Takers

This movie is fast-paced and the cinematography (specifically the shaky camera thing) is clever and interesting when it's not irritating. Also, there is some eye candy for the ladies and some of the cast is full of interesting and appealing characters, some who actually do decent acting jobs ("some" is the operative word.) Those are the good points.

Now the other side. I like T.I. as a rapper and even thought he did an okay acting job in ATL a few years ago, but his acting here was just downright criminal. There was one scene in which he dominated the dialog that I actually said out loud, "his acting is so bad, it's offensive." You're actually offended that that is being pushed off as something you should buy as a viewer. You're wondering how no one in the director's booth was offended by it. In fairness, the fast action of the bulk of the movie shields the poor acting a bit, so the blow is blunted a bit. But between his poor acting and Chris Brown's sometimey acting, it was just a lot being asked of the viewer. Speaking of characters, the lack of character development is also a low point of the film. I agree with another commenter that you're asked to feel something for a character who dies, but you feel nothing because you really haven't been given anything to know or care about. And finally as others have stated, the plot is clichéd to the point that you're wondering if it's supposed to be a satire of some sort. But no, no satire. They're seriously trying to wrap Heat and Set it Off and Dead Presidents up in a big bow and pass it off as a new present. Just not a good thing to do.

I rate it a 5 on a 10-point scale because while it's not a great movie, it does hold your attention and as bad as some parts are, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen. So I say giving it about half credit is pretty accurate. In that vain, I won't say you should pay to see this or you shouldn't pay to see it. I say do the 50/50 thing--flip a coin. Either way, the earth won't shatter. This movie is just not that significant either way. It will probably be forgotten pretty soon.

As the tittle says, if you want a really good thieves-crew movie go for "The Town" (Ben Affleck's new adventure), or, if you missed it, "Heat" (1995). If you missed this one, wait no longer and get it NOW, its a masterpiece.

Takers is entertaining, action packed, bang bang and all those flashy things. You will be as satisfied as in a meal without dessert, you are full but you still lack something sweet.

The story in "Takers" is solid, with a few shortcuts along the way, but nothing damaging to the overall value of the movie. Acting is also very decent, nothing fancy, also a few bad apples, but mainly in the "second line" of actors.

Also, for the love story fans this has very little value, and the the little it has does not turn out too good.

Overall, my humble opinion, give this movie a chance and you will be satisfied.

A veteran crew of hardened thieves, led by Gordon (Idris Elba) and John (Paul Walker), runs into some turmoil when Ghost (T.I.), a former member of the group, gets out of prison and offers up a dangerous job. Against their better judgment, the group decides they owe it to their newly free comrade to pull the heist, all the while unsure of whether or not they can trust the intel. With a detective (Matt Dillon) hot on their tails and a clean lifestyle calling to some of the crew, the thieves put everything on the line for a score that will surely make or break them.

Heist movies call to me, even ones I know will be awful. There's something about a big score playing out on screen that gets my attention every time. I'm like a drug addict, really, constantly chasing the next high, with the high being "Heat" or "Italian Job." So even as I mocked the trailer for "Takers" last Fall, I knew I'd eventually give in and check it out. And now I hate myself for giving into the urge.

"Takers" is, quite simply, a mess of a movie. Terrible acting, an overly convoluted story, and a final "twist" you can see from the opening credits, "Takers" has them all. The biggest issue, however, is a severe identity crisis. "Takers" can't decide whether it wants to be "Ocean's 11", "Heat", or "Dead Presidents." The tone of the film jumps back and forth between smooth and stylish, harsh and gritty, and over-the-top ridiculousness. The filmmakers clearly couldn't decide what their target audience would be and decided to shoot for them all, only they failed to hit on ANY level. Elba, a fine actor, is seriously underused while Zoe Saldana's role in the film is completely pointless. Whatever Saldana was paid, it was stolen money because she's essentially an extra given a line here or there. And when you then consider how much time was given to Paul Walker and Hayden Christensen, both horrendous actors, you have to ask yourself what in the name of John Frankenheimer was director John Lussenhop doing?! Walker and Christensen are completely overshadowed in the "Worst Actor EVER" conversation, though, compared to rapper T.I. Never, and I mean, NEVER, have I witnessed a more miserable performance. I feel like I should start a petition to ban T.I. from appearing on screen again in the future. It is offensive how bad he is.

"Takers" also steals liberally from better heist movies and while I usually give a free pass in the "That's Already Been Done in This Other Movie" department, it's so blatant here that the characters actually reference the knock-off they are about to perform. New lows all around. The first 20-30 minutes of "Takers" is decent and some of the (early) action is entertaining but that is all that keeps this movie from completely deteriorating into near-spoof territory.

Check out my site: www.thesoapboxoffice.blogspot.com

Takers is a heist film that's pretty much the same as other heist films, where there's plenty of room for loud action, camaraderie, the elaborate planning stage, and how Murphy's Law enters to screw everything up. This film has it all which makes it pretty average. but there were moments which stood out and made it noteworthy, and hey, an ensemble cast (even if for a few scenes only) with the likes of Paul Walker, Hayden Christensen, Matt Dillon, Jay Hernandez, Idirs Elba, Zoe Saldana and the notorious Chris Brown doesn't hurt either.

The thieving bunch here comprises of a close knit group of brothers real and sworn who take a year to plan their large heists, in part to have some time off to allow for their latest escapade to cool off and fade off from the police's radar, to spend their ill gotten dough and of course, to allow for the meticulous planning of their next hit. They follow a strict regime of communication and the reliance of unique skills they bring to the table, and we see how that all come together in concert with their money making objectives. They don't kill unless necessary, and they don't see themselves as desperate robbers. They're above that - they take.

Director John Luessenhop slaps together scenes that tried to go beyond just a simple heist film, and dwells at length to the background of these characters, where we have one who's about to get married, and another grappling with his sister's drug rehabilitation. Even the token cops in the film doesn't get spared, with the story squeezing some time out to showcase how dogged Matt Dillon's Jack Welles is to his job at the expense of previous quality time with his daughter. In fact I don't see how the cops' stories are that compelling to be included in Takers other than to highlight that the world isn't made out to be black and white, but always with that constant opportunity for grey. Given the way the cops' story and subplot got resolved, it could have been totally eliminated and yet there'll still be plenty left in the tank for the film to entertain, since they don't add much to the plot.

The film really picked up past the halfway mark where their new heist proper gets put into action, courtesy of a plan from one of the team's past buddies Ghost (T.I.) whose multi- million dollar proposition involving an armoured truck and pulling off the equivalent of The Italian Job in the tunnels of Los Angeles is too much to handle, that the team chucks their one year per job mantra out the window for that once in a lifetime opportunity. Which spells trouble of course, beginning with a nail-biting build up right down to the ending. Despite being riddled with clichés and plot conveniences at times, or even gaping loopholes that stick out like a sore thumb, such as creating such a prolonged ruckus in a hotel room/floor that the police couldn't arrive on time until the action was over.

Don't get me wrong, the extended shootout was one of my favourite scenes in the film given director Luessenhop's flair in crafting it out and injecting something fresh in the presentation. For the most parts the story (with a total of 4 writers involved) made it out for the team to seem to be on the losing end, and having to execute their exit plans fast, only for some other incident to drop in unexpectedly and derail those plans, testing their resolve and their honour amongst thieves. There's the classic Mexican stand-off moment too ala John Woo and Johnnie To involving both sides of the fence that got resolved pretty quickly, unfortunately, devoid of meaningful suspense.

Still, Takers still had its essential ingredient that fuels average B-grade Hollywood action films, so if you're ready for a compromise of a plot that will stretch what's believable and that of the actors constantly swaggering around, this is for that action junkie in you.

Heists, robberies, thieves all seems very attractive words when it comes to movie business. And some names like Italian Job, Oceans 11 have proved to be the brim of excitement and thrill and made movie history bit more vivid and interesting. However not always this is true. Even though some movies come out with stunning trailers and impressive cast they fail to pull out the obvious, the story and the drama. And I think 'Takers' fail in the same spot.

'Takers' is a story about a gang of thieves who live luxurious life from the money they manage to rob. Well informed, organized and trained in their livelihood of taking what belongs to others, they seem to know what they are doing. But one day their history starts to bite them in their back and meanwhile a restless cop starts to sniff his way up to their doorstep. In between thundering loud bullet exchanges and lightning fast pursuits 'Takers' have its moments of thrill and suspense. And even the cast is not bad. Eye candy for the woman viewers for sure with Paul Walker and Hayden Christensen in front seats of the whole game the movie, but has poor female characters presentation. The hot Zoe Saldana represents a bit of woman on the movie but her face time is quite unnoticeable.

Even though the action, cinematography, cast is quite good there are certain key areas where 'Takers' fail to deliver. One big failure is the plot. There is no magic in it. Looks Cliché and quite predictable if you are a fan of heist movies all along. And the character development is very poor. You hardly get to know any character so you don't actually feel anything towards them when the story throws emotional moments at you. So the impressive cast is not actually worth it after all.

'Takers' is a thrill ride with a big emptiness surrounding it. I won't consider watching it again unless it's free on HBO and its a lazy jobless day.