of irresistible hotness which I'm sorry to say she's a bit too old and inept to carry off. The rest of the movie is basically a series of dream dates for Banning along the lines of Pretty Woman interspersed with scenes of her annoying the police and interfering with their investigation. The police official, Detective Mike McCann played by Dennis Leary, who for no apparent reason kowtows to the civilian Banning, is the most likable and believable major character in the film. Having seen Leary's real-life temperament, I found his portrayal of nice guy Detective McCann to be an impressive piece of acting.Now about that briefcase. If you watch the scene where Crown places it to block the security gate, you'll see that his hands are bare. Given the obvious design of the case as a tool for burglary, even the most plodding dullard of a police detective would have simply taken fingerprints from the case and thus been 95% of the way toward nabbing Crown. That step was never taken. Instead the police humor Banning and provide occasional relationship counseling as she parades herself in and out of a series of ridiculously opulent and/or see- through garments while enjoying her dates with, or agonizing over, Crown. Everything in the movie, IMHO, is just as poorly thought out and ineptly executed as the briefcase debacle. That holds true right down to the music and the disruptingly obvious product placement shot for a can of Pepsi One. The real crimes against art in this movie are the ones committed by the director, writers, actors, composer and musicians, and the real theft is of any time you might spend watching this travesty.

toptna This movie had so many good things going for it: handsome and debonair lead actor (this movie could have been written for Brosnan),good supporting cast, great scenery, surprise twists and turns, etc). However, I thought all of that was undermined by a horribly miscast Rene Russo as the female lead. I've always loved the performances of mature actresses such as Helen Mirren and Judi Dench who never lost their appeal even as years passed. But featuring Russo as Catherine Banning made me cringe. Her actions and dialogue never fit her post-menopausal persona. She looked more 54 than her actual 44, and I found it made her role more annoying than alluring. At times, even pathetic. It's not Russo's fault. Writers simply wrote the part for a young seductress as the lead, and then casting tried to shoe-horn Rene Russo into the role. I would have much rather seen Brosnan and Russo play chess (like a scene in the original version), than see Russo grind on the dance floor wearing a formal gown. Indeed, Russo appeared to rely on her looks and sex more than her intelligence as the film progressed. In the original, 1968 film version there was a memorable kissing scene between Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway that went on to become famous. The kissing scenes in this 1998 version made me say,"Ick."The original and the remake are different enough to stand on their own. If you weren't wild about the original, you may still enjoy the remake I like both films, but for different reasons.

HelenMary Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan play the Faye Dunaway and Steve McQueen characters in the original. Whilst this version is obviously more modern, slicker, more colourful and less implausible, it lacks some of the gentle class of the original. Russo plays the insurance investigator as a hard-nosed woman, who will do anything. She seems more of a loose cannon and less together that her 60s counterpart. However, that perhaps makes her more believable, and her investigation has certainly fewer plot holes and more actual procedural parts. Pierce Brosnan is good in this role; but plays Crown rather smarmy and cheesy, rather than cool like Steve McQueen. I'll admit I don't much like him as an actor, particularly, but this has him as role I think he seems to suit. The film production is excellent, it's an attractive, slick looking film and it plays out less like "rich people montages" as the original does but there is an element of that. The characters have some depth both explicit and suggested and I like the excitement from the few twists so there is a little suspense. I've had trouble reviewing both these films so suggest viewers watch both and compare and contrast but both stand alone as entertaining examples of the heist genre.