Despite trying to keep his swashbuckling to a minimum, a threat to California's pending statehood causes the adventure-loving Alejandro de la Vega (Banderas) -- and his wife, Elena (Zeta-Jones) -- to take action.
At the offices of a Japanese corporation, during a party, a woman, who's evidently a professional mistress, is found dead, apparently after some rough sex. A police detective, Web Smith is ... See full summary »
An eccentric scientist working for a large drug company is working on a research project in the Amazon jungle. He sends for a research assistant and a gas chromatograph because he's close ... See full summary »
Following the theft of a highly-secured piece of artwork, an agent convinces her insurance agency employers to allow her to wriggle into the company of an aging but active master thief. Connery's burglar takes her on suspiciously and demands rigorous training before their first job together--stealing a highly-valued mask from a chichi party. Their deepening attraction and distrust could tear apart their partnership but the promise of a bigger prize (some eight billion odd dollars) by Zeta-Jones keeps the game interesting. Only, who's playing with whom? Written by
During Catherine Zeta-Jones' breakdown of the intensive security measures she and Sean Connery will encounter in the millenium heist, Rolf Saxon is continuously shown throughout the sequence as the director of the millenium compliance testing. He was introduced in a similar fashion as C.I.A. Analyst William Donloe when Tom Cruise conducts the breakdown of the C.I.A. break-in at Langley, VA in Mission: Impossible (1996). See more »
When Gin is stealing the mask, she uses powder to reveal on last laser beam that Mac can't she because she is blocking it. However, if she had actually blown on her powder hard enough to get enough powder off to see the beam, she would have set off the alarms. This would be the case if it would have been normal foundation, however there is no consensus to the fact as it could have been a much lighter, and, therefore, not as likely to set off the alarms powder. See more »
I stole the Rembrandt.
Mac! I stole the Rembrandt.
...and I painted the Sistine Chapel.
Oh come on! Ask me how I did it.
So how'd you do it?
I came in from the roof. I dropped twenty floors down on a McNeel descender.
Well, you must be one hell of a climber.
I am a hell of a climber.
[begins to scale the side of the room]
[...] See more »
A movie with a preposterous plot, exotic locations, absurd action sequences, and so much chemistry between actors
A movie with a preposterous plot, exotic locations, absurd action sequences, and so much chemistry between attractive actors that we don't care. Gets by well enough on style and star chemistry and the basic allure of watching a tightly-planned caper unfold. A certain sunny sloppiness almost redeems Jon Amiel's throwback caper flick.Connery and Zeta-Jones not only look great together, they work well together, too.Connery and Zeta-Jones are such fun to watch together it almost doesn't matter how little sense the movie makes -- and their relationship is far more gleefully perverse, weirdly chivalrous and surprisingly interesting than the trailer makes it look.Cleverly updates the formula with a sprinkling of fun, fin-DE-millennium touches.Entrapment luxuriates in the best Hollywood big bucks can buy: superb sets and cinematography, spectacular locations, expensive stars. During the opening credits the camera glides through a romanticised Manhattan skyline. The steel and chrome gleam, the lights of the skyscrapers are digital jewels and the frame of the screen is dynamically pierced at odd angles by a laser-like red beam. This sequence holds out a tantalising promise for the movie, particularly when the camera rests on a sinuous cat-burglar entering a high, tightly shut window with elegant ease. We expect an exciting, sleek and slick caper movie, something like To Catch a Thief (1954) or at least (let's not be too greedy) Arabesque (1966). It's not the stars' fault that Entrapment is disappointing. Sean Connery gets the Cary Grant treatment here, made the object of his co-star's desire. Catherine Zeta-Jones chases him just as surely and shrewdly as Audrey Hepburn chased Grant in Charade (1963). Given the 40-year age gap between them, her instigation is presumably meant to make their romance less risible, but it's an unnecessary precaution. Close-ups reveal Connery's skin is losing the battle with time, but his appeal was never really based on youth.
Connery's stardom rests on his ability to represent a man completely at ease with his masculinity and his sexuality better than any other star of his generation. There was always something a bit suspect about prettier men like Paul Newman (cf. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, 1958) while tougher guys such as Clint Eastwood seemed too stiff to be turned on by anything but seaminess (Tightrope, 1984). Connery, however, deploys his physical size, gruff and commanding voice, a glance both sure and sly and a stillness that can pounce into graceful movement at any moment to project a sexuality so confident it can afford to be nonchalant and playful. We are easily convinced that what Zeta-Jones wants from him, give or take a couple of billion dollars, is delivery on the promise of a rough good time.
Zeta-Jones more than holds her own here. Connery may be the object of her desire, but Zeta-Jones is meant to be the object of ours. The sight of her leotard-clad figure practising gymnastics in order to avoid the burglar alarm's lasers is more spectacular and pleasurable than the action set pieces. She emerges from Entrapment a full-blown star, flirting with such intelligent sultriness not even a man of Connery's strength can resist. Good alone but even better together, the two have an undoubted chemistry.
Entrapment aspires to be nothing more than a bit of glamorous nonsense, but although it has done all right by the glamour, it has perhaps done too well by the nonsense. Very badly structured, the story begins to feel ripped off half way through, its maze of double-crossings never delivering a narrative payoff. At the unbelievable and tacked-on ending, even a cynic might feel a twinge of discomfort at the lack of even a half-hearted gesture towards a moral rationale for the action. We're meant to root for these thieves just because they look gorgeous, seem meant for each other and are good at their work.
The fact that the combination of sex and capital as spectacle is thought to need no other rationale says a lot about millennial culture, and would make a good subject for another movie. But this is by-numbers genre work which has forgotten a few sums. Entrapment fails as a caper film because it neglects that fundamental ingredient - a credible plot, evidently something even the biggest chequebooks in Hollywood can no longer guarantee.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?