Entrapment
** BM
Starring: Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Ving Rhames

Home

CriminyPete Awards

Good Movie Archive

Bad Movie Archive

The eGroup

Message Board

Links


Sean Connery's eyebrows are connected to his beard.

That's not right, is it? Perhaps you didn't hear me. His EYEBROWS are CONNECTED to his BEARD! If you have any doubts, there's a pointlessly long close-up of his face near the end of the film where you get to study this very well. Luckily, there's enough other gross things in this film to prepare the palate for this - i.e. Connery grunting over a gratuitous Catherine Zeta-Jones ass shot, heavy intimations that he might actually have a sex scene with her, etc. It's a bit disorienting.

What's more bothersome, however, are the technical gaffes here. The whole point of the technical work on a film is to blend it together well enough so regular schmucks like me don't notice it. When I'm noticing really poorly done bluescreen (with some cruddy computer animation of guards running around in the background) and extensive, distinct looping - the overdubbing of dialog in postproduction - well, that's when the backstage boys have missed their mark.

I'm not sure what was up with Catherine Zeta-Jones. Either she had problems doing anything with the lame script, maybe she had problems with the accent, or maybe she just flat out isn't good, but her dialog here seemed about as natural as polyester.

Here's the BIGGEST problem, though. When is Hollywood going to learn that you can NEVER have too much Ving Rhames? If Ving is in your film, USE him to the fullest. But it's far too much to ask of this film to make use of what it has. Good actors do not a good film make. They can only make it vaguely watchable.

Back to CriminyPete.Com Knee Jerk Spoilers

Entrapment Review
Entrapment

Sean Connery's eyebrows are connected to his beard.

That's not right, is it? Perhaps you didn't hear me. His EYEBROWS are CONNECTED to his BEARD! If you have any doubts, there's a pointlessly long close-up of his face near the end of the film where you get to study this very well. Luckily, there's enough other gross things in this film to prepare the palate for this - i.e. Connery grunting over a gratuitous Catherine Zeta-Jones ass shot, heavy intimations that he might actually have a sex scene with her, etc. It's a bit disorienting.

What's more bothersome, however, are the technical gaffes here. The whole point of the technical work on a film is to blend it together well enough so regular schmucks like me don't notice it. When I'm noticing really poorly done bluescreen (with some cruddy computer animation of guards running around in the background) and extensive, distinct looping - the overdubbing of dialog in postproduction - well, that's when the backstage boys have missed their mark.

I'm not sure what was up with Catherine Zeta-Jones. Either she had problems doing anything with the lame script, maybe she had problems with the accent, or maybe she just flat out isn't good, but her dialog here seemed about as natural as polyester.

Here's the BIGGEST problem, though. When is Hollywood going to learn that you can NEVER have too much Ving Rhames? If Ving is in your film, USE him to the fullest. But it's far too much to ask of this film to make use of what it has. Good actors do not a good film make. They can only make it vaguely watchable.


Back to the CriminyPete's Reviews