The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This review CONTAINS SPOILERS, but to be fair it's pretty much impossible to spoil the experience of watching this turkey beyond what the movie itself achieves. To illustrate how bad this movie is I'd like to call your attention to one small scene. The film begins with a classic intricate heist of priceless art from a high-security museum. That plan is quickly revealed to be an elaborate cover for the real theft of one painting by uber-cool billionaire Thomas Crown, played by the steely-eyed wooden-expressioned Pierce Brosnan. The actual theft is facilitated by Crown's placing his briefcase to prevent an absurdly hefty security gate from fully closing on the room housing the painting. The briefcase is later shown to contain a highly engineered titanium structure built to sustain many tons of pressure. Keep that fact in mind.The female lead, Catherine Banning played by Rene Russo, quickly identifies Crown as the thief based on nothing in particular. Feminine intuition, perhaps? Anyway, she sets about trying to extract a confession from Crown by means of irresistible hotness which I'm sorry to say she's a bit too old and inept to carry off. The rest of the movie is basically a series of dream dates for Banning along the lines of Pretty Woman interspersed with scenes of her annoying the police and interfering with their investigation. The police official, Detective Mike McCann played by Dennis Leary, who for no apparent reason kowtows to the civilian Banning, is the most likable and believable major character in the film. Having seen Leary's real-life temperament, I found his portrayal of nice guy Detective McCann to be an impressive piece of acting.Now about that briefcase. If you watch the scene where Crown places it to block the security gate, you'll see that his hands are bare. Given the obvious design of the case as a tool for burglary, even the most plodding dullard of a police detective would have simply taken fingerprints from the case and thus been 95% of the way toward nabbing Crown. That step was never taken. Instead the police humor Banning and provide occasional relationship counseling as she parades herself in and out of a series of ridiculously opulent and/or see- through garments while enjoying her dates with, or agonizing over, Crown. Everything in the movie, IMHO, is just as poorly thought out and ineptly executed as the briefcase debacle. That holds true right down to the music and the disruptingly obvious product placement shot for a can of Pepsi One. The real crimes against art in this movie are the ones committed by the director, writers, actors, composer and musicians, and the real theft is of any time you might spend watching this travesty.

A Puff Piece from Inconsistent Director John McTiernan. it's Unexplainable how He can make Excellent Films like Die Hard (1988) and Predator (1987) and then deliver such Shallow, Uninteresting, and Safe Stuff like this bit of Eye Candy, so Sweet and safe.It's a Remake and does Nothing to Enhance the Original. In Fact, that's what this Bland, but Beautifully Shot Film does best, Nothing. The Movie is a Throwback to more Innocent Times when it wasn't Cringe-Worthy for Super-Rich People to flaunt Their Insensitivity and "World as a Game" Philosophy and Behavior in the Faces of the regular Folks who buy Tickets and Popcorn, for Escapism. It Literally has No Qualms to say, "Don't you wish you could be so obnoxious?". In the turn of the New Millennium, this is Just Antiquated hubris from the Billionaires. It's Not Fun, Not Funny, Not anything but Embarrassing. Pierce Bronson's and Rene Russo's Sophisticated Cool watching what might be a "Renoir" go up in Flames with a Shrug says It all. Speaking of Russo, where did She get that "Fingers on a Blackboard" Laugh? Dennis Leary is the Best thing in this thing, besides the Slick look, but His usual Acerbic Personality is mostly Wasted.

Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan play the Faye Dunaway and Steve McQueen characters in the original. Whilst this version is obviously more modern, slicker, more colourful and less implausible, it lacks some of the gentle class of the original. Russo plays the insurance investigator as a hard-nosed woman, who will do anything. She seems more of a loose cannon and less together that her 60s counterpart. However, that perhaps makes her more believable, and her investigation has certainly fewer plot holes and more actual procedural parts. Pierce Brosnan is good in this role; but plays Crown rather smarmy and cheesy, rather than cool like Steve McQueen. I'll admit I don't much like him as an actor, particularly, but this has him as role I think he seems to suit. The film production is excellent, it's an attractive, slick looking film and it plays out less like "rich people montages" as the original does but there is an element of that. The characters have some depth both explicit and suggested and I like the excitement from the few twists so there is a little suspense. I've had trouble reviewing both these films so suggest viewers watch both and compare and contrast but both stand alone as entertaining examples of the heist genre.

I should probably start my review for the 1999 version of "The Thomas Crown Affair" by confessing that I didn't see the original 1968 version starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. I mention this for the sake of informing my readers that no comparisons between the remake and the original will be made here, even though I do know that another version exists. With that being said, I honestly think that while the 1999 version of "The Thomas Crown Affair", starring Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo, does offer two hours of pure escapism to the audience, it suffers significantly from the fact that it is straight up forgettable. In "The Thomas Crown Affair", we follow a wealthy businessman by the name of Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) who feels bored and is looking for a little challenge in his life whether it would be betting on a golf putt or racing on a catamaran. One day, he constructs a heist to steal a highly valuable painting from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Enter investigator Catherine Banning (Rene Russo) and Detective Michael McCann (Denis Leary) to try and solve his crime. When Catherine catches on quickly that Mr. Crown committed the crime, a game of cat-and-mouse ensues between the two as they fall in love with each other. Now, she must decide whether to turn him in or become his wife. As you can tell, this is the kind of fluffy plot that a great director like Alfred Hitchcock would have had the pleasure of handling. Amongst the positive aspects of this picture, I liked the heist at the beginning of the film in terms of its execution and the way it unraveled itself. I thought Rene Russo in general was physically attractive in this picture, and the performances from Pierce Brosnan and Denis Leary are alright. Aside from that, there really isn't much to talk about with a film like this. It just basically does what it was created to do and that's pretty much it. Because this film is so fluffy and mechanical, it offers very little that would be memorable a week from when it was last watched. Basically, about 90% of this picture has been erased from my memory it leaves so little an impact. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy fluffy entertainment as much as the next fellow. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make quality Saturday matinée entertainment, don't be afraid to do your best at making it a memorable enough experience. Give me quality storytelling that's focused and always engrossing, give me an interesting romance that feels real, and make sure the characters actually contribute to the main plot. Instead, this film provides us with a story that has decent potential at the beginning, but then slowly goes downhill as it progresses. I didn't think the chemistry between Brosnan and Russo was that great since I thought they felt too routine and familiar. Additionally, I felt that I didn't really get to know about any of the characters save for Denis Leary's, who does have a good bit at the end about what he really thinks of his current occupation. That's Faye Dunaway as Thomas Crown's psychiatrist, and you could say it's interesting to note that she decided to star in both versions of the same film. Having said that, I thought there was no reason why the scenes with the psychiatrist were needed because those scenes didn't contribute to the plot in any way. There are a few other scenes like this in which I didn't know what was supposed to be accomplished from them. Between that and the lackluster chemistry, this film could have benefited greatly from better story editing. In the end, I think "The Thomas Crown Affair", for all the complaints I've just made about it, is an ideal example of a film that's perfect for rental. It's one of those films that are basically a mixed bag that contains both things to like and dislike. It's good for rental since you can skip over the parts you don't really care about and fast forward to whatever it is you like from it, but just don't consider this film a must-see.