Many things have been said about good looks over the years, such as that beauty is only skin deep, lies in the eye of the beholder, and that it, not several biplanes or a fall from the Empire State Building, killed the mighty Kong. For what all of that's worth, one thing is certain. Twentieth Century Fox's release of "Entrapment" should have been titled "Enticement" or perhaps even "Bribery."
With Sean Connery -- a past recipient of the "Sexiest Man Alive" moniker -- and Catherine Zeta-Jones -- who turned plenty of heads with her role in "The Mask of Zorro" and is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful actresses working today -- there's little doubt that the studio's promotional efforts will include enticing the audience to attend the movie in exchange for a near two-hour look at these attractive performers.
A technologically updated retelling of the classic cat burglar plot popularized in movies such as "To Catch A Thief" and even the "Pink Panther" films, this moderately enjoyable yarn relies heavily on its stars' good looks to get you through its slower and often contrived moments.
Featuring three fun and occasionally gripping -- albeit often implausible -- theft sequences, the film is otherwise flat as a pancake in nearly every other aspect and moment. Despite their good looks and the teasing of a typical Hollywood May/December romantic pairing, the chemistry never feels right between the two leads on either a romantic or professional level.
While we realize that's partially intentional and that some conflict is necessary to generate sparks and overall drama, their non-action moments together feel about as contrived and unnatural as can be imagined. The dialogue -- no matter Connery's always reliable and otherwise convincing vocal delivery -- often sounds too artificial and forced, as does Mac's all too easy acceptance of Gin's initial partnership offer.
Although this is later explained/justified -- just as was the case with last week's "eXistenZ" -- the damage is immediately done, making the audience question the believability of what occurs, thus giving the film something of a sloppy feel.
Most moviegoers, however, will probably cut the film some slack due to the slickly produced, audience pleasing sequences involving the carefully conceived and meticulously choreographed heists.
Although the third such event often strains the loosest credibility -- especially in comparison to the seemingly easier heist that took many days to stage -- and leads up to a hokey and unbelievable ending, the screenplay by Ron Bass ("My Best Friend's Wedding," "Rainman") and William Broyles ("Apollo 13") offers enough "they're gonna get caught" moments to keep things lively and counter the film's more lowly and all too obvious "difficulties."
Nonetheless, they and director Jon Amiel ("The Man Who Knew Too Little," "Copycat") not only deliver a plot full of contrivances and other problems, but also miss some decent chances to make the film a bit more fun. Since the on-screen titles focus our attention on the days counting down to the new millennium -- which is when the film is set and a fact that weakly ties into the last heist (all of which leads us to anticipate something grand to occur at that moment, but never does) -- the filmmakers should have included a Y2K (Year 2000) glitch to complicate the thieves' plan.
Unfortunately, they don't, and while they try to add some character-related twists and turns during the proceedings, they're mostly uneventful and not as effective as they should be or as Amiel and company probably intended.
Fortunately for the film, Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones are present to distract the audience from the picture's faults. While "The Avengers" disaster proved that even the great Connery can't save every film in which he appears, his persona works well here in countering his mostly flat, predictable and underwritten character.
Zeta-Jones ("The Mask of Zorro" and the upcoming "The Haunting") is obviously quite easy on the eyes, but also shows that she's got what it takes to become a believable and more than satisfactory leading lady. Although she has to suffer through some poorly written dialogue and unbelievable plot development, Zeta-Jones does it with such confidence and finesse that she makes buying into her character relatively easy.
Essentially just a two-character film, the supporting roles are few and far in between and don't appear on screen for more than just a few minutes. As such, Ving Rhames ("Out of Sight," "Mission: Impossible") is good but in reality is just "phoning in" his performance that he's already done so often before. Meanwhile, Will Patton ("Armageddon," "The Postman") plays his role so intensely and almost to the point of being villainous that you half expect to see him twirling an oily moustache while delivering his lines.
Like the best cat burglary heists, making a successful film involves lots of planning, plenty of rehearsals and quite often, nothing but simple and unpredictable good luck. While the filmmakers have gathered the correct elements for this job, they don't pull it off to the best of their abilities.
Moderately enjoyable, the film has two attractive leads and some entertaining heist sequences going for it, but more often than not seems more intent on showing Zeta-Jones' shapely body than telling a decent or completely believable story. While that's not completely a bad thing, it doesn't necessarily make for a great movie. As such, we give "Entrapment" a 4.5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)