Haute Voltige

I know: many viewers resented the apparent lack of physical chemistry between the characters played by Connery and Zeta-Jones. Most of them had vivid memories of Sean Connery playing the always charismatic 007, and Catherine Zeta-Jones exchanging sparks with Antonio Banderas in The Mask of Zorro.

But is chemistry between a man and a woman just, physical, sensual, and sexual ?

I find the movie entertaining, as it shows 2 people enjoying doing what they like best. The chemistry is between Zeta-Jones youth, outgoing passion for life and Connery's less evident, more inward quest for adventure which is backed up by his wisdom and longtime experience. As they go about doing and accomplishing things together, the old man develops respect and acknowledges the younger woman's worth. Slowly he starts to like her and, despite his age, or, perhaps because of his age, he feels that, to a certain extent he cares for her. While, at the same time, she turns from intellectually admiring him to actually liking him on her side.

Admittedly, it is an uneasy chemistry between Connery, the Scott gentleman and Catherine, the Welsh with long brown hair and eyes, but the film offers enjoyable action moments interspersed with occasionally good dialogue and exchanges between the two leads.

Watch "Entrapment" ! Enjoy it as I did for what it is, not for what it is not!- (rating 7.5/10)

This movie is one of those that keeps the characters purpose twisting and turning. You have to second guess the ending twice. The vivacious Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a top notch insurance agent that specializes in art theft. She takes on the mission of catching a master thief(Sean Connery)by convincing him that she too is a supreme art thief.

Just enough action to keep your attention. Wonderful scenery and the more than just beautiful Zeta-Jones makes for advanced heartbeat. The age difference of the two stars fits the script like a glove and gives a fleeting glimpse of romance.

Camera work is intense. The big chase/escape scene is awesome.

Also appearing are: Ving Rhames, Maury Chaykin and Will Patton.

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.

One of the best things this movie has going for it is the two stars. Sean Connery is one of the most recognized and appreciated faces in film today. And Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of the most talented and beautiful new faces around today. Mix them into a film with some good action, an interesting plot and some cool gadgets and you've got a winner. That's what ENTRAPMENT is.

Gin Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) seems to be working for an insurance company. She has a certain fascination with Mac MacDougal (Sean Connery), who is an incredibly good thief who has stolen numerous works of art. After a particularly expensive work of art is stolen, her boss Hector Cruz (Will Patton) sends her to track him down, lure him to an extremely beneficial robbery and trap him (hence the title) so the FBI can arrest him. But Gin, who is a very talented thief herself has her own plans. With the help of Mac, and his partner that she doesn't know about named Aaron Thibadeaux (Ving Rhames), she wants to do a robbery with a payoff of billions of dollars.

The acting in this movie is, of course, excellent. Sean Connery, naturally, does his usual outstanding job, but Catherine Zeta-Jones steals the show. Her close-ups are beautiful, as expected, and she manages to give off a professional, and sexy, performance. Ving Rhames also does a good job as the not-sure-he-can-be-trusted partner of Connery. Will Patton also does a good job, even though his part isn't especially large.

The plot is very interesting, but the ending is a little confusing. It happens and ends rather quickly, which may make you think "What just happened?" You'll understand it a few minutes later, but some will be left with a some what dissatisfied feeling about the end.

This movie is really pretty good. The actors are good, the plot is interesting, the machinery is nice and the close-ups of Catherine Zeta-Jones' butt are great. Worth a rent, for sure.

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.