Self-made billionaire Thomas Crown is bored of being able to buy everything he desires. Being irresistible to women, he also does not feel any challenge in that area. But there are a few things even he can't get, therefore Thomas Crown has a seldom hobby: He steals priceless masterpieces of Art. After the theft of a famous painting from Claude Monet, the only person suspecting Thomas Crown is Catherine Banning. Her job is to get the picture back, no matter how she accomplishes her mission. Unfortunately, Catherine gets involved too deeply with Thomas to keep a professional distance to the case. Fortunately, Thomas seems to fall for her, too. Written by
Julian Reischl <email@example.com>
When Thomas Crown is signing the sale contract in the boardroom, it can clearly be seen from the movement of the pen that he is signing "Pierce" and not "Thomas." See more »
Catherine Banning, whilst picking holes in the investigating detectives theory, says that "the thieves prepared a load, conservatively, 1,000 lbs of paintings and 800lbs of men that we know about in a chopper with a 600lbs useful load", suggesting that this could never happen.The chopper is then correctly described as a Sikorsky S-76. However, there are four men on the job in total (800lbs), plus the load which is stated to weigh the equivalent of five men (1,000lbs). Add the helicopter pilot and you have the equivalent weight therefore of 10 men. Yet the S76 is a 12 man helicopter so should easily cope with this much weight. Catherine's figure refers to the baggage compartment capacity. They'd simply put the pictures inside the aircraft with the passengers. See more »
Obligatory comparison to the first film: The first Thomas Crown Affair really wasn't that great with its split screens that would make even Brian De Palma sick. Like other films from that era of history, it's lost some of its shock with time but unlike true classics, Thomas Crown Affair has lost a lot of its charm. Worth a viewing, but not worth worshipping.
Only vague concepts carry over from film to film, really. The same basic plot curve, same basic events, same basic characters, except everything is retold and reinterpreted from a different point of view. And I much prefer John McTiernan's interpretation despite the more glaring plot holes such as 'Why didn't the security tape reveal who set the briefcase in the gallery to begin with?' Theoretically the culprit could've been caught then and there, but then there'd be no movie.
The caper's execution is rather spectacular, far more entertaining than the original's, though much less likely to happen. But who cares, really? McTiernan directed this as a film you can't take 100% seriously anyway. This is a fun cat and mouse movie, not a documentary.
The premise-an art theft-strikes me as more interesting than the original's robbery; besides, how many films have bank robberies? How many films steal art? It's something different.
The characters and their portrayals are colorful and interesting, walking a thin line of camp but never pushing it too far. This movie isn't about 'Everyman' nor is it meant to. It's about a billionaire who gets his kicks out of high stake gambles and wages-how do you do that without a larger than life portrayal?
I particularly liked the ending sequence, as goofy, perhaps corny as it is, it's still fun. Especially the music selection, Nina Simone's Sinnerman, a well chosen track. Bill Conti provides the underlying score, which proves quite unique having a slightly bouncy 'piano recital' quality to its first few themes. Very fitting for the museum setting. It's a CD worth purchasing for the sake of variety alone.
In the end, Thomas Crown Affair works not because of the film's subjects or its characters . . . it works because of -how- it portrays everything. Its tone is fun and relaxing, and it never tries to take itself too seriously. After all, we are at the movies and not a training seminar . ..
55 of 76 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?