Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Highly Overrated But Still Good

best movie i've ever seen.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

"Entrapment" is one of a new breed of crime-action-thrillers. It is one of high tech crimes, usually involving computers and electronics and gadgetry of all sorts. While there was an occasional film of the high tech of the time as far back as the 1950s, this sub-genre burst forth by the end of the 20th century. From the late 1980s to beyond the first decade of the 21st century, a plethora of high tech crime films was made. But after nearly 30 years, there's hardly any new idea for a plot. And, the genre began to get old and worn out within 20 years. I saw this film when it came out in theaters in 1999, but couldn't remember that much about it. With me, if a movie isn't memorable, it's not very good or one I would rate very highly. By the same token, if I don't remember a film as being bad, I may watch one I had seen before. That's the case with this movie. After watching it again now, I guess that I might have rated it one star higher than I do now. Because that was 1999, and the high tech crime caper plot hadn't yet quite worn out. And, this film packs a lot of crime caper action into it, with a good cast. Even then, at age 69 Sean Connery was too old to be playing these types of roles. My six stars are mostly for the suspense in the plot over the question of trust among thieves.The action makes this film mildly entertaining. But this film just reaffirms to me again, how the modern bent for fast movies with wild action require so little acting talent of the cast. Perhaps, one day when we run through the newer fads of films (now, much fantasy and other- worldly stuff), Hollywood will again make some quality comedies and real life dramas in which most of those in the acting profession can once again ply their trade.

The presence of Sean Connery can often rescue a dire movie but not when it is a truly dire movie because one of the main actors, Catherine Zeta Jones, has not talent whatsoever. This Welsh woman can mimic an American accent but that is all she does, mimic not convince, nor can she convince us that she is a savvy , experienced, hard-nosed insurance investigator. Without her, the movie might have been a success, but her presence was required because she was married to Michael Douglas. She has never provided a memorable performance in any of her movies, and not even in the little English TV comedy drama from which she sprang. She cannot even make the light romance with a much older man, Connery, believable, even though she had plenty of experience with her aged husband.

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.

Cringe-Fest of the first order. Full of expensive Scenes at the expense of anything involving or Entertaining. It even fails as a bit of attractive Fluff. It misses at every turn and is a grueling get-through and an embarrassment to all involved.Sean Connery is a good Actor but his choice of Roles after James Bond is mind boggling. A lot more misses than Hits. CZJ is attractive and competent and can add some dimension to one dimensional Beauty parts, but this is one unattractive Movie.The Plot is laughable, hard to follow at times, seems incompetently disjointed and misfires in all three Acts. The ending is unwatchable and the icing on this deflated cake is the finger down the throat Romance forced on the Audience, when in the beginning they promised not to. This Film fails to deliver on anything it promised.