p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
A_Ratliff [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
"Entrapment" is an immediately endearing and extraordinarily entertaining caper flick. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones are thieves--or are they? Whatever the scenario, it's overshadowed by the sheer entertainment value of the film itself and the seemingly boundless charisma of its two stars. It's a high-tech heist flick, and it doesn't provide any depth or insight into the minds and souls of thieves. However, it does cause the viewer to root for the bad guy--which, when you get right down to it, is never a bad thing. The script isn't brilliant, it's not deep--it's not even particularly humane. But it is an irresistable slice of mindless cinema, one that is better than most slices of mindless cinema. And that makes all the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chapter11 [ 6.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Utterly insubstantial .. still, "Entrapment" is good for what it is, a good-looking film about good-looking criminals played by good-looking people. As a caper flick, it's feather-light and goes down easy. Which means, of course, that i don't remember a damn thing about it and won't until i see it again (which I probably won't), but I can guarantee you that Catherine Zeta-Jones's heinie looked wonderful when she slithered underneath those lasers, and that Sean Connery got to say some cool lines with his cool accent, and that Ving Rhames probably stole the show as the requisite "cool black guy." So there's some incentive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brandon [ 3.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
this film felt like it was an idea .. and, there were a few good ones. but still, wrapped around the ideas were cliched dialogue and cliched character relations, and well .. and well, i just hope connery doesn't make a habit of these types of films (this along with "the avengers").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babyduck [ 8.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
While the face of Sean Connery has been incredibly well known - and his act here a fairly conventional role for him I've been eagerly awaiting the comeback for Catherine Zeta Jones after her amazing debut in "The Mask of Zorro". So I'm glad to say that I wasn't dissapointed - in either her comeback or the film. The film actually held up quite well with all the star power in it. Ving Rhames as usual did an incredible job of stealing the spotlight in the few scenes he has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
astrosheil [ 4.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
The movie attempted to rollercoaster us through the mysterious layers of plot. But Connery and Zeta Jones just weren't a match. Not only was the chemistry missing, but the age difference just got in my way. The movie was too long. And by the time we got to the surprise finale, I could care less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DokBrowne [ 5.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Ever-the-captivating supersuave Connery (despite his typically awkward moments here & there); Rhames proves durable in any position, stealing scenes w/a charm that always suggests he's on your team; climactic heist has its genuinely tense minutes, especially when they're climbing across Christmas lights hanging off building -- probably the best scene, because it is the only truly engaging point of film; enjoyably surprising-but-not-hard-to-predict-if-you'd-been-paranoid-and-cynical-enough twist at the end that, as a new concept to the genre, is actually plausible & appropriate; bad stuff: plain, often cliche-maimed banter between Connery & Zeta-Jones (& most other characters in film) that dissipates the chemistry Jon Amiel was obviously trying to emphasize; a dishearteningly lackluster performance by stunning beauty Zeta-Jones, who shows poorly timed line-recital & uses wrong tones & suggests the wrong emotions for some dialogue, suggesting either a subpar role, nonexistent acting direction from Amiel, or Zeta-Jones' own misunderstanding of the character; oddly, many shots of Zeta-Jones appear as fuzzy glamour shots like those seen in the early days of film used to accentuate an actress' radiance -- they're wonderful exhibits of her beauty & a respective tribute to the obsolete technique -- but then, how necessary is that at all?; predictable goings-on, throwaway supporting characters (even Rhames pretty much); entirely uninvolving for 1st hour, then somehow partially recovers; a stunted idea altogether
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JD [ 6.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Dissapointing in the sense that I was expecting this to be far better movie then it was. Nothing horrible by any means but it could have used a little more action, and the chemistry between Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery was forced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love_Spoon [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Fun little story about thievery in the new millenium. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays an insurance investigator assigned to find out where a stolen Rembrandt painting ended up. Sean Connery plays a master thief who isolates himself from time to time in his remote Scottish castle, almost in a "What if James Bond had gotten to middle-age and decided to start stealing things?" role. Zeta-Jones' investigation leads her to Connery, and she goes undercover (but not well enough to fool Connery). The two rehearse and successfuly pull of the theft of a rare Chinese mask from a museum, and then now that she has his trust, try for the heist of the millenium: transferring billions of dollars into untraceable accounts right at midnight when the date rolls over to January 1, 2000. A predictable romantic tension is present throughout the film until the end, with a good old happy ending resolution. Still, this is not a hard film to look at, and it moves right along. Recommendable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 5.9 |
| No. Ratings | : 19 | |
| No. Reviews | : 9 | |
|
|
|
|