Haute Voltige

In 1999's Entrapment, an insurance investigator, Virginia Baker, Gin to her friends, is sure that thief Robert MacDougal, Mac to his friends, has stolen a Rembrandt painting. Her boss isn't convinced. He's very wealthy and past an age where breaking into things is easy.

Gin is certain he's the criminal. The question is, how can she recover the painting? She approaches Mac as a fellow thief, stating she wants to steal a Chinese mask from the Bedford Palace, nearly impossible. She has a buyer. She needs his help.

Mac has her steal the security plans for the palace, all the while tracking her movements, so she knows he can throw her in prison at any time. She succeeds in getting them, and they repair to his castle in Scotland to work out the complicated heist.

Of course, there's a mutual attraction. As my late friend used to say, "Well, you can't blame them. They're both pretty gorgeous." The question is, who is playing whom?

Directed by Jon Amiel, Entrapment has a fun, intriguing, and twisty plot that will keep you guessing. The leads are wonderful though they do not have the sparks-flying kind of chemistry often seen.

Very entertaining.

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!

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.

I have to admit that Catherine is so gorgeous in this film and Sean so handsome (as always!) that they (themselves not the character) kept on getting my attention while we watched the film.

Now to the film... the picture is not so sharp and the audio is okay. (This is the next film that we watched after The Matrix). As for the storyline, the chase scenes didn't live up to how the story was brought up which was very good and exciting and intriguing.

Sean and Catherine make a good pair in this film. Catherine didn't look like she was 'intimidated' by working with a veteran actor like Sean. She endured the film and it looks like that she actually quite overwhelmed Sean on this one. It is an honor for Hollywood actors and actresses to work with an icon like Sean and not only Catherine was fortunate but she did fit as Sean's sidekick. The 'romance' that was built up between them has a good chemistry and they really are suited as a match (despite the age gap).

To my surprise, the latter part of the film was shot in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where i worked for almost 6 months. It is very refreshing to see our side of the world in big films (with big names) like this. I am not sure about this but it's quite weird that there are no people/commuters at the train station at 6:30 in the morning. I felt funny seeing them alone on the station that really didn't look like realistic at all. I know for sure that KL is a busy capital and it justs doesn't look correct.

On the chase scene inside the current tallest building in the world, the tear gas event is also a disappointment. I've experienced the agony of what tear gas do to your eyes, skin and nose/lungs - and this without even being near the teargas can! I just can't imagine how the characters would have 'survived' going thru the smoke and then continue running away from the authorities.

Sean and Catherine were great together and the story was thrilling and exciting. If not for the sloppy chase scenes, I have given it 8 stars. In this case, it's a 7.

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.