Ladro e gentiluomo

Pardon my pun above, but if there's any reason at all to try and catch Breaking In, Burt Reynolds is the main reason. He underplays Ernie, a veteran safe cracker who goes about his business being low key and certainly not flashy at all. He winds up teaming up with a youngster named Mike, played by Casey Siemaszko, who rejuvenates Ernie and he hires him as an apprentice for odd jobs cracking safes. The first half of the forgotten film is the better half because of Reynolds' performance as the aging thief, and is both sympathetic and funny, especially the scenes he's teaching Mike the ropes. It's unfortunate Burt passed up on many good movie roles because the man can act. Anyhow, the latter half of Breaking In revolves around how flashy Mike has become with his cash rewards and his hooker/on and off girlfriend, which I thought slowed the film down a bit. I found Carrie annoying and uninteresting and rather selfish; not sure what Mike saw in her.

Watch this film mainly for Reynolds' performance, as he plays his role convincingly and develops decent chemistry with Mike. Siemaszko also plays his role well, but not quite up to par with his partner in crime.

Even though I appreciate Burt's bombastic,snide,cocky,gum chewing persona of old it was fun seeing him as vulnerable and pragmatic. I love caper movies and even though this one is tongue-in-cheek it is quite entertaining. I especially love the cat-burglar genre. Siemaszcko does a nice job of combining the youthful and arrogant with the need for those "coming up" to learn from a mentor. The movie doesn't take itself seriously but provides a good relationship story. Alot of fun if you just let it happen to you without analyzing every aspect. If you liked Siemaszcko in this check him out in Young Guns, and 3 o'clock high.

"Breaking In" is a very forgettable Burt Reynolds comedy. For a really great Reynolds chuckles film rent "The End". This one falls flat, with just one caper after another, it is very redundant. Not much can be said about the two main characters either. Both fail to elicit sympathy, and in fact Casey Siemaszko as the thief apprentice comes across as more stupid than sympathetic. The ending feels so tacked on, it is bewildering. It is also very unsatisfying, which is not a good way to end what has already been a tedious film experience. Not recommended, even for Burt Reynolds fans.................................. - MERK

Often dubbed Burt Reynolds' big comeback (after a lackluster 1980s), though the term "comeback" really only applies to his choice of roles. Reynolds has always been a captivating actor, but his role selection hasn't always been stellar. In Breaking In, he teams up with pragmatic Scottish director Bill Forsyth and talented screenwriter John Sayles. Forsyth directs with a genuine interest in the choices people make in life, and Sayles creates a couple of sharp, engaging characters. Surrounded by solid material such as this, Burt, alongside the lively Casey Siemaszko, delivers a handful of standout, earnest scenes. Forsyth isn't aiming for groundbreaking conclusions here, but rather an intriguing character study - and that's exactly what this film is: an engaging piece of drama, with just the right dose of humour.

Burt Reynolds broke out of his leading man pigeonhole to attempt, for once, a more believable role, playing a middle-aged, low-rent burglar who enlists the help of a dumb but loyal grease monkey and then proceeds to give him lessons in both larceny and life. There are a few heists along the way, but this is more a character study than a caper film, and it works in large part because of the rapport and timing between Reynolds and his blue collar sidekick Casey Siemaszko. Both characters are losers, and it might be argued that losers make more engaging heroes, perhaps because they're easier to identify with. In the spirit of earlier Bill Forsythe films it's a slim but disarming comedy, with an extra measure of depth in the canny screenplay by John Sayles, as always the working man's champion, who along the way makes some minor but interesting points about the haves and the have-nots.