Entrapment (1999) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
284 Reviews
Sort by:
Star Power Raises Film a Cut Above
dglink24 April 2005
The action races from New York to London to Scotland to Kuala Lumpur, while three intricately plotted and technically executed thefts take place. The action twists and turns, the characters may or may not be what they seem to be, and crosses follow double-crosses. Thus, there is little time for the viewer to be bored or to ponder the implausibility of it all. But, in a sleek glossy film such as this one, logic is not a key factor, it's the look and the action that count, and both of those attributes, especially the look, make "Entrapment" an entertaining film. Sean Connery, who plays an aging master thief, can anchor any film that he appears in, and this one is no exception. His presence alone grounds the movie and nearly makes the implausible plausible. However, while Connery is one of a handful of men who have retained their looks and masculine appeal beyond middle age, the likelihood that the luscious Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is at the peak of her beauty here, would fall for him tests the bounds of credibility. Perhaps the romance was written in as a fantasy for us near-codgers and to give us hope. Besides the excellent cinematography of the human scenery, which also includes the dependable Will Patton and Ving Rhames, the lush photography of the Scottish Highlands offers an unsolicited advertisement for the Scottish National Tourist Board. If rooms were available in the luxurious castle that Connery uses in the film, this would have been written there.

Thus, "Entrapment" seems to have everything: beautiful people, solid performances, breathtaking scenery, suspense, and excitement. There is definitely enough here to entertain a not-too-discriminating viewer for two hours. Of course, afterward, one might ponder why all of the expensive high-tech security systems that are depicted in the film quickly fall victim to a pair of thieves who seem more amused with themselves than intense and focused when they are stealing such incredible sums of money. If theft were as easy and casual as Connery and Zeta-Jones make it seem to be, we could all have a lot more fun in life plotting and executing heists instead of commuting and staring at computer monitors.
36 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
All I'm seeing is Catherine and the laser beams
Kristine15 March 2004
That was the coolest part of the movie. I mean, I'm not a guy or anything, but I have to admit she does look sexy. I really enjoyed "Entrapment". It had high action and intensity. I saw the film over HBO, I showed my mom and she was in love as well. Although this is not my favorite Connery film, it's still worth a look. The love story wasn't really needed. But you'll deal. Over all, the film is good. It was well directed with some remarkable actors. And remember LASER BEAMS! If you don't like the film, you will definatly like LASER BEAMS! Hehe. I would recommend this to fans of Connery or Jones.

29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You won't remember much about the movie other than Catherine Zeta-Jones in the laser scene
SnobbyDude1 January 2005
I remember how, after seeing this movie, everyone in my office was talking about Catherine Zeta-Jones and how she was, arguably, the most beautiful woman in the world. The women in the office went to go see it after hearing all the fuss, many going just to confirm that "she isn't all that." In a way, it's a bit of a shame because it's a decent heist movie with a good plot and pretty good acting. Sean Connery was, as always, excellent in his role and the cinematography. It all gets overshadowed by the Catherine Zeta-Jones laser scene that guys will be thinking about for days (Years?).

Does any of this make the movie any less entertaining to watch? Probably not.
58 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Can stealing be an art form? Convincing look.
Michael O'Keefe13 November 2000
This movie is one of those that keeps the characters purpose twisting and turning. You have to second guess the ending twice. The vivacious Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a top notch insurance agent that specializes in art theft. She takes on the mission of catching a master thief(Sean Connery)by convincing him that she too is a supreme art thief.

Just enough action to keep your attention. Wonderful scenery and the more than just beautiful Zeta-Jones makes for advanced heartbeat. The age difference of the two stars fits the script like a glove and gives a fleeting glimpse of romance.

Camera work is intense. The big chase/escape scene is awesome.

Also appearing are: Ving Rhames, Maury Chaykin and Will Patton.
38 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Entrapment is a good, entertaining movie.
Philip Van der Veken27 September 2004
I have to say that I liked watching Entrapment. It is a good, entertaining movie. But what I don't understand is why this movie is called a comedy? It didn't really make me laugh. It did make me smile though and that is already a good thing. There were some humorous parts in it, but in my opinion, that's still not enough to call it a comedy.

If it isn't a comedy, what is it than? It's a well produced action thriller which was able to keep my attention from the beginning to the end thanks to the many twists and the good acting. You could say of course that Sean Connery is still used to playing this kind of roles. He wasn't James Bond for nothing. He still knows how to play a smart gentleman who likes to play with a lot of gadgets and pretty ladies... And what an opponent he has! Catherine Zeta-Jones is really nice to look at in every way...

Connery is an art thief who is able to pass the best security systems, stealing the painting and making fun of the security people by changing the original painting with a picture of Elvis. Catherine Zeta-Jones investigates the crime scenes for an insurance company and tries to catch Connery. To do so she will try to convince him that she's a thief as well, that she has planned a huge robbery but that she needs his help to complete it.

Thanks to the many twists, this movie will keep you guessing till the end who is what, who did what to who and why,... And the ending is, in comparison to other movies of this kind, a pure surprise, very subtle and truly original. That is why I reward this movie with a 7,5/10. Truly a good job!
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The characters carry this film
perfectbond7 September 2003
The best aspect of Entrapment is the wonderful understated romance between Sean Connery's "Mac" and Catherine Zeta-Jones' "Gin." I thought this was far more moving than many of the swoony full-blown love affairs I've seen in other movies. Zeta-Jones is very glamorous and got to model a lot of swanky clothes. Connery is weary and reserved as befitting his age and that made the May-November romance all the more poignant. Ving Rhames again was the street wise tough, a role he has done many times before. The action sequences while quite good are not as exciting or suspenseful as in other movies of this type (ie. The Thomas Crown Affair). Still I enjoyed this movie thanks mostly to the the chemistry and as I said understated romance between Mac and Gin. Recommended, 7.5/10.
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Perfect Example of A Hollywood Star Movie
Sean Rutledge4 May 1999
I did not go into "Entrapment" expecting too much, and well, there wasn't much. I have come to the conclusion that there are only two reasons why people may like this movie and both have to do with the two leading stars. Sean Connery is universally seen as the best looking older man and his Scottish charm is of course also one of his attractions. Then there is Catherine Zeta Jones, a red-hot newcomer whose luscious figure would make any man want to watch. "Entrapment" is a perfect example of a Hollywood star film, which has the sole purpose of raking in as much cash as possible. Any attraction to the film is based entirely on its stars. I saw the movie with a number of people who liked it, and when I was discussing it with them, all of their praise was based on the two leads.

The director, Jon Amiel is generally an unknown film-maker to most people. He has done "Copycat" and "Sommersby", both of which are average films and whose success can be attributed to the stars. "Entrapment" does not contain any breakthroughs in terms of editing or cinematography, and it certainly does not have an original plot. We have seen the formula that makes this movie many times, perhaps in varying inflections, but essentially the same. So what's left, entertainment value. Many people reading this review may think that I do not look at films in terms of entertainment value. Not the case. There are many films that I have given excellent reviews to based entirely on the merit of entertainment. Two recent examples that I can think of are "Cruel Intentions" and "Go". But "Entrapment" lacks anything close to what might have been an entertaining or interesting plot. The idea of basing a heist that will only work if it is conducted on New Years of the Millennium is a great idea. I would love to see a film about the meticulous planning and the execution of such an endeavor. "Entrapment" tries to accomplish too much and ends up leaving such huge plot holes that the film feels rushed and absurd.

Gin (Catherine Zeta Jones) takes on the role of an insurance agent/undercover thief who hooks up with Robert (Sean Connery) a rich career criminal to execute a couple of huge international heists. They train together in Robert's castle. There are a few scenes here that I enjoyed. I especially liked the scenes of Gin practicing avoiding lasers simulated by strands of yarn

Of course Robert and Gin have a romantic tension that is complicated by the rules of being a thief. You can not trust each other if you're romantically involved, right? At first, they do not seem to get along. Hollywood loves to put together two misfits who have to put aside their differences to accomplish some task. This formula has marked the cop-buddy film for years. Take for instance the first Lethal Weapon. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover at first hate each other. And in "Die Hard: With a Vengeance" Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson did not at first get along, but in the end their differences are put aside and they emerge as friends.

"Entrapment" also exists as a catalyst to Hollywood's ongoing trend to have romantic encounters between young, extremely attractive women, and much older men. There is a forty year age difference between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta Zones. Other recent examples of this trend include Michael Douglas and Gyneth Paltrow in "A Perfect Murder" and Harrison Ford and Anne Heche in "Six Days Seven Nights". This trend is not necessarily a negative thing, but in "Entrapment", it's just too blatantly obvious and cliched.

"Entrapment" is a movie that had potential, but got lost in a number of cliches and its hurriedness. Connery and Jones do have chemistry and look good together, but forget the romantic tension; leave it for romantic films. Forget the first heist; it feels like filler to keep us occupied until the final scenes and climax. A strong film could have been made with the planning of the year 2000 heist. Because it would be the heist of the century, so many ideas could have been developed which would have made for a much more entertaining film.

** out of ****
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Walked into the trap
EdRooney1 May 1999
"Entrapment" It's got two handsome stars, a smooth portrayal of stealing, and just a hint of action and romance. Considering that this doesn't end at the prom or a warehouse, this is a breath of fresh air. Director Jon Amiel has a very checkered past, but with "Entrapment", I've never seen him so sure of himself. The film glides effortlessly between some sketchily drawn romantic inclinations to well-executed scenes of training to actually exciting action moments of the heists. It's a nice package.

The film is really about the art, or maybe even the beauty, of stealing. A refreshing idea that hasn't been considered in some time. There is a giddy glee in just watching the thieves use high tech mechanisms to outsmart the systems that house the loot. It's a carefully paced film, so the usual action-payoff-drama-action-payoff-drama form for these types of movies isn't used here. It's entertaining as hell, and the climax holds many thrills.

Like I said before, the two leads are some of the finest looking in the film biz. Sean Connery makes a wonderful choice by playing off his old age. As the character, he seems overwhelmed by Catherine Zeta-Jones. It makes for a few moments of sly comedy. As for Ms. Zeta-Jones, it has been said of her that she takes the best close-up in current motion pictures. "Entrapment" proves that statement time and again. While she does struggle trying to keep down her natural Welsh accent, Zeta-Jones makes for a lively sidekick to Connery, and despite the ballyhooed age difference, they work together just fine.

Despite a lackluster and forced final, "Entrapment" works better than you may think. It's easy to get hung up on the age difference or Connery's hairpiece, but the movie is too much fun to be bothered with such minute details. This is good pre-summer entertainment. I give the filmmakers kudos for keeping the tone light and the suspense on 11.------------ 8
39 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fairly enjoyable heist flick - effortlessly watchable, totally forgettable.
Jonathon Dabell30 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The heist caper genre, so popular in the '70s, rears its head with this uninspired but fairly enjoyable 1999 flick. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones generate genuine sexual chemistry despite their age gap (Connery was just shy of 70 when the film was made), and there are a couple of suspenseful heist sequences along the way. Between the high spots the film is rather bland and forgettable, with little of the humour that made the heist movies of yesteryear such fun (try to imagine The Hot Rock or The Italian Job stripped of their sense of humour, and you'll have a fair impression of what this film has to offer).

Virginia Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) works for a top insurance company. Also, secretly, she is a master cat burglar who greatly admires the audacity and criminal success of another thief, Robert MacDougal (Sean Connery). Virginia double bluffs her boss, Hector Cruz (Will Patton), into allowing her to track down MacDougal. Her official brief is to become his partner-in-crime for a daring heist, after which she is supposed to turn him over to the police. But in reality, Virginia actually DOES want to be his partner-in-crime.... and has no intention of turning him in whatsoever! Aided by MacDougal's buddy Thibideaux (Ving Rhames), the thieving twosome complete their robbery successfully. Later, MacDougal reveals his plans for an even bigger job. With Virginia as his accomplice, he aspires to pull off the near-impossible theft of $8 billion dollars from the world's tallest building in Kuala Lumpur on Millennium Eve. By this point, Cruz has begun to suspect that Virginia may not be working on the side of the law any more. In a taut finale, MacDougal and Virginia attempt to complete their ingenious crime before the security forces catch them red-handed.

Entrapment is slick and effortlessly watchable stuff with little discernible style of its own. Connery and Zeta-Jones, as already noted, overcome their remarkable age difference to make for a rather attractive pair. A good measure of any heist flick is whether your sympathies lie with the crooks or the law. In this one, the burglars win hands-down.... they are infinitely more charismatic than the "good guys". The globe-trotting narrative provides some exotic locations in which the stars can indulge in their posturing. Kuala Lumpur especially comes across as an exciting and interesting locale, somewhat underused to date in the movies. Entrapment has its share of silly moments, including a gratuitous sequence in which Zeta-Jones trains for her first robbery by writhing in a skintight cat suit through a maze of wool (strung out in such a way as to replicate the pattern of an infra-red alarm system!) Too many scenes also have Connery vanishing into mid-air to avoid capture, a trick that becomes increasingly hard to swallow and hampers the film's credibility. All in all, though, Entrapment is a harmless time-killer that keeps you moderately entertained, especially if you catch it in the right frame of mind.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Movie Shouldn't Have Fallen Flat, But It Did
ccthemovieman-111 May 2006
I have this film two chances and liked it much better the second time. I guess I expected more on the first viewing, but why not? Sean Connery usually is good, Catherine Zeta-Jones was a hot, new commodity at the time, and I usually enjoy heist films.

This movie had not just one but TWO heists in it, so it should have been really good.....but was fair, at best.

It just wasn't that entertaining, too flat in too many spots. Connery looked at times like he was just going through the motions. His usual spark was missing. It's not bad....so-so as a thriller goes, but really not memorable and certainly not as dramatic as it should have been.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Heists & Surprises In Glossy Y2K Thriller
seymourblack-15 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Entrapment" is essentially a lightweight caper movie about a scheme to catch one of the world's greatest art thieves. It features an enjoyable series of action sequences, daring heists and enough double-dealing, twists and intrigue to keep its audience engaged and entertained throughout. This is pure escapism and a fun film that's a great vehicle for its two lead actors who make the most of the considerable amount of screen time that they're given.

After a priceless Rembrandt painting is stolen from a New York skyscraper, insurance investigator Virginia "Gin" Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) suspects that the culprit is international art thief Robert "Mac" MacDougal (Sean Connery) and persuades her boss to allow her to go undercover to pursue him. She meets up with Mac in London where she poses as an art thief and suggests that they join forces to steal an extremely valuable Chinese mask from Bedford Palace. Despite their success in stealing the mask, Mac remains very suspicious of her real motives but then she interests him in a plan to carry out an even more daring heist which could net them $8 billion.

Gin's plan involves carrying out a sophisticated computer based robbery at the headquarters of the International Clearance Bank located in the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. The type of theft that she envisages exploits the fact that the bank's computer system has to be shut down briefly just before the new millennium and so the heist is eventually carried out in the countdown to the year 2000.

The tension builds as they attempt to carry out their plan at precisely the right time with Gin's boss and a very large number of security officers monitoring what's happening in the building. Mac and Gin complete their mission successfully but in the process inadvertently set off the alarm system and have to make an incredibly dangerous escape by clambering precariously along some cables that link the building's two towers. The remainder of their plan doesn't run smoothly and they have to escape the building separately before meeting up again the next morning at Pudu train station where a further series of unexpected developments follow.

The relationship that develops between Mac an Gin is amusing to watch as there's a certain amount of attraction between them but also a significant absence of trust. Mac clearly appreciates Gin's physical beauty especially in the sequences where he breaks into her hotel room unexpectedly and also when she's practicing the contortions required to negotiate a network of laser beams. On the other hand however, he is very suspicious of her motives and on one occasion asks, "has there ever been anyone you couldn't manipulate, beguile or seduce?" and she replies "No".

Commendably, the quality of their performances and the amount of charm they exude, enable Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones to compensate greatly for the lack of witty repartee that would normally be a feature of a story involving their kind of relationship.

A series of exotic locations, excellent cinematography and well-executed stunts are also used well to further enhance the enjoyment of this glossy Y2K thriller.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty, but dumb
jwoseph30 April 1999
Entrapment is a pretty movie to watch, but you'll have to switch off your brain if you really want to enjoy it. The action takes place on (not in) New York skyscrapers, beautiful castles, high tech museums and all over Kuala Lumpur and Catherine Zeta-Jones and/or Sean Connery are in every single scene. There's something for everybody to see. But, the missing details make the film an unbelievable mess. Wouldn't you expect a huge rush of cold wind if you opened a gigantic window on an upper story of a tall building in the middle of winter? Just like pro-wrestling, you'll enjoy the movie more if you think as a twelve-year-old does and look at all the pretty moving pictures on the screen.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What was Sean thinking...
necron199921 February 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Why was this movie made..?! Sean Connery seemed to sleepwalk through his lines. There was no chemistry between him and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Ok, I have to rant a little bit. I will always give good movies their due, but this movie was terrible.


1) When they are in the big party scoping out the castle to get ready to steal the mask or whatever, the clock says 10:30 pm. Next we see them under the castle blowing up the floor to match the clock bells at midnight. So this HUGE extravagant party was over and everybody completely cleared out in 1 and a half hours? Maybe they came back the next night, but I don't think so. With this movie's pacing and direction, it was impossible to tell what day was what, when things happened etc.

2) That stupid looking Mega-Tower that they were to infiltrate. Give me a break. Hmmmm, big sky-walk 1000 feet off the ground, I wonder if the thieves are going to somehow end up hanging on it or falling from it...wow what a surprise! They did!

3) The ending was plain atrocious. Sean's friend lets him go because of some stupid fake kidnapping plot? They finally caught the art thief of the century and they are guarding him with..hmm...2 cops? GAWD, I get so sick of this crap.

I could go on, but you get the picture. If you are smart, you will not get THIS picture.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spare us... spoilers...
phiggins21 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
As one of the world's great cynics (that was me snorting with derision during "Bambi") I feel I can spot an insulting, obvious piece of hack-work a mile away, but not even I was ready for something as tawdry and soul-crushing as this. "Starring" Catherine Zeta-Career-Move and Sean - Will This Do? - Connery, it offers nothing to entertain, enrich, or even divert any viewer unlucky enough to have it downloaded into his or her brain. With zero chemistry between them, the lovely Ms Zeta Jones and the charismatic Mr Connery run rings round each other for no sensible reason. Is he double-crossing her? Is she double-crossing him? Is Ving Rhames in this for anything other than hard cash, and lots of it? Is Zeta attempting an American accent? Perhaps, but that does not explain why she keeps saying "combuder" instead of "computer". Watching her grapple with the name "Kuala Lumpur" in half-Welsh-half-American is genuinely moving.

And could the high security in the world's tallest building, filled with some enormous banking combuder in its own enormous room, be perhaps a tad tighter? They could , for example, install some armed personnel, CCTV, motion sensors, etc. Instead, we are witness to a security system so lax it might as well be protecting a ZX spectrum and some pennies in a bucket. Also, it would help if the dolts in the CCTV control room were awake and looking at screens, rather than just sitting there saying, "they seem to have disappeared". "Is there any art in this building?" asks some other dolt, trying to work out why Cathy and Seany have arrived at this building, on Millennium Eve. Yeah, that's it, they're here to half-inch a couple of Klimts. Meanwhile, there's some banking control room somewhere where guys in shirt sleeves stride around, yelling things like, "This is for real, people!" Wouldn't you love to have a job in banking that was like that? Catherine has this brilliant plan where she slows down time for a few seconds, enabling her to nick eight billion dollars while different banks around the world are off-line ("We're about to lose Hong Kong!"). It really is that simple. Needless to say, things go wrong, resulting in Sean and Zeta hanging off the world's tallest building for a while, as perfectly inappropriate fireworks go off around them. With faxed-in performances, lacklustre direction, bland cinematography and "exotic" locations, "Entrapment" is the epitome of dull film-making.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't get trapped in the theater with this one
Paul P11 May 1999
Sean Connery cashes a check, and Catherine Zeta-Jones becomes an early front-runner for a Razzie worst-actress-of-the-year award in this unimaginative and often laughable movie.

While there are a couple mildly interesting heist scenes, the movie throws most of its energy into trying to build sexual tension between its two uninteresting lead characters who--as in so many bad movies of recent years--were born half a century apart. The flimsy mood is broken whenever they speak to each other, which they do in dialogue that seems like it comes from a Saturday Night Life parody of itself ("it wasn't clever, it was. ..PERFECT!"). The title of the movie is spoken in one of the dumbest exchanges of all.

If you manage to stay to the end, you will see Entrapment disintegrate into a bunch of bad cliches. These include the heroes dangling from the top of a skyscraper by a steel cable (which of course must start to snap) while a crowd of thousands of people below (that is looking up, no less!) doesn't notice. Then there are several surprise revelations that don't fit with the logic of what has happened earlier. Apparently, the writers felt that they could make up for writing a by-the-numbers heist script by ending with the tired thriller cliche of a-half-dozen-pointless-plot-twists-that-make-no-sense.

On the plus side, there were several things I learned about the business of cat burglary from this movie: (1) If, after you steal a piece of art from a museum that is swarming with police, you and your partner feel it necessary to stop outside and scream at each other at the top of your lungs, don't worry. Nobody will notice you! (2) Apparently, a bank won't notice if several billions of dollars are suddenly shifted into a new account. (3) While I have had posters damaged in the mail after sending them in cardboard tubes (which subsequently got crushed), cat burglers are not afraid of this happening to a priceless canvas. (4) The easiest way to break into a skyscraper is to scale to the top on the outside.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What WAS that?
TheEtherWalk25 December 2002
Oh man this movie is crap. The plot is convoluted and the movie is weak overall. And Sean Connery is FAR to old to get anywhere with Catherine Zeta-Jones, if you know what I mean.

And the ENDING. OMG the ending self destructed the entire movie and was COMPLETELY illogical and pointless. One of the worst endings I have ever seen in a motion picture (the train goes by and they disappear into thin air) which completely ruined the mood of the film and left me feeling like I had been watching a fantasy or sci-fi movie.

A much better bet if you like this kind of movie is The Thomas Crown Affair. Compare the two then TRY and tell me Entrapment was better. 3/10
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
We've all seen it before
DIE HARD-422 June 1999
"Entrapment" is nothing new and nothing special. It has two excellent actors - that I thoroughly enjoy watching - in the leading roles: Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but it could just as well have been Michael Douglas/Sharon Stone or Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman. Because this movie, like most other movies, is marketed and sold through its stars.

There's nothing wrong with this movie, it's just that we've all seen it before so many times. It doesn't have anything extra at all. You know what you're gonna get, and that's it !! That's all you get. You're not gonna be bored. No, you're gonna be entertained. You're gonna get action, unexpected plot twists, some laughter, and some romance. The same ol' package. Sure it's fun to "know" what you're gonna get, and then get it, instead of being disappointed. But watching movies like "Entrapment", can sometimes feel like opening exactly the same christmas gift, year after year. That's why I think it's mediocre. And since I think it's mediocre, I'll give it the rating: 5/10
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's just not enjoyable.
Tom May19 July 2001
Very much a sub-Bondian crime caper, "Entrapment" is a film that doesn't induce much comment, so I can but be brief. Its plot is tedious and far from the big deal it thinks it is. The only characters really given any time are the starring pair. Any chance of the dynamic between the two working is undermined by a cringe-worthy sentimental ending scene, although the dynamic was hardly that interesting or tense to begin with. Connery, once an effective James Bond, but never a true "character actor", is dull here, but at least has some residual screen presence. In short, he's no better really than in most of his recent and very mediocre films. I suppose he's at least less "OTT-in-a-bad-way" than he was in "The Avengers".

Catherine Zeta Jones acts almost as the catalyst for the plot; much prancing "surveillance dodging" merely to show off her figure, although none of it had a hint of true sensuality. The lack of true chemistry, perhaps understandable given the 40 year age difference between the stars, is a major undoing. I don't see why Ms Jones always feels she has to adopt an American accent in her films; this and the rest of her vaguely posturing performance fail to impress. A very bland, conservative film, with not an ounce of innovation, and barely even much fun.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It took 80 million and 4 writers to be THIS bad.
CFKane-31 May 1999
Easily the worst movie this year. If you're looking for character development, good dialogue or a halfway decent plot, this is the wrong movie. Even if you're looking for Catherine Zeta-Jones' butt, you're still going to be disappointed. (You saw it all in the previews.) The only compelling aspects of the completely 2-dimensional characters were due to the fact that he's Sean Connery and she's Catherine Zeta-Jones. But even James Bond with a Hellenesque beauty at his side cannot save this cerebrally-challenged script.

The worst part is that it was too painful to make fun of. If a cheap and bad horror movie is a man falling off of his bike that you can laugh at (and sometimes laughs with you), than "Entrapment" is a catastrophic and very painful train wreck. If your Connery/Zeta-Jones fix is unsatiated. Go rent "Goldfinger" and "Zorro." If you just want to get out of the house, please save yourself and see "The Matrix."
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slick and disposable star-vehicle...your mind flushes it away while you're watching it
moonspinner5516 July 2010
Globe-trotting adventure about the attempt to nab an infamous cat burglar by a beautiful insurance investigator who may not be what she first appears. Confusing, derivative, and underwhelming teaming of two attractive stars, Sean Connery and Catherine-Zeta Jones, who look good while encased in this glittery, shallow box. Beneath its slick exterior, the film is merely a retread of several heist pictures from the past--better ones, mind you, than this. One stops counting the clichés after a while, during which time the foolish and formulaic script from Ron Bass and William Broyles nearly sinks the charismatic couple in the foreground. * from ****
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Barely Watchable, Hardly Memorable
alexduffy200010 September 2003
"Entrapment" is one of those Hollywood movies that are so bad, you have to wonder how they got made in the first place. Just awful, I'm giving it 2 out of 10 instead of 1 out of 10 because the beginning is kind of interesting. Then it turns into this utterly silly movie with Connery and Zeta-Jones as super-thieves who slink around in black stealing things... it was just unwatchably AWFUL. Nothing like this would ever happen remotely in real life. I place the entire blame for this movie on screenwriter Ron Bass, who to his credit, wrote the great script for "Rainman." But this piece of junk... it's not worth any further comment.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awful, Awful and even Worse
kiemo6 June 1999
Generally in movies the movie goer has to suspend disbelief while watching the movie, but to enjoy this movie you would have to had taken your brain out of your head. Without revealing any of the plot to the reader, the two things that I thought most ridiculous was the age difference and the many, many flaws that occurred in the movie. Example - Jones says that a job HAS to be done the next night - but two nights pass before they do they job - stupid! The producers of this movie used Jones sexually draw to get the 18-49 males to this movie, and thats the only reason that this movie has any numbers. my rating - 4
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rent Mission Impossible or Goldfinger instead
uflbri9 May 1999
Although it was refreshing to sit through an entire action movie without seeing one fatality, this movie was dull. The action sequences were unimaginative and predictable. The problem is that the characters don't run into any problems. What makes crime capers fun is that they never quite go as planned.

The film was written by "My Best Friend's Wedding" screenwriter Ron Bass. More than likely, it was the result of a pitch meeting, where established writers try to convince studio bosses to pay them to write treatments, and ultimately scripts. The disadvantage of this method of script creation is that often, thin ideas are never fully fleshed out. This is a prime example of that defect. Instead of developing a story, the studio simply attached two charismatic stars to the project and hoped that the rest would take care of itself. Based on the mostly-positive reaction to the movie, it can be argued that such hopes were well-founded. I disagree. The movie needed more conflict and a more developed plot.

Rent "Mission Impossible" if you want to see how action sequences and contrived plot are SUPPOSED to unfold. Or if you're dying for a glimpse of the ever-entertaining Sean Connery (or you need to work on that hilarious impression of him that you're developing) rent Goldfinger or another Bond classic. This movie just isn't worth your time.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scooby Doo meets James Bond. So cheesy
Robert Mansfield7 May 1999
A 90s' attempt to emulate James Bond which goes sadly wrong. The plot is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies and the relationship between Sean Connery and Catherine Z-J is frankly laughable. Apparently Sean Connery vetoed love scenes, because it would be unbelieveable with the age gap. However, in an effort to do portray a frisson of excitement, any semblance of reality has disappeared. Honestly, how many single 65-year-old men would turn down Catherine Z-J if she threw herself at them? Point proven!

I'm afraid that this is totally geared towards the US market and Catherine Z-J will do very well out of it, but with a dire script and unbelievable plot, the only trap being set here is luring punters in to pay and see it! Sorry!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews