Braquage à New York

Throw out your preconceptions of bank heist films and you have a good start on "Henry's Crime". This one is a left-field success. The story isn't at all remarkable, other than it was imagined and realized. The thing that makes this flick fly is the fantastic performances. No one is acting, they're just being really low-key engaging. This makes the parts greater than the whole. You've seen some great movies with James Caan, but did you expect another now? I've sensed Keanu Reeves could use his "stiffness" to great effect if something which depended on that came along and this is it. Add some rich flavor with Vera Farmiga and a slight undercurrent of comedy and director Malcolm Venille delivers just the right end result.

This bank heist film is more a comedic love story than anything…And, it works. A slacker, who is actually happy married and going nowhere, becomes a witless victim of circumstance. While in prison he is told he has to have a dream or his life is meaningless. Once more circumstance intervenes and he realizes what he has longed for is the meaning life has once its shared. The trouble is that he is a bit slow to come to that realization and the dream he imagined, that being a bank robbery without violence, really isn't his dream at all. The whole thing is juxtaposed by his becoming an actor, the suitor, in Chekhov's play "The Orchard Thief". Again, low-key brilliance.

This movie entertains first and foremost. It passes as if it is ten minutes due to the uniformly excellent performances of the cast. The direction gets out of the way and there isn't any need for any special effects or senseless action. It ends in the best possible way as to not try to tie up anything past the found love between two people. Simply put, entertaining low-key brilliant thus highly recommended.

Time Out described it as a "Quiet Triumph" and I tend to agree. It's not the best movie ever made but is clever, multi-layered (stories within stories within...) and an interesting, often tongue in cheek, look at acting as a process. It is enjoyable, although slightly uncomfortable in places as Farmiga plays self reliant/involved diva and ego-above-her-status-actress very well and with great aplomb. Caan's comic relief as the wannabe lifer adds some one liners and fun to a film that has an old-fashioned serious classic quality both in style and direction (something to do with dimensions of camera angles/screen apparently), and the soundtrack is brilliant. Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard lends a certain gravitas to the proceedings, and a backdrop for the real-life storyline, as does Reeves' deliberate delivery and method metamorphosis from downtrodden bored/boring-but-nice average Joe to cavalier passionate lovestruck criminal-mastermind, which is impressive! I think this film is a slow burner... after watching it, it stayed in my mind and I want to see it again, sure there will be more layers and nuances that I missed.

Yep, this is a fun movie with great actors acting as actors. Henry (Keanu Reeves), a tollbooth worker in Buffalo is falsely convicted of a bank robbery. While in prison he meets a lifer (James Caan) and learns about life and having a dream. Once released from prison Henry hatches a plan of his own. Why not rob the bank that he was already sent to prison for?

Little did he think that love (Vera Farmiga,) greed (Fisher Stevens,) and fate may change his objective?

The acting is good. The pacing is good. The only annoying thing was the loud irritating irrelevant background music if you can call it that.

Unfortunately, there is no end, so if you want one, do not start this movie.

Can Henry get away with it? This is the type of movie where we want him to succeed, like in "Ocean's Eleven".

In a better movie, James Caan would have been nominated for an Oscar for his excellent portrayal of Max. He is the standout performer here.

Vera Farmiga is quite good as Julie, who is better than this sorry role. And yet she gives it her all. What she does on stage and in rehearsals is worthy of being seen on the Tonys.

Keanu Reeves is okay. Not bad. Not great. He's better in the Chekhov play.

Fisher Stevens does a very good job. I'm used to seeing him as a basically nice guy who is sleazy, but here is is just bad. Not bad in that sense. He's very good at being bad.

There's no clear ending. I will say that much. So I'm not quite sure what happens. But the climactic scene is pretty amazing.

It's really worth seeing.

I understand why some people did not like this very good film - it is slower, and it is not The Matrix, or Konstantin. This is a very good work, and yes, Keanu's character is a bit slow, silent and detached - but here is what he is like. His role is balanced perfectly by fiery and very funny James Caan who did a very, very excellent job. His part of a con-man is a great plus, and his part is almost The best in here. Vera Farmiga is another great plus of the movie, her part of a Russian theater actress is very cool, too. She does a perfect Diva here, and does it extremely convincing way. Well, yes, the movie is not a fast and furious action one, but this was not the intent. The very theater style of the film is obvious, and the nice link to the Chekhov's play is a warm heart-thawing welcome for all Russian viewers. Keanu is a very good Lopakhin and Vera is a very sweet Ranevskaya. And then, yeah, here is excellent Peter Stormare as a choleric and very short-tempered theater director with all his idiosyncrasies and craze. Casting was done very well, and this stellar ensemble of actors is a mighty element for the great movie.