O Golpe de John Anderson

Recently-paroled master thief Sean Connery plots one last job: robbing the residents of an entire New York apartment house on a holiday weekend! Engaging heist flick, adapted from Lawrence Sanders' novel by Frank Pierson and directed by Sidney Lumet, takes a dark turn towards the end--much like Pierson and Lumet's later "Dog Day Afternoon" in 1975. The title-named tapes are a bluff (and, when revealed as such, more perplexing than amusing) and the asides with Connery and "kept woman" Dyan Cannon don't add up to much, though she's still nice to have around in the first-half. Pierson's character profiles and dialogue are expressive and sharp, and there are wonderful supporting performances by Martin Balsam, Alan King, and Christopher Walken in his film debut. Connery is terrific as well, but some viewers may not like the downbeat third act. The joshing tone gives out, replaced with action and consequences, yet it's all quite marvelous from a filmmaker's standpoint. *** from ****

The Anderson Tapes was made in 1971 and feels like it was made in 1971. Unlike, say, Zardoz (another underrated Connery '70's classic), this doesn't mean that the cast all resemble slightly cleaner hippies. Instead, it is the level of technological innovation that is stuck two years before I was born. That said, this is a good movie. The performances are all fine, and while some situations are laughable, not all are. I will say this against it, though; Christopher Walken, as "The Kid", is supposedly a safecracking and lockpicking expert. What he actually does is blow stuff up. Some expert! My cousin Timmy likes to put firecrackers in tin cans and blow them up. Does that make him a safecracking and demolition expert?

Quincy Jones' score, which often pops up in all of the wrong places, is inadvertently hilarious (and also quite funky!).

Sean Connery plays a jail bird who's let out and decides to pull another heist with the help of a team of experienced crooks; little does he know the cops are monitoring everything.

What's so unique about this film by Sidney Lumet, in superb form as director, is that heist films rarely mount the tension by showing us the cops' side -- here it's like a ticking time bomb, we're just waiting for Connery and his crew to be arrested and we know that they don't know that the cops know (err...) and the result is pretty tense.

No fault found in the acting: Connery and a very young Christopher Walken (in his film debut) are great, particularly Walken who shows extensive range very early on. After seeing this I was reminded of his recent role in the "Stepford Wives" remake and had to wonder why he's resorting to such trash, because he's just as talented (almost, anyway) as De Niro and Pacino and the difference is he wasted a lot of this during the '80s and '90s by taking on small bits in horrible films. I mean, in 2003 he starred in KANGAROO JACK. C'mon!

Overall THE ANDERSON TAPES is a tense and unique crime thriller that, although very "70s-ish" is entertaining, if a bit outdated in terms of technology. I'm sure it will be remade some day, there's a lot of potential, however I doubt it'll ever come close to the original.

4/5

... Gave THE ANDERSON TAPES a bad write up . Seriously this was a very well regarded heist movie when it was released but for some reason when it was broadcast very late on Channel 4 the other night all the TV guides said Sean Connery was wasting his time appearing in this turkey . I know Connery has appeared in more turkeys than reusuable stuffing but THE ANDERSON TAPES isn't one of them . It might not be classic Connery like THE HILL but as entertainment it more than succeeds

I can't help thinking that the TV guide critics are somewhat underwhelmed by certain stereotypical aspects of the movie . Take for example the getaway driver who is black . There seems to have been an attitude in the early 70s that white men can't drive , see also DIRTY HARRY . But I think it's homosexuality rather than race that upsets some TV guide critics . Oh come on chaps , it's a fun thriller not some Derek Jarman art house ego trip and lines like :

" Describe him ? Fifty . Slightly podgy . Fag "

and

" Do as your told and my man will keep his weapon in his pants "

" I'll be the judge of that "

are actually amusing in a mainstream way . It might be politically correct to laugh at these things nowadays but at the time of the original caused a wry smile .

And we get to see a very early performance by Christopher Walken before he became known as " Dead Career Ham Walken "

There's a reasonably interesting heist movie in here, and some understated commentary on our surveillance society (particularly relevant as I write this in the summer of 2013.) Unfortunately, they are mismatched parts that never quite come together into one film.

Sean Connery was clearly trying to escape the penumbra of James Bond here, playing a much coarser character and working without toupee. He's actually pretty good, with the exception of the dreadful accent he attempts. It's a bizarre Brooklyn/Scottish hybrid, and come to think of it, sort of fitting for this movie: two things that don't really mesh but are jammed together anyway.

Martin Balsam and an extremely young Christopher Walken are the standouts among the supporting cast. Balsam seems to have somehow channeled Harvey Fierstein from the future, almost but never quite going over the top. Walken is mesmerizing in a very small role, showing even at his young age the physical grace and edgy unpredictability that would come to define him.

I must make special mention of the dreadful score. It's distracting and awful, almost certainly the lowlight of Quincy Jones's career.

Ultimately, and unfortunately, this film just doesn't quite work. It can't seem to decide what it wants to be. It's kind of funny, kind of suspenseful, kind of socially critical, kind of dramatic, but in the end not really anything very specific. I can usually decipher what a movie has attempted, even if it fails, but in this case I just don't know. It's a confusing, strange melange of recognizable parts that never form a consistent whole.