I'm debating currently if I even want to waste my time writing a review of this film that seems to have so many problems that it almost seems depressing to begin to get into it. ENTRAPMENT is not worth your money, in my opinion. I've been a Connery fan for a loooooong time. In the realm of cool gods, he's right up there in the John Wayne and Clint Eastwood pantheon of asskickers. Catherine Zeta Jones does have one of the most finely sculpted asses covered in tight material in film history. But the lack of characters, soul and passion made this film a horrible tedious waste of my time which could've been better spent watching QUICKTIME 3 versions of the various Episode One trailers or actually working on the site. I now turn you over to ROBOGEEK because... Quite frankly... I'm sick of thinking about this movie. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the next Connery film and for Zeta Jones' THE HAUNTING... Here's Robo
"Entrapment" sucks.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry -- I forgot to do my usual chipper Robo-introduction, didn't I? Well, after suffering through the cesspool of mediocrity that is "Entrapment," I'm far too cranky to wax winsome, thank you very much.
Besides, some of you out there thing ol' Robo's gone soft, as I haven't written a nefariously negative review in some time. But you see, I've been working really hard at becoming a kinder, gentler automaton, and have struggled to embrace the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule. (Though watching episodes of the forthcoming "Babylon 5" spin-off series "Crusade" makes that a nigh-impossible proposition.)
Did I mention that "Entrapment" sucks? No, really -- it sucks really, really hard.
This is, in a way, the kind of movie I find most offensive. It's soulless. To me (uh-oh, I'm adopting a Harry-ism), filmmaking and filmgoing requires what I call a "compelling incentive." This is one of my big Robo-theories, and a phrase I toss around from time to time. I don't know if I've used it on AICN yet, but if I have I'm sure you'll tell me.
Basically, if you're a director, producer, star, or studio, and you're going to invest literally years of your life and God only knows how many tens of millions of dollars to make a movie, you really ought to have some "compelling incentive" to make that particular movie. In parallel, for an audience to go see a specific movie, there needs to be some unique "compelling incentive" to see it as opposed to something else, or nothing at all.
What is the "compelling incentive" to go see "Entrapment"? I asked my Robo-sibling, El Cosmico (www.elcosmico.com), by inviting him to the sneak preview this evening. His dead-pan response:
"Catherine Zeta-Jones' ass."
And, well, you know, that's basically all there is in this movie that evokes any attention -- though I must admit I've been more than a little offended by how crassly said ass has been used to sell the film. I mean, how many times have we all seen that shot of her ass thrust up towards the firmament as she slinks across the floor accompanied by that low pluck of bass?
El Cosmico concurred that his time would have been better spent just watching that clip from the trailer over and over again than enduring the actual film. Maybe it'll show up on his website.
But perhaps you want to see this movie for Connery. Well, that makes sense, although he might as well be reading the phone book. I mean, on one level, it's _Sean_CONNERY_, uber-God of coolness. But instead of getting to sink his teeth into a Cary Grant-like "To Catch A Thief" role, he's consigned to a paint-by-numbers script that is borderline ridiculous, executed with profoundly uninspired direction.
"Entrapment" SUCKS.
It is uninvolving. It is boring. It is tedious. It isn't even fun. Connery is mildly engaging simply because he's Connery, but the characters around him are a mess. Catherine Zeta-Jones' performance is periodically laughable, though most of the time she's just annoying and amazingly unsympathetic. She evokes none of the charm, edge, or sensuality that she brought to last summer's "Mask of Zorro." And throughout the film, she has this sort of sleepy look, as her eyes never seem to fully open. I couldn't help but think what a delicious horror it'd be like to pair her with Keanu Reeves, whose mouth is perpetually hanging open in that Movie That's Making Too Much Money. But I digress...
Her character is also a wildly inconsistent patchwork of traits that made me wonder if she suffered from multiple personality disorder. At least half of her scenes don't make any sense. Ving Rhames is sort of cool, but he's burdened by a character who's just as much of a mess, but with a fraction of screentime. Most confounding of all is Will Patton (an actor I really like) who's cast as "Hector Cruz," I think. What? Instead of casting a Hispanic, or changing the character name, what do they do? They give him a ridiculous moustache. Oh, I see.
I referred to "The Matrix" earlier, and I can't help but continue the comparison. First off, since I never reviewed the film for AICN, let me go on the record and say that it is staggeringly overrated; all of you "Matrix" junkies simply haven't seen enough anime.
That said, while it shares the same vacancy of spirit, humanity and heart that "Entrapment" suffers, at least it looks cool, has style, and stuff happens. "Entrapment" is decidedly blah. Given that anyone with half a brain could see that all you need to do to make this film work is mix classic Bond stylishness and flair with the seductiveness of "To Catch A Thief" and a kinetic dash of "Once A Thief," well...
WHY DOES THIS FILM SUCK?
God, even the score is terrible! (And you _know_ how I hate a bad score. Though to Christopher Young's defense, the film doesn't really provide any inspiration to draw from.)
What confounds me most is the script, or rather the disparity between how bad it is, and how good the writers credited with it are (who I won't name here out of respect). That makes me really wonder what the hell happened to this movie.
I'd be remiss if I didn't take just a moment to rant about how much I despise the Cinemark theater chain -- which is up for sale, by the way. Their slogan is "the best seat in town." Well, I'll give them that; they have the most comfortable seats -- high-back rockers -- of any theater in Austin. But that's it. Their theaters are an aesthetic apocalypse, and their management is consistently inept. It's bad enough that they don't have THX -- the simple fact of which should preclude them from getting "The Phantom Menace" -- but the digital surround they do have usually isn't working. During this screening, for instance, the sound cut out during the film's pseudo-climax -- which actually added a level of suspense to the filmgoing experience that the scene itself was woefully inadequate to provide.
Most ironic, however, was the fact that literally -- LITERALLY -- they were handing out Pepcid AC samples after the movie as part of some kind of promotion. I swear! It was so metaphysically appropriate I almost had an aneurysm. Unbelievable.
Listen to me -- do yourself a favor, and don't let yourself be entrapped by Catherine Zeta-Jones' ass or Sean Connery's charm. Instead, seek out a little film called "La Cucaracha," starring Eric Roberts. It's absolutely fantastic, and his performance is a joy to behold. Or stay home and watch an episode of "Lonely Planet" on the Travel Channel at 3, 8 or 11pm EST. (Ian braves Mongolia on Thursday, and Justine visits Paris on Friday).
Meanwhile, I'm going to listen to my mp3 of "Duel of the Fates" another several thousand times.
- robogeek@aint-it-cool-news.com
P.S.: I'm doing some spring cleaning here at AICN World Headquarters, and will soon be offering highly collectible Robo-artifacts for sale on eBay -- including a PowerBook and a Hi8 camcorder, along with some one-sheets I have duplicates of. I'll keep you posted, or do a search later today. Own a piece of AICN history!
