Lucky 13

"The Thirteenth Floor"
Overall Rating: ***½


While similar movies coming out around the same time is nothing new (take "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail-Safe," for instance), lately, we've been treated to a pair of big budget clones each summer. In 1996, two alien invasions landed with "Independence Day," and "The Arrival." In 1997, two volcanos erupted in "Dante's Peak" and "Volcano." Last year, we were bombarded with a comet in "Deep Impact" and an asteroid in "Armageddon." Coming early this year, we plug into a pair of virtual-reality films: "The Matrix"--which very nearly earned four stars--was the first. Though sharing the common virtual reality elements, "The Thirteenth Floor" still manages to be very different from "The Matrix;" it also manages to be almost as good as "The Matrix."

We know something is strange from the first scenes. Hannon Fuller (Armin Mueller-Stahl), apparently an important and wealthy man in 1930's Los Angeles, leaves a note for Douglas Hall with a bartender (Vincent D'Onofrio) at the luxury hotel where he's staying, then goes home--to a modest apartment over a store. We soon learn all is not as it appears, however, when Fuller wakes up inside a contemporary computer lab. Yet, things aren't even that simple, since after he leaves an answering machine message for Douglas Hall, he is stabbed. The next morning, we see Douglas Hall (Craig Bierko) find a bloody shirt in his apartment, then meet Jane Fuller (Gretchen Mol)--Hannon's daughter who seems to appear from nowhere.

Overall, the story is a strong point of "The Thirteenth Floor." The murder mystery will keep you guessing who killed Hannon. Though we see apparently condemning evidence in Douglas Hall's possession, we believe his story that he has no knowledge of the crime. The daughter's sudden appearance and the note in the computer simulation, result in an intriguing mystery--and both make perfect sense when explained.

The special effects, such as they are, are excellent. Mostly, these effects are limited to the sets in the simulation: it looks like an elaborate and apparently accurate--though perhaps somewhat nostalgic--simulation of the 1930s. There are a few true special effects that are impressive, but simply saying what they are would give away the end of the film.

The actors also handle themselves well. Craig Bierko is good early on when he claims to be innocent--and later on when things become more complicated. The best actor is probably Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays two very different characters in the programmer Whitney, and the bartender whose appearance is modeled on Whitney's--so he must be both charming and devious; he's convincing in both roles.

"The Thirteenth Floor," however, has some real problems. There are several things that are never explained. The laser light show coming from the virtual reality machine seems to be pure fluff. For some reason, the people using the simulation choose to enter the bodies of people with everyday occupations--store clerks, bartenders, etc.; why they don't simply choose millionaire playboys for their simulator personae is a mystery to me. The big hole is why the real killer chose his particular victims; it's implied strongly, but not completely explained. The film is also predictable in places. In one place, it works well: you can clearly see the big twist before Douglas figures it out--but you still wonder if he will get it. Unfortunately, the end becomes predictable, though the problem is not unforgivable since the event that gives it away establishes something else we need to know.

Another thing I don't understand is why the movie is rated "R." There are a few graphically depicted murders by various methods, but the violence is limited compared to, for instance, a typical James Bond film. Add in some bad language and sexually suggestive scenes (though no real sexual content or nudity), and it seems as if the filmmakers shot for PG-13, and the MPAA missed. It's not real family fare, but you'll see worse on TV.

If you've enjoyed "The Matrix" or "Star Wars: Episode 1"--or action sci-fi movies in general, then it's no mystery: "The Thirteenth Floor" is worth seeing.


Title:"The Thirteenth Floor"
Release date: May 28, 1999

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***½

Aprox. run time: 100 min.
Director: Josef Rusnak
Writer: Josef Rusnak, Ravel Centeno-Rodriguez, Daniel F. Galouye (original novel Simulacron 3)
Stars: Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Vincent D'Onofrio, Dennis Haysbert (plays Detective Larry McBain)

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/13Floor.htm

Added to blog site: 8/5/09

Darth Vader's baby pictures

"Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace"
Overall Rating: ****

This review may contain spoilers--please be advised.
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

---

Not such a long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, people eagerly anticipated a prequel that everybody knew would open with a few yellow paragraphs flying across a starfield--a film that would teach the general populace what a prequel was. I am, of course, referring to "Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace"--the most hyped movie I can ever recall.

And what hype: some films make the TV news; but with this one, the promotional toys hitting the stores made the news. As for those toys, there are more than ever--I know they didn't have "Star Wars" Lego sets when I was a kid--I would have hounded my parents to get them if they existed. Then, there was the "Austen Powers II" preview that tortured people desperately hoping to see the "Star Wars: Episode I" preview. Add to that the lines for the actual film: a friend of mine who desperately wanted to see the very first show told me that 800 people lined up at the Orange Park Mall on the day tickets became available--a week before the premiere (and, I publicly thank this friend for purchasing my ticket for me: I know he said he wanted to see that media-circus, but I did not). The crowd here in Orange Park should be considered light when you bear in mind that people in Los Angeles camped out for a month, waiting for tickets. Add in mid-week midnight shows to allow people to see it that much earlier, and people showing up in costume. The build-up was too much for any film to live up to. The amazing thing is that "Star Wars: Episode 1" almost does live up to it's billing.

"Star Wars: Episode 1" opens with the Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his almost fully-trained apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) boarding a Trade Federation ship to begin negotiations; the issue being that the Trade Federation--a government-backed franchise set up to collect taxes--has blockaded the planet Naboo. The negotiations, however, are predestined to fail, for Senator Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid)--the real power behind the blockade--is intent on invading and conquering Naboo. While Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi manage to escape the ambush, and rescue Queen Amidala of Naboo (Natalie Portman), the damage to their ship caused by running the blockade forces them to land on Tatooine. There, the meet a young slave named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) whose powers with the Force defy belief.

As every preview suggests, the special effects on "Star Wars: Episode 1" raise the bar. Nearly every second of the film has some type of visual effect; perhaps as subtle as a light saber, or as expansive as an army of droids fighting an army of aliens. In many films that rely heavily on such effects, the usual pattern is that something will look like it came out of a computer; "Star Wars: Episode 1" breaks that pattern. The look is sharp and impressive throughout--everything that anyone could expect and worthy of the "Star Wars" franchise.

These highly impressive visual effects help keep the story moving faster than the Millennium Falcon. The roller-coaster ride still holds your attention; with enough distance between the setting of this film and the original "Star Wars," there is some suspense. Some things are obvious: we know that Anakin will survive and become a Jedi, for he will later father Luke and Leia and turn to the dark side when he becomes Darth Vader. Some things are not: Darth Maul (Ray Park/Peter Serafinowicz), Qui-Gon Jinn, and Naboo weren't even mentioned in the original trilogy, so their fates remain a mystery. (I made guesses regarding the fates of both the Jedis and the planet: only one guess was right.) "Star Wars: Episode 1" not only had to tell its own story, but it had to set up the familiar trilogy. I expected it to do only one, but it does both.

What it doesn't do is go terribly deep with much of anything. While the political issues behind "Star Wars" are explained slightly--corrupt politicians are using taxation, state backed cartels, and an invasion to try to gain more power--this is nothing we'd put past the sinister Empire of the original trilogy anyway. Further, despite these explanations, the plot is still pretty much a "white hat verses black hat" scenario--the heros are fighting off a blatantly unjustified invasion, period. We don't get to know any of the characters at all. Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Amidala, and Anakin are good, Palpatine and Darth Maul are bad. That's all we learn about them. It's great cotton-candy for the action/sci-fi crowd in general, and "Star Wars" crowd in particular; but this is definitely cinematic candy--it tries to do too much to manage to be anything more substantial.

I must admit, "Star Wars: Episode 1" had the deck stacked in its favor. I expected to like it, I liked it. For what its worth, if you're bent raising another generation of film critics partial to the "Star Wars" universe, the only things to watch out for with kids are significant violence--none of it gory and most of it either directed against droids or spaceship-to-spaceship--and two minor scenes where heros take a casual attitude towards other peoples' property (though one revolves around a Jedi making a bet with something he doesn't own; the Jedi may know he'll win--at the expense of a slaveholder). The film has its endearing features--C-3PO and R2-D2 meet, Jake Lloyd makes Anakin look cute (contrary to the rumors that he's terrible, I thought he was adequate, but not much more). It's also fun. The best "Star Wars" yet? No, I still stand by the original. The best film this year? Again, no. An enjoyable sci-fi/action flick? Absolutely yes; but "flick" is the right word.


Title: "Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace"
Release date: May 19, 1999

MPAA rating: PG
Overall rating: ****

Aprox. run time:133 min.
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Stars: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman


Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/SW_Ep1.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09

Shakespeare's fairy tale

"A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Overall Rating: ***


What can I say? I'm a sucker for Shakespeare. If they make a movie from one of Shakespeare's plays, I'll try to catch it.

Everyone has probably read "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in high school, but in case anyone's memory needs to be jogged, this is the one where Hermia (Anna Friel) and Lysander (Dominic West) are in love with each other, but Hermia is betrothed to Demetrius (Christian Bale). Meanwhile, Helena (Calista Flockhart) is madly in love with Demetrius, who is totally uninterested in her. Then the fairy Puck (Stanley Tucci) gets involved--clumsily--and things really get confused.

I find Shakespeare's play delightful. I sealed my reputation as a nerd in high school by laughing while we were reading it in twelfth-grade English class, and I still enjoy it. The story has a light, whimsical quality that makes it work.

This delightful play is brought to life by the actors. My first impression of Calista Flockhart's performance was that she was a bit whiny--but Helena needs to whine a bit, since she's being ignored by her true love, and Flockhart's performance gets better as the movie goes on. Stanley Tucci is delightful as Puck--he manages to capture Puck's sprightly nature wonderfully. Kevin Kline is without a doubt the star of the show, as Bottom--a bad actor who makes an ass of himself (or, rather, is made into one by Puck). Bottom is a sympathetic character, a bewildered pawn in the fairies' conflict, and a truly bad actor. Kline is marvelous in capturing all of Bottom's facets, and elegantly brings Shakespeare's character to life. Not to be overlooked in the shuffle are Roger Rees, Max Wright, Gregory Jbara, Bill Irwin, and Sam Rockwell, who all have bit parts as the other players (Peter Quince, Starveling, Snug, Tom Snout, and Flute respectively). The "tedious brief" play of "Pyramus and Thisby" saves the movie.

Not completely, however. If you want a case of good acting and writing being ruined--or at least marred--by a terrible production, look no further. The big problem is that director/screenwriter Michael Hoffman felt some perverse need to drag the play into 19th century Italy. For one laugh from Puck honking a bicycle horn, you must put up with constant discord between the spoken references to Athens (Shakespeare's setting) and captions and pictures putting things in Italy (Hoffman's setting). Compounding this error, the all male cast of "Pyramus and Thisby" makes no sense in an era that had actresses. Throw in a few written and spoken Italian snippets and accompanying, distracting subtitles, and the whole effort seems calculated to rip off from "Life Is Beautiful" and annoy Shakespearean purists. No wonder that every poster takes pains to remind us that it was written by William Shakespeare. The badly done sets and costumes don't help, either. If many of the trees and Puck's horns weren't actually plastic, they at least looked like they were made of plastic. Most of the bicycles looked like modern bikes rather than 19th century bicycles. Not all of the costumes, props, and sets are bad, but enough are bad to be distracting. Production wise, this movie is a zero.

While young kids almost certainly will be thrown by the Elizabethan language, the movie is probably suitable for teenagers. There are two caveats: every bit of sexual content in the play is accentuated in the movie, and significant nudity--most of it completely gratuitous--is added. While there's more nudity in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" than I thought was allowed in any PG-13 film, it's possible the people rating the film thought the educational value of teenagers actually seeing Shakespeare outweighed the "damage" that seeing a topless woman would do--a view I share. It didn't bother me, except from the historical aspect, but parents should be warned.

Parents--and non-parents--should also be warned: "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is terrible on a purely technical level. While we lament at "What fools these mortals be," however, we can take heart that love, good acting, and great writing conquer all.


Title: "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Release date: April 26, 1999 (limited) / May 14, 1999 (nationwide)
MPAA rating: PG-13
Overall rating: ***

Aprox. run time: 120 min.
Director: Michael Hoffman
Writer: Michael Hoffman (screenplay), William Shakespeare (original play)
Stars: Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer (Titania), Rupert Everett (Oberon), Stanley Tucci, Calista Flockhart

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Midsumr.htm
Added to blog site: 7/28/09

Reviews by John: Frequently Asked Question

How can you provide this service for free; what do you get out of it?

As of now (May, 1999), this is the only question that more than one person has asked me--and since the answer isn't obvious, "What do you get out of it?" is a very sensible question. The answer is nothing--yet. Right now, since my service is still new, I have comparatively few subscribers on my e-mail list, and my webpage is still relatively quiet--but how many Internet services open with 1,000,000 subscribers and 100,000 web hits per day? As time passes, I hope the service will grow large enough and earn a good enough reputation that I may be able to sell ad space on the review pages/e-mails. (Having a distain for "spam," I approach the latter with some hesitation, anyway.) Right now, I don't believe I could do that.

The flip side of the coin is that it doesn't cost me anything, either. I was already paying to see one movie per week, give or take. I already had personal Internet access and a computer. Yahoo e-mail accounts and Geocities web server space are both "free," (really, their profits are ad-based, like TV or radio) so the "infrastructure" adds no new costs. (If I began selling ads, I'd have to move to new quarters--but at that stage, it would be worth the costs.) In essence, financially, the costs are non-existent. All it takes is time to write down what I was usually already thinking about the movies.

A second future benefit I should mention is that while I'm not making a profit, I am writing and publishing a weekly column online--this is experience that could be useful when job-hunting.

For that matter, a third benefit is that I have a forum to express my opinions, and someday, in a kingdom far, far away, that could influence how movies are made for the better.

Right now, however, I view my service in a manner similar to many online enterprises: it hasn't broken even yet, but I have high hopes for the future.

[Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/_FAQ.htm -- added to blog site: 8/5/09]

I want my "Mummy."

"The Mummy"
Overall Rating: ***½



Often, I will let my friends talk me into joining them for a movie I wanted no part of--particularly horror films. While on rare occasions, I'm pleasantly surprised, this is still how I got cajoled into going to such notable films as "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (**), "John Carpenter's Vampires" (*), and "Ringmaster" (*½)--while only this last one didn't try to be scary, all three were horrors in their own way. I expected "The Mummy" to join this illustrious list when I bought my ticket. The scary part is I liked "The Mummy."

"The Mummy" opens in Ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh's high priest Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) commits two unforgivable sins: having an affair with Pharaoh's mistress, Anck-Su-Namun, then killing the Pharaoh when the affair is discovered. For his crimes--which later also include trying to resurrect Anck-Su-Namun--he is condemned to spend eternity being eaten alive by scarab beetles. Like Prometheus, Imhotep proves that people who are supposed to spend eternity being eaten alive seldom do. In his case, an ambitious young archeologist, Evelyn Carnarvon (Rachel Weisz) will soon find a soldier, Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) who knows the location the legendary city Hamunaptra: home of tons of treasure, Imhotep, and the mummy's curse.

As you might guess, special effects are a staple of "The Mummy." Fortunately, while a number of the special effects shown in the previews have a very animated quality, these make up the minority of the visual effects. Most of the stunts and special effects are very impressive. As with any good action movie, however, the special effects are worthless without a story behind them.

Fortunately, "The Mummy" is good here, too. What would be a good action-horror plot is bolstered by several comic moments and a credible romance that builds slowly between Evelyn and Rick. Throw in a tragic aspect to Imhotep's story, and careful attention to minor details--an apparent accident that's nothing of the sort and a cat on the set that turns out to play an important part--and the script is certainly better than most action films.

Most of the actors are good enough. While Brendan Fraser walks off with top billing, he's the least impressive of the leading cast. Omid Djalili--who plays a corrupt prison warden, and Kevin J. O'Connor--who plays Beni, a sleazy soldier-turned-desert-guide, both lend comic relief. Arnold Vosloo is good as the cursed Imhotep--always truly menacing. Best of the cast is Rachel Weisz, who plays the ambitious--though bookish and clumsy--Evelyn. She is charming whether she is wreaking havoc in the library, romancing the hero, or facing the possibility of becoming the mummy's human sacrifice.

"The Mummy" has curses beyond the ancient Egyptian kind, however. While the vast majority of the special effects are good, there are a few that look like they came straight out of a computer. Additionally, while most aspects of the script are good, the characters are incredibly shallow. Most of them--including the heros--have a casual attitude towards theft and violence towards each other.

"The Mummy" isn't the best choice for children, but I've seen worse. With no sexual content beyond kissing and surprisingly little bad language (perhaps both holdovers from the original 1932 version), the reasons for it's PG-13 rating are the numerous gross scenes (such as the mostly decomposed Imhotep trying to kiss Evelyn), the questionable heros, and the omnipresent action-horror type violence; while pervasive, the violence is usually--but not always--directed against supernatural entities. I think "The Mummy" deserves its PG-13--though it's close to PG.

Director and screenwriter Stephen Sommers is a promising, rising star for fans of action films.

His last movie, "Deep Rising" was good, but undistinguished. He's getting much better. "The Mummy" may not quite amount to a pharaoh's treasure, but at least it's a find that you'll dig.

Title: "The Mummy"
Release date: May 7, 1999

MPAA rating: PG-13
Overall rating: ***½

Aprox. run time: 125 min.
Director: Stephen Sommers
Writers: Stephen Sommers (screenplay and story), Lloyd Fonvielle (story), Nina Wilcox Putnam (story--original 1932 version), Richard Schayer (story--original 1932 version)
Stars: Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo



Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Mummy.htm

Added to blog site: 7/30/09

The Devil's playground

"Idle Hands"
Overall Rating: ***½


My original plan this weekend was to review "Entrapment." I went to the midnight show on Friday, and the projector's bulb blew out--causing me to miss about two or three minutes of the movie. I formed enough of an opinion to write a review of "Entrapment," and I didn't particularly want to see it a second time. However, before you complain that "I'm a disgrace to film critics everywhere" and "the two minutes when Mac and Gin enter the Petronas Towers will change cinematic history"--take heart, for: one, if it's really that good, I can still go back, and two, like me, you're getting two for the price of one this weekend. All told, things worked out for the best, since "Idle Hands" is more entertaining than "Entrapment."

Anton Tobias (Devon Sawa) is, if not the ultimate slacker, at least a typical slacker: either way, his days consist of smoking pot, watching MTV, ignoring his parents, and skipping school. Anton is so clueless, he doesn't even notice that not only is there a serial killer in town, but said killer has murdered his parents. He finally takes notice when, while he's awake, the killer gets his two closest friends, Mick and Pnub (Seth Green and Elden Henson respectively). The killer is his demonically possessed right hand. Nothing to fear, however, for Mick and Pnub have come back as zombies--the light at the end of that tunnel may be Heaven, but it is a long walk, after all. If the three of them can control Anton's hand, they might just save Anton's new girlfriend, Molly (Jessica Alba).

Imagine a cross between "Scream" and "There's Something About Mary," and you'll have a good mental image of "Idle Hands." There are some slacker jokes, but most of the jokes come from the horror-parody situation. Can zombies get stoned? "Idle Hands" answers this question: it's not nonstop laughs, but it has more than its share of moments. The special effects are the match of any recent horror film. For instance, Pnub--the airheaded, headless zombie--has a rather casual attitude about where he leaves his head.

Beyond the jokes and special effects, there is a decent horror film parody. The plot makes little sense--but that's part of the point: there's enough to hold it together, but nothing more. Devon Sawa is good as the boy with the least controllable hand since Dr. Strangelove's (and while there's no evidence beyond the hand coincidence, I'd wonder if that more famous comedy was on the filmmakers' minds), Seth Green and Elden Henson are better as his fun-loving but dead friends.

As parodies go, "Idle Hands" takes a good shot at the modern horror film. A minor problem is that the gore and gross jokes go over the top (or below the bottom) more than once. A more serious problem is the almost illogical script: the writers chose to walk a tightrope, and sometimes fall off on both sides--some things are almost logical, and some make no sense at all. The total picture is good--but still far from great.

"Idle Hands" is not family fare. Aside from the copious blood and gore, a great deal of violence, several sex scenes including nudity, a fair amount of strong language, and numerous scenes with on-screen drug use, there's no reason to leave the kids home; aside from all that, there's no movie, either.

I had an idle curiosity regarding "Idle Hands;" in the end, it was better than I expected. A true cinematic great, probably not, but it takes an entertaining stab at slashing the slasher films.


Title: "Idle Hands"
Release date: April 30, 1999

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***½

Aprox. run time: 92 min.
Director: Rodman Flender
Writers: Terri Hughes, Ron Milbauer
Stars: Devon Sawa, Seth Green, Elden Henson


Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/IdleHand.htm

Added to blog site: 7/28/09

Theft at the movie theater

"Entrapment"
Overall Rating: ***


If the writers of "Entrapment" weren't thinking of "Topkapi," the studio's lawyers better. Slight exaggeration--"Entrapment" isn't a rip-off per se. It has enough differences, and 35 years since "Topkapi;" the filmmakers can most likely count on the public's short memory. Nonetheless, there are two very striking similarities. Both movies focus on jet-setting jewel/art thieves as the "heroes," and the opening scene of "Entrapment" is very reminiscent of the climactic scene of "Topkapi."

In the first scene of "Entrapment," we see a thief drop down from the roof of a skyscraper, break into an office, and steal a Rembrandt. Using all sorts of gadgets to drop to the correct floor, open the window, and deactivate the alarm--this mystery thief obviously commands great resources. Insurance investigator Gin Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) thinks immediately of one suspect--Robert "Mac" MacDougal (Sean Connery). Gin quickly catches up with Mac in London; the question is whether she'll switch to his side for the big caper.

Sean Connery is charming as the arch-thief Mac; his performance isn't quite up to Henry Jones in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," but it's still good enough to make you root for his character--even though his character is a thief. Catherine Zeta-Jones is the real, pleasant surprise: she manages to keep pace with Connery, and keep the audience guessing where her real loyalties lie. Will Patton is also very good in a supporting part; despite being the only "good guy"--an insurance investigator whose loyalties are never in doubt--you still root against him. He makes his character--the "good guy villain" sleazy, while Connery and Zeta-Jones make their "bad guy heroes" charming and debonair; the combination works far better than most films that try the same trick.

The movie also keeps you interested. Surprisingly, this is mostly through plot. The whole movie keeps you wondering whether Gin and Mac will stick together for--much less pull off--their progressively larger thefts. Certainly they come close to getting caught more than once, adding suspense. Mac's castle, the numerous Bond-like gadgets they use to pull off the multi-million dollar thefts, and a couple of chase scenes here and there add some flash--but less than one would think based on the previews.

That's part of the problem. Everything is good enough, without being great. The stunts and special effects are impressive--but not nearly as impressive as "The Matrix," for example. The plot keeps you involved for the length of the movie, but when it's over, you quickly become uninvolved. The movie also feels very unoriginal. Part of this is not its fault--"Entrapment" has followed on the heels of three other caper films: "Payback," "Go," and "Goodbye Lover;" but it still has striking similarities to "Topkapi," and a few cliche scenes such as the one in every preview where Gin ducks under the laser beams. There is one novel aspect--the use of a year 2000 bug fix in the final theft--and maybe some of the unoriginality was deliberate (trying to make us feel we know the characters, homage to previous films, etc.)--but, personally, I think the writers are as shameless thieves as their heroes.

"Entrapment" is not a good family film. Although there is no nudity, and much less strong language or violence than one would expect from a PG-13 action film (though some of both), "Entrapment" also has a scene with drug use, and--of course--the heroes are thieves.

To give it due credit, "Entrapment" got me to "root for the bad guy," more than "Payback" did. It's fun and enjoyable for its length and you won't regret paying the price of admission (I didn't, but then, because the projector died about two thirds of the way through, I got to see if for free). If, however, you're saying "I'll catch it on video," with this is one, you probably won't--the truth is it isn't memorable enough.

Title: "Entrapment"
Release date: April 30, 1999
MPAA rating: PG-13
Overall rating: ***
Aprox. run time: 113 min.
Director: Jon Amiel
Writer: Michael Hertzberg (story), Ronald Bass (story and screenplay), William Broyles Jr. (screenplay)
Stars: Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/reviewsbyjohn/Entrap.htm
Added to blog site: 7/27/09