Foolproof (2003)

hyped garbage

Highly Overrated But Still Good

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I found this a terrific little movie with terrific performances. The movie is about three pals who plan out crimes and this comes to the attention of a crime lord who forces them to go through with the crime. The movie narrative is sharp and on point but what makes this movie great is the chemistry amongst the leads and the movies pace is terrific. I think the female lead is the most powerful performer she has a great look and a wonderful presence on screen. Ryan Reynolds give one of his better performances while the bad guy has a nasty evil to him. I have watched this movie a couple of times and it never fails to keep me watching plus the ending has to be watched closely ala the usual suspects. Just sit back and enjoy for this movie is worth the watch.

"Foolproof" has a good cast and decent production values, although one jiggly-cam shot in particular may leave some viewers reaching for the Dramamine. The script has a solid three-act structure, but is hopelessly contrived and inconsistent. Some have compared it to an Ocean's 11/12/13 caper, but it plays more like an episode from the old "Mission Impossible" television series. The three leads bring new depth to the role of underachiever. Reynolds's character seems to be a brilliant engineer, negotiator and strategist, but works as an insurance adjuster. Jarsky's character is a talented electrical engineer and a bit of a computer whiz, but repairs consumer electronics. Neither has any money, a girlfriend or a decent car, but they have money to engage in elaborate self-designed role-play games. We're not sure what Booth's character does, but she is an adroit pickpocket and could probably earn a living doing sleight-of-hand magic or stealing wallets. They plan, test and rehearse elaborate heists, but do not execute them, preferring the psychic rewards of beating the system. They have a fascination with larceny, but are unwilling to put their elaborate plans to the test. Unlike Redford's character in "Sneakers," they do not attempt to monetize their endeavors by exposing security flaws to the businesses that are in jeopardy. Nor do they use their material as the source for novels or screenplays. Why do they do it? Although the screenplay tries mightily to justify their expensive self- indulgent role-play games, it comes across as nothing more than an elaborate and not particularly credible set-up, allowing a vicious criminal to hijack their plans, implicate them in the crime and extort their cooperation in an even more elaborate heist. The film tosses the audience's willful suspension of disbelief into the dust, stomps on it and grinds it under its boot heel. In one particularly egregious incident, a character cuts through an elevator's cables with a few squirts of acid. One would expect the molecules of acid to react with the molecules in the steel cable on a one-to-one basis, creating new relatively inert molecules. One would think that it would require a substantial volume of acid to eat through a cable that's a couple of centimeters thick and the process would probably take hours not minutes. The several cables supporting the car should be the same length, otherwise the longer cables aren't supporting any weight. If one is severed, the others might stretch fractionally, but not enough to cause the car to lurch. Without the weight of the elevator car counterbalancing it, there's no reason for the counterweight to rise to the roof. It would simply fall to the ground. However, the elevator and elevator shaft are equipped with multiple safety features to prevent cars from falling freely and to cushion the fall if it does. The first braking system was invented by a guy named Otis, who demonstrated it by standing on a elevator platform and cutting the cable. The platform fell a couple of inches before the brake stopped its descent. Movie makers love bearer bonds as a plot device, but the IRS and CRA aren't very fond of them, so they're basically outlawed. It makes no sense that anybody would plan weeks in advance to ship a large quantity of bonds to a location overnight and move them the next day. The dry ice was actually somewhat clever. Dry ice sublimes, turning directly into carbon dioxide, but it does cause condensation that can leave stains that might be noticeable against a chrome background. (Liquids evaporate, Mr. Phillips. Dry ice sublimes.) Of course, the difficult part is finding dry ice in the necessary size and shape and keeping it that size until needed.The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies. The team rejects and returns several small, valuable objects, but they somehow have them again at the conclusion. A character is surprised that another character has purchased an expensive item, but at the end it is implied that the character knew how it was afforded all along. A character claims a pistol is unloaded because the magazine is removed. But the character then inserts the magazine and racks the slide, ejecting a round that was in the chamber. One hopes they used dummy cartridges and not live ammo when they filmed the scene. If you're going to switch pistols with a known criminal who is likely to be arrested in the near future, you probably don't want to use a pistol that is registered to yourself. The script offers intriguing double- and triple-crosses, but they're marred by technical implausibility and the characters simply knowing too much in unrealistic detail. Production values are superior to those of a television movie or low-budget independent film, but not on par with most action/heist films. The camera is usually in motion, slowly panning or tilting to mask vibrations in the jiggly-cam shots. One wishes they would buy a tripod and plan the shots. Good performances, particularly by Jarsky, Reynolds and Suchet. The film is a pleasant diversion, provided one doesn't approach it too critically. It might have been much better if the author had conducted more thorough research and worked through some cleaver notions to make them more plausible. The ending is a little too Goody Two-Shoes. Fans of heist films want the protagonists to get away with the spoils, possibly through an unexpected reward ("Out of Time") or keeping a portion, as in "Flawless," not revert to their pre-adventure stasis.

It certainly has plot holes, worse are the technical ignorance.Burglar alarms are not laser beams, they use IR which is not visible however much steam and dust you blow. Elevators stop by mechanics if wires break/are cut, cameras will warn if something is moving after hours.Bearer bonds have coupons attached to them,stolen bonds can not be blocked, because then they would not be bearer bonds.There would be one sharp round in the chamber in Leos Glock even if Sam exchanges the magazine.Why is that they want to escape and enter by the elevator shaft in the first place? Leo does not have to.......Why would Leo cast them under police suspicion in the first place, he has all the evidence, that would be enough.

Foolproof is your typical heist film but with a nice "beginners" element. You have a basic blackmail to get the show rolling, but the different twists the scenario brings in can keep you guessing until the end.The acting is not stellar, but good enough not to distract you. There's also a caricatural feeling to it that's dosed just enough to keep the whole thing simmering with fun.The only real big drag, is the thing with the lasers... It seems that they all have to do it, and every time it's a question of contortion, as if alarm systems were that dumb.It's entertaining, it's intelligent, it's worth seeing even if it's not a master piece. It's an easy pick.