User Reviews (320)

Add a Review

  • One of the best things this movie has going for it is the two stars. Sean Connery is one of the most recognized and appreciated faces in film today. And Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of the most talented and beautiful new faces around today. Mix them into a film with some good action, an interesting plot and some cool gadgets and you've got a winner. That's what ENTRAPMENT is.

    Gin Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) seems to be working for an insurance company. She has a certain fascination with Mac MacDougal (Sean Connery), who is an incredibly good thief who has stolen numerous works of art. After a particularly expensive work of art is stolen, her boss Hector Cruz (Will Patton) sends her to track him down, lure him to an extremely beneficial robbery and trap him (hence the title) so the FBI can arrest him. But Gin, who is a very talented thief herself has her own plans. With the help of Mac, and his partner that she doesn't know about named Aaron Thibadeaux (Ving Rhames), she wants to do a robbery with a payoff of billions of dollars.

    The acting in this movie is, of course, excellent. Sean Connery, naturally, does his usual outstanding job, but Catherine Zeta-Jones steals the show. Her close-ups are beautiful, as expected, and she manages to give off a professional, and sexy, performance. Ving Rhames also does a good job as the not-sure-he-can-be-trusted partner of Connery. Will Patton also does a good job, even though his part isn't especially large.

    The plot is very interesting, but the ending is a little confusing. It happens and ends rather quickly, which may make you think "What just happened?" You'll understand it a few minutes later, but some will be left with a some what dissatisfied feeling about the end.

    This movie is really pretty good. The actors are good, the plot is interesting, the machinery is nice and the close-ups of Catherine Zeta-Jones' butt are great. Worth a rent, for sure.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    That was the coolest part of the movie. I mean, I'm not a guy or anything, but I have to admit she does look sexy. I really enjoyed "Entrapment". It had high action and intensity. I saw the film over HBO, I showed my mom and she was in love as well. Although this is not my favorite Connery film, it's still worth a look. The love story wasn't really needed. But you'll deal. Over all, the film is good. It was well directed with some remarkable actors. And remember LASER BEAMS! If you don't like the film, you will definatly like LASER BEAMS! Hehe. I would recommend this to fans of Connery or Jones.

    7/10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The action races from New York to London to Scotland to Kuala Lumpur, while three intricately plotted and technically executed thefts take place. The action twists and turns, the characters may or may not be what they seem to be, and crosses follow double-crosses. Thus, there is little time for the viewer to be bored or to ponder the implausibility of it all. But, in a sleek glossy film such as this one, logic is not a key factor, it's the look and the action that count, and both of those attributes, especially the look, make "Entrapment" an entertaining film. Sean Connery, who plays an aging master thief, can anchor any film that he appears in, and this one is no exception. His presence alone grounds the movie and nearly makes the implausible plausible. However, while Connery is one of a handful of men who have retained their looks and masculine appeal beyond middle age, the likelihood that the luscious Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is at the peak of her beauty here, would fall for him tests the bounds of credibility. Perhaps the romance was written in as a fantasy for us near-codgers and to give us hope. Besides the excellent cinematography of the human scenery, which also includes the dependable Will Patton and Ving Rhames, the lush photography of the Scottish Highlands offers an unsolicited advertisement for the Scottish National Tourist Board. If rooms were available in the luxurious castle that Connery uses in the film, this would have been written there.

    Thus, "Entrapment" seems to have everything: beautiful people, solid performances, breathtaking scenery, suspense, and excitement. There is definitely enough here to entertain a not-too-discriminating viewer for two hours. Of course, afterward, one might ponder why all of the expensive high-tech security systems that are depicted in the film quickly fall victim to a pair of thieves who seem more amused with themselves than intense and focused when they are stealing such incredible sums of money. If theft were as easy and casual as Connery and Zeta-Jones make it seem to be, we could all have a lot more fun in life plotting and executing heists instead of commuting and staring at computer monitors.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I remember how, after seeing this movie, everyone in my office was talking about Catherine Zeta-Jones and how she was, arguably, the most beautiful woman in the world. The women in the office went to go see it after hearing all the fuss, many going just to confirm that "she isn't all that." In a way, it's a bit of a shame because it's a decent heist movie with a good plot and pretty good acting. Sean Connery was, as always, excellent in his role and the cinematography. It all gets overshadowed by the Catherine Zeta-Jones laser scene that guys will be thinking about for days (Years?).

    Does any of this make the movie any less entertaining to watch? Probably not.
  • A movie with a preposterous plot, exotic locations, absurd action sequences, and so much chemistry between attractive actors that we don't care. Gets by well enough on style and star chemistry and the basic allure of watching a tightly-planned caper unfold. A certain sunny sloppiness almost redeems Jon Amiel's throwback caper flick.Connery and Zeta-Jones not only look great together, they work well together, too.Connery and Zeta-Jones are such fun to watch together it almost doesn't matter how little sense the movie makes -- and their relationship is far more gleefully perverse, weirdly chivalrous and surprisingly interesting than the trailer makes it look.Cleverly updates the formula with a sprinkling of fun, fin-DE-millennium touches.Entrapment luxuriates in the best Hollywood big bucks can buy: superb sets and cinematography, spectacular locations, expensive stars. During the opening credits the camera glides through a romanticised Manhattan skyline. The steel and chrome gleam, the lights of the skyscrapers are digital jewels and the frame of the screen is dynamically pierced at odd angles by a laser-like red beam. This sequence holds out a tantalising promise for the movie, particularly when the camera rests on a sinuous cat-burglar entering a high, tightly shut window with elegant ease. We expect an exciting, sleek and slick caper movie, something like To Catch a Thief (1954) or at least (let's not be too greedy) Arabesque (1966). It's not the stars' fault that Entrapment is disappointing. Sean Connery gets the Cary Grant treatment here, made the object of his co-star's desire. Catherine Zeta-Jones chases him just as surely and shrewdly as Audrey Hepburn chased Grant in Charade (1963). Given the 40-year age gap between them, her instigation is presumably meant to make their romance less risible, but it's an unnecessary precaution. Close-ups reveal Connery's skin is losing the battle with time, but his appeal was never really based on youth.

    Connery's stardom rests on his ability to represent a man completely at ease with his masculinity and his sexuality better than any other star of his generation. There was always something a bit suspect about prettier men like Paul Newman (cf. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, 1958) while tougher guys such as Clint Eastwood seemed too stiff to be turned on by anything but seaminess (Tightrope, 1984). Connery, however, deploys his physical size, gruff and commanding voice, a glance both sure and sly and a stillness that can pounce into graceful movement at any moment to project a sexuality so confident it can afford to be nonchalant and playful. We are easily convinced that what Zeta-Jones wants from him, give or take a couple of billion dollars, is delivery on the promise of a rough good time.

    Zeta-Jones more than holds her own here. Connery may be the object of her desire, but Zeta-Jones is meant to be the object of ours. The sight of her leotard-clad figure practising gymnastics in order to avoid the burglar alarm's lasers is more spectacular and pleasurable than the action set pieces. She emerges from Entrapment a full-blown star, flirting with such intelligent sultriness not even a man of Connery's strength can resist. Good alone but even better together, the two have an undoubted chemistry.

    Entrapment aspires to be nothing more than a bit of glamorous nonsense, but although it has done all right by the glamour, it has perhaps done too well by the nonsense. Very badly structured, the story begins to feel ripped off half way through, its maze of double-crossings never delivering a narrative payoff. At the unbelievable and tacked-on ending, even a cynic might feel a twinge of discomfort at the lack of even a half-hearted gesture towards a moral rationale for the action. We're meant to root for these thieves just because they look gorgeous, seem meant for each other and are good at their work.

    The fact that the combination of sex and capital as spectacle is thought to need no other rationale says a lot about millennial culture, and would make a good subject for another movie. But this is by-numbers genre work which has forgotten a few sums. Entrapment fails as a caper film because it neglects that fundamental ingredient - a credible plot, evidently something even the biggest chequebooks in Hollywood can no longer guarantee.
  • I have to admit that Catherine is so gorgeous in this film and Sean so handsome (as always!) that they (themselves not the character) kept on getting my attention while we watched the film.

    Now to the film... the picture is not so sharp and the audio is okay. (This is the next film that we watched after The Matrix). As for the storyline, the chase scenes didn't live up to how the story was brought up which was very good and exciting and intriguing.

    Sean and Catherine make a good pair in this film. Catherine didn't look like she was 'intimidated' by working with a veteran actor like Sean. She endured the film and it looks like that she actually quite overwhelmed Sean on this one. It is an honor for Hollywood actors and actresses to work with an icon like Sean and not only Catherine was fortunate but she did fit as Sean's sidekick. The 'romance' that was built up between them has a good chemistry and they really are suited as a match (despite the age gap).

    To my surprise, the latter part of the film was shot in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where i worked for almost 6 months. It is very refreshing to see our side of the world in big films (with big names) like this. I am not sure about this but it's quite weird that there are no people/commuters at the train station at 6:30 in the morning. I felt funny seeing them alone on the station that really didn't look like realistic at all. I know for sure that KL is a busy capital and it justs doesn't look correct.

    On the chase scene inside the current tallest building in the world, the tear gas event is also a disappointment. I've experienced the agony of what tear gas do to your eyes, skin and nose/lungs - and this without even being near the teargas can! I just can't imagine how the characters would have 'survived' going thru the smoke and then continue running away from the authorities.

    Sean and Catherine were great together and the story was thrilling and exciting. If not for the sloppy chase scenes, I have given it 8 stars. In this case, it's a 7.
  • One of those solid Sean Connery flicks in which he plays his usual charming gentleman character, who this time is trying to pull of the biggest heist ever. Will he succeed or die trying?

    Great surprising plot turns, subtle gentleman like jokes and some budding romanceas wel. Lots of good action sequences and enough supsense to keep me fascinated how this story would end till the very last minute. Just one of those solid made heist movies. Yes, it is all a bit farfetched, but lovely entertaining stuff anyway.
  • The best aspect of Entrapment is the wonderful understated romance between Sean Connery's "Mac" and Catherine Zeta-Jones' "Gin." I thought this was far more moving than many of the swoony full-blown love affairs I've seen in other movies. Zeta-Jones is very glamorous and got to model a lot of swanky clothes. Connery is weary and reserved as befitting his age and that made the May-November romance all the more poignant. Ving Rhames again was the street wise tough, a role he has done many times before. The action sequences while quite good are not as exciting or suspenseful as in other movies of this type (ie. The Thomas Crown Affair). Still I enjoyed this movie thanks mostly to the the chemistry and as I said understated romance between Mac and Gin. Recommended, 7.5/10.
  • I have to say that I liked watching Entrapment. It is a good, entertaining movie. But what I don't understand is why this movie is called a comedy? It didn't really make me laugh. It did make me smile though and that is already a good thing. There were some humorous parts in it, but in my opinion, that's still not enough to call it a comedy.

    If it isn't a comedy, what is it than? It's a well produced action thriller which was able to keep my attention from the beginning to the end thanks to the many twists and the good acting. You could say of course that Sean Connery is still used to playing this kind of roles. He wasn't James Bond for nothing. He still knows how to play a smart gentleman who likes to play with a lot of gadgets and pretty ladies... And what an opponent he has! Catherine Zeta-Jones is really nice to look at in every way...

    Connery is an art thief who is able to pass the best security systems, stealing the painting and making fun of the security people by changing the original painting with a picture of Elvis. Catherine Zeta-Jones investigates the crime scenes for an insurance company and tries to catch Connery. To do so she will try to convince him that she's a thief as well, that she has planned a huge robbery but that she needs his help to complete it.

    Thanks to the many twists, this movie will keep you guessing till the end who is what, who did what to who and why,... And the ending is, in comparison to other movies of this kind, a pure surprise, very subtle and truly original. That is why I reward this movie with a 7,5/10. Truly a good job!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Entrapment (1999): Dir: Jon Amiel / Cast: Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Ving Rhames, Will Patton, Maury Chaykin: Well crafted action film about being caught but not so much within a crime but within a relationship. It is about technique when committing theft. Sean Connery plays a elderly thief who steals art paintings and Catherine Zeta-Jones plays an agent assigned to bring him in but she wishes to steal the Chinese mask and needs his help. Detailed plot that gets lost in its action scenes particularly in the conclusion where nothing makes sense. Well crafted by director Jon Amiel whose credits include Copycat and The Man Who Knew Too Little. He is successful when it comes to different genres and subjects. Action is exhilarating but it is the psychological aspects of the thieves that draws us in. Connery is excellent as a thief unreeling charm and intelligence as if baiting. Zeta-Jones is graceful in her romantic curiosity and physical skill. Supporting roles are unfortunately cardboard. Ving Rhames and Will Patton appear in flat supporting roles that are beneath the two leads that overshadow it all. This is a film that depends on the strength of its leads because other roles pass through with very little to make them broad or interesting. Clever in its examination of crime and skill with luring romance and stunning sets that may captivate and entrap viewers. Score: 7 / 10
  • I did not go into "Entrapment" expecting too much, and well, there wasn't much. I have come to the conclusion that there are only two reasons why people may like this movie and both have to do with the two leading stars. Sean Connery is universally seen as the best looking older man and his Scottish charm is of course also one of his attractions. Then there is Catherine Zeta Jones, a red-hot newcomer whose luscious figure would make any man want to watch. "Entrapment" is a perfect example of a Hollywood star film, which has the sole purpose of raking in as much cash as possible. Any attraction to the film is based entirely on its stars. I saw the movie with a number of people who liked it, and when I was discussing it with them, all of their praise was based on the two leads.

    The director, Jon Amiel is generally an unknown film-maker to most people. He has done "Copycat" and "Sommersby", both of which are average films and whose success can be attributed to the stars. "Entrapment" does not contain any breakthroughs in terms of editing or cinematography, and it certainly does not have an original plot. We have seen the formula that makes this movie many times, perhaps in varying inflections, but essentially the same. So what's left, entertainment value. Many people reading this review may think that I do not look at films in terms of entertainment value. Not the case. There are many films that I have given excellent reviews to based entirely on the merit of entertainment. Two recent examples that I can think of are "Cruel Intentions" and "Go". But "Entrapment" lacks anything close to what might have been an entertaining or interesting plot. The idea of basing a heist that will only work if it is conducted on New Years of the Millennium is a great idea. I would love to see a film about the meticulous planning and the execution of such an endeavor. "Entrapment" tries to accomplish too much and ends up leaving such huge plot holes that the film feels rushed and absurd.

    Gin (Catherine Zeta Jones) takes on the role of an insurance agent/undercover thief who hooks up with Robert (Sean Connery) a rich career criminal to execute a couple of huge international heists. They train together in Robert's castle. There are a few scenes here that I enjoyed. I especially liked the scenes of Gin practicing avoiding lasers simulated by strands of yarn

    Of course Robert and Gin have a romantic tension that is complicated by the rules of being a thief. You can not trust each other if you're romantically involved, right? At first, they do not seem to get along. Hollywood loves to put together two misfits who have to put aside their differences to accomplish some task. This formula has marked the cop-buddy film for years. Take for instance the first Lethal Weapon. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover at first hate each other. And in "Die Hard: With a Vengeance" Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson did not at first get along, but in the end their differences are put aside and they emerge as friends.

    "Entrapment" also exists as a catalyst to Hollywood's ongoing trend to have romantic encounters between young, extremely attractive women, and much older men. There is a forty year age difference between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta Zones. Other recent examples of this trend include Michael Douglas and Gyneth Paltrow in "A Perfect Murder" and Harrison Ford and Anne Heche in "Six Days Seven Nights". This trend is not necessarily a negative thing, but in "Entrapment", it's just too blatantly obvious and cliched.

    "Entrapment" is a movie that had potential, but got lost in a number of cliches and its hurriedness. Connery and Jones do have chemistry and look good together, but forget the romantic tension; leave it for romantic films. Forget the first heist; it feels like filler to keep us occupied until the final scenes and climax. A strong film could have been made with the planning of the year 2000 heist. Because it would be the heist of the century, so many ideas could have been developed which would have made for a much more entertaining film.

    ** out of ****
  • "Entrapment" It's got two handsome stars, a smooth portrayal of stealing, and just a hint of action and romance. Considering that this doesn't end at the prom or a warehouse, this is a breath of fresh air. Director Jon Amiel has a very checkered past, but with "Entrapment", I've never seen him so sure of himself. The film glides effortlessly between some sketchily drawn romantic inclinations to well-executed scenes of training to actually exciting action moments of the heists. It's a nice package.

    The film is really about the art, or maybe even the beauty, of stealing. A refreshing idea that hasn't been considered in some time. There is a giddy glee in just watching the thieves use high tech mechanisms to outsmart the systems that house the loot. It's a carefully paced film, so the usual action-payoff-drama-action-payoff-drama form for these types of movies isn't used here. It's entertaining as hell, and the climax holds many thrills.

    Like I said before, the two leads are some of the finest looking in the film biz. Sean Connery makes a wonderful choice by playing off his old age. As the character, he seems overwhelmed by Catherine Zeta-Jones. It makes for a few moments of sly comedy. As for Ms. Zeta-Jones, it has been said of her that she takes the best close-up in current motion pictures. "Entrapment" proves that statement time and again. While she does struggle trying to keep down her natural Welsh accent, Zeta-Jones makes for a lively sidekick to Connery, and despite the ballyhooed age difference, they work together just fine.

    Despite a lackluster and forced final, "Entrapment" works better than you may think. It's easy to get hung up on the age difference or Connery's hairpiece, but the movie is too much fun to be bothered with such minute details. This is good pre-summer entertainment. I give the filmmakers kudos for keeping the tone light and the suspense on 11.------------ 8
  • I have this film two chances and liked it much better the second time. I guess I expected more on the first viewing, but why not? Sean Connery usually is good, Catherine Zeta-Jones was a hot, new commodity at the time, and I usually enjoy heist films.

    This movie had not just one but TWO heists in it, so it should have been really good.....but was fair, at best.

    It just wasn't that entertaining, too flat in too many spots. Connery looked at times like he was just going through the motions. His usual spark was missing. It's not bad....so-so as a thriller goes, but really not memorable and certainly not as dramatic as it should have been.
  • This movie is one of those that keeps the characters purpose twisting and turning. You have to second guess the ending twice. The vivacious Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a top notch insurance agent that specializes in art theft. She takes on the mission of catching a master thief(Sean Connery)by convincing him that she too is a supreme art thief.

    Just enough action to keep your attention. Wonderful scenery and the more than just beautiful Zeta-Jones makes for advanced heartbeat. The age difference of the two stars fits the script like a glove and gives a fleeting glimpse of romance.

    Camera work is intense. The big chase/escape scene is awesome.

    Also appearing are: Ving Rhames, Maury Chaykin and Will Patton.
  • I know: many viewers resented the apparent lack of physical chemistry between the characters played by Connery and Zeta-Jones. Most of them had vivid memories of Sean Connery playing the always charismatic 007, and Catherine Zeta-Jones exchanging sparks with Antonio Banderas in The Mask of Zorro.

    But is chemistry between a man and a woman just, physical, sensual, and sexual ?

    I find the movie entertaining, as it shows 2 people enjoying doing what they like best. The chemistry is between Zeta-Jones youth, outgoing passion for life and Connery's less evident, more inward quest for adventure which is backed up by his wisdom and longtime experience. As they go about doing and accomplishing things together, the old man develops respect and acknowledges the younger woman's worth. Slowly he starts to like her and, despite his age, or, perhaps because of his age, he feels that, to a certain extent he cares for her. While, at the same time, she turns from intellectually admiring him to actually liking him on her side.

    Admittedly, it is an uneasy chemistry between Connery, the Scott gentleman and Catherine, the Welsh with long brown hair and eyes, but the film offers enjoyable action moments interspersed with occasionally good dialogue and exchanges between the two leads.

    Watch "Entrapment" ! Enjoy it as I did for what it is, not for what it is not!- (rating 7.5/10)
  • Sir Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones played a pair of world class thieves who go to great lengths for the robbery. It isn't just the treasure but the adrenaline that gets them going. They seek treasures like a priceless mask and Rembrandt painting. The Millennium fortune falls on New Year's Eve in 1999 where they try to overtake a system stealing money in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The film takes place in New York City, London, Scotland and Malaysia. The cast is great and this odd pairing is quite believable sometimes.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Entrapment" is essentially a lightweight caper movie about a scheme to catch one of the world's greatest art thieves. It features an enjoyable series of action sequences, daring heists and enough double-dealing, twists and intrigue to keep its audience engaged and entertained throughout. This is pure escapism and a fun film that's a great vehicle for its two lead actors who make the most of the considerable amount of screen time that they're given.

    After a priceless Rembrandt painting is stolen from a New York skyscraper, insurance investigator Virginia "Gin" Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) suspects that the culprit is international art thief Robert "Mac" MacDougal (Sean Connery) and persuades her boss to allow her to go undercover to pursue him. She meets up with Mac in London where she poses as an art thief and suggests that they join forces to steal an extremely valuable Chinese mask from Bedford Palace. Despite their success in stealing the mask, Mac remains very suspicious of her real motives but then she interests him in a plan to carry out an even more daring heist which could net them $8 billion.

    Gin's plan involves carrying out a sophisticated computer based robbery at the headquarters of the International Clearance Bank located in the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. The type of theft that she envisages exploits the fact that the bank's computer system has to be shut down briefly just before the new millennium and so the heist is eventually carried out in the countdown to the year 2000.

    The tension builds as they attempt to carry out their plan at precisely the right time with Gin's boss and a very large number of security officers monitoring what's happening in the building. Mac and Gin complete their mission successfully but in the process inadvertently set off the alarm system and have to make an incredibly dangerous escape by clambering precariously along some cables that link the building's two towers. The remainder of their plan doesn't run smoothly and they have to escape the building separately before meeting up again the next morning at Pudu train station where a further series of unexpected developments follow.

    The relationship that develops between Mac an Gin is amusing to watch as there's a certain amount of attraction between them but also a significant absence of trust. Mac clearly appreciates Gin's physical beauty especially in the sequences where he breaks into her hotel room unexpectedly and also when she's practicing the contortions required to negotiate a network of laser beams. On the other hand however, he is very suspicious of her motives and on one occasion asks, "has there ever been anyone you couldn't manipulate, beguile or seduce?" and she replies "No".

    Commendably, the quality of their performances and the amount of charm they exude, enable Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones to compensate greatly for the lack of witty repartee that would normally be a feature of a story involving their kind of relationship.

    A series of exotic locations, excellent cinematography and well-executed stunts are also used well to further enhance the enjoyment of this glossy Y2K thriller.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In the cinema, as in most areas of life, one occasionally comes across some strange coincidences. In 1999 the then reigning James Bond, Pierce Brosnan, starred in a heist movie, "The Thomas Crown Affair", about a suave, sophisticated Scottish art thief who becomes entangled with a glamorous female American insurance investigator. And in the same year the original Bond, Sir Sean himself, starred in a heist movie, "Entrapment", about a suave, sophisticated Scottish art thief who becomes entangled with a glamorous female American insurance investigator.

    A priceless Rembrandt painting is stolen from an office. Virginia Baker, an investigator working for the painting's insurers, suspects that the culprit is Robert "Mac" MacDougal a well-known international art thief, and is instructed investigate him. She tries to entrap him by claiming that she herself is an art thief and that she needs his help to carry out one of her schemes, the theft of a priceless Chinese mask from an English stately home. Mac does not need the money (he is already extremely wealthy and lives in a luxurious castle in the Scottish Highlands) but cannot resist the challenge of trying to outwit the owner's extremely elaborate security precautions. Having completed the theft of the mask, Mac and Virginia then plan an even bigger job, the theft of $8 billion from a bank. (This particular theft does not involve works of art, but will be accomplished by computer fraud). The scene of the crime is to be the Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Jon Amiel having borrowed Alfred Hitchcock's device of a cliffhanging scene set at a well-known landmark structure. (In 1999 the towers were the world's tallest building).

    Like his exact contemporary Clint Eastwood (both were born in 1930), Sean Connery has continued to act in action films throughout his sixties and into his seventies- "The Rock" and "The League of Gentlemen" are other examples- but as with Eastwood his age is generally an important plot point. (Certain other ageing action heroes still insist on taking roles which rally should go to men several decades younger). Here Mac accepts Virginia's assistance in stealing the mask because, in his sixties, he is no longer as athletic as he once was and needs a younger accomplice.

    Like most films of this type, "Entrapment" has a complicated plot. Many of the complications, apart from the details of the actual crimes, derive from what might be called a triangle of mistrust. The three parties involved in this triangle are Mac, Virginia and her boss, Hector Cruz. No-one knows whom they can trust. Is Virginia really helping Mac, or is she simply trying to entrap him? Is she working on her own account, planning to betray both Mac and her employers in her own interests? Or is it in fact Mac who is planning to betray Virginia to the police?

    For a film that makes glamour its main selling-point, it was a wise move to cast Catherine Zeta Jones as the female lead, as she was probably the most beautiful screen star of the nineties. Apart from the Petronas Towers cliffhanger, the one scene in this film that everyone will remember is the one where the lovely Catherine, dressed in a figure-hugging catsuit, does an elaborate gymnastic routine around network of laser beams during the stealing of the mask. She and Connery work well together despite the big age difference.

    For me, one weakness of this film, and of the genre to which it belongs, is that it is based on the sort of moral code that will not bear too close scrutiny. The main rule of heist movies is that the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" does not apply in situations where no-one gets hurt, where the victims are large corporations or hugely wealthy individuals and where the perpetrators are suitably glamorous, especially if they are sexy young women like Catherine Zeta. Yet despite its dubious morality, "Entrapment" is generally enjoyable. I would rate it higher than the Brosnan "Thomas Crown Affair" remake, which suffers by comparison with its predecessor. Like the best heist movies- the original 1967 "Thomas Crown" being a good example- it is slick, glossy fast-moving and does not take itself too seriously. 7/10
  • Catherine Zeta-Jones is an insurance investigator obsessed with capturing Sean Connery, the world's greatest art thief. She convinces her boss Will Patton that Connery is responsible for the recent theft of a Rembrandt, and if Patton sends her to Scotland she can entice Connery into joining her in a heist that will result in his capture.

    Do I need to tell you that nobody is exactly who they seem to be?

    I remember seeing the trailer for this film on TV about a thousand times in 1999 and becoming obsessed with Connery bellowing "You're playing both sides!". Over the years, this has become shorthand with me for dumb Hollywood filmmaking.

    I saw this movie on DVD some time in the early 2000's and remembered nothing about it that wasn't in the trailer.

    Imagine my surprise ... I kind of like this one.

    Let me be clear ... it's an idiotic film. But it establishes it's idiocy right from the start and kind of makes a pact with you. If you'll bracket any idea of plausibility, this will be a fun romp with two huge stars doing James Bond action scenes. It followed through.

    Connery and Zeta-Jones have chemistry. Zeta-Jones looks wonderful in a leather body suit. Connery says "vase" several times and his pronunciation is hilarious. Ving Rhames shows up and everyone loves Ving Rhames. Will Patton is fun to dislike. Maury Chaykin shows up and eats everything in site. The action scenes are really good.

    I had fun.

    If you think too hard about the last scene of the film, it makes the entire climax pointless. I recommend not thinking about this film.
  • Gin, an insurance agent with the curious skills of a cat burglar (Catherine Zeta-Jones), is sent by her employer (Will Patton) to wiggle into the company of aging British master-thief "Mac" MacDougal (Sean Connery). He tentatively accepts her but insists on arduous training before stealing a priceless Chinese mask from the well-guarded Bedford Palace. Their developing attraction and suspicion threaten to ruin their partnership but the lure of $8 billion from a heist at the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, maintains their alliance.

    I usually don't like heist flicks (because I'm not interested in the glorification of criminals), but the charisma of Connery and the beauty of Zeta-Jones keeps "Entrapment" (1999) interesting, not to mention the all-around stylish and kinetic filmmaking. Mac's hideout, an isolated castle in Scotland, is an unexpected attraction. The movie's similar in tone to the contemporaneous "Eye of the Beholder" (1999), but without the pall of moody gloom and sleaze. The first 70 minutes are surprisingly entertaining before slumping for 20 minutes, but the film thankfully recovers for the thrilling and twisty last act.

    "Entrapment" is famous for iconic stills of Catherine acrobatically maneuvering her way through a laser security system, which showcase her heightened derrière. She's a beautiful woman and these sequences are certainly highlights. Yet you could hardly call them pornographic since she's fully clothed and, while her outfit might be tight, it's not exactly skintight.

    Concerning the mild controversy over the dubious attraction of Mac (Connery) and Gin (Zeta-Jones), Connery was 68 when "Entrapment" was shot, but Mac is 60 in the story. Catherine was almost 30 during shooting, but looks & acts 35. So their age-difference is roughly 25 years, which isn't anything unheard of.

    Moreover, men are naturally attracted to younger women and Gin is a full-fledged whoa-man, not a teenager or even 20-something. Mac may have been 60, but he was charismatic, intelligent, virile and very much young at heart; so it's no wonder Gin was attracted to him.

    Lastly, being attracted to someone isn't the same as wanting to marry the person or even have sex. You can be naturally attracted to someone, but dismiss any further entanglement for numerous reasons, such as you're married, s/he is married, s/he is too young, s/he is too old, you prefer being single, etc.

    The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes and was shot in England, Scotland (Duart Castle & Eilean Donan Castle), Malaysia and New York City. Ving Rhames costars as Mac's covert ally.

    GRADE: B
  • Entrapment casts Catherine Zeta-Jones as an insurance investigator anxious to earn her spurs in the business by capturing notorious thief Sean Connery. Connery is looking every bit sixty plus years of age, but he's in good shape and while he lives pretty good as is, he's always up for a challenge.

    Zeta-Jones is sent by her boss Will Patton to capture Connery. But Connery is up to anything she can throw at him. Her best bet could be to capture him in the act of pulling a job, but after a while just who is leading who on.

    Entrapment boasts some nice location cinematography in Connery's native Scotland and in Kuala Lampur where the big caper takes place. It's a bank job, but in the computer age it's something different if you're going after a big score. Connery showing his age asks quite innocently 'where's the loot?'

    How will it go for Zeta-Jones? Well bad guys seem to have more fun and Patton is such a drip. Ving Rhames is in this as well and his role is most ambiguous.

    The aging Sean Connery still has some great moves in Entrapment.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The heist caper genre, so popular in the '70s, rears its head with this uninspired but fairly enjoyable 1999 flick. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones generate genuine sexual chemistry despite their age gap (Connery was just shy of 70 when the film was made), and there are a couple of suspenseful heist sequences along the way. Between the high spots the film is rather bland and forgettable, with little of the humour that made the heist movies of yesteryear such fun (try to imagine The Hot Rock or The Italian Job stripped of their sense of humour, and you'll have a fair impression of what this film has to offer).

    Virginia Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) works for a top insurance company. Also, secretly, she is a master cat burglar who greatly admires the audacity and criminal success of another thief, Robert MacDougal (Sean Connery). Virginia double bluffs her boss, Hector Cruz (Will Patton), into allowing her to track down MacDougal. Her official brief is to become his partner-in-crime for a daring heist, after which she is supposed to turn him over to the police. But in reality, Virginia actually DOES want to be his partner-in-crime.... and has no intention of turning him in whatsoever! Aided by MacDougal's buddy Thibideaux (Ving Rhames), the thieving twosome complete their robbery successfully. Later, MacDougal reveals his plans for an even bigger job. With Virginia as his accomplice, he aspires to pull off the near-impossible theft of $8 billion dollars from the world's tallest building in Kuala Lumpur on Millennium Eve. By this point, Cruz has begun to suspect that Virginia may not be working on the side of the law any more. In a taut finale, MacDougal and Virginia attempt to complete their ingenious crime before the security forces catch them red-handed.

    Entrapment is slick and effortlessly watchable stuff with little discernible style of its own. Connery and Zeta-Jones, as already noted, overcome their remarkable age difference to make for a rather attractive pair. A good measure of any heist flick is whether your sympathies lie with the crooks or the law. In this one, the burglars win hands-down.... they are infinitely more charismatic than the "good guys". The globe-trotting narrative provides some exotic locations in which the stars can indulge in their posturing. Kuala Lumpur especially comes across as an exciting and interesting locale, somewhat underused to date in the movies. Entrapment has its share of silly moments, including a gratuitous sequence in which Zeta-Jones trains for her first robbery by writhing in a skintight cat suit through a maze of wool (strung out in such a way as to replicate the pattern of an infra-red alarm system!) Too many scenes also have Connery vanishing into mid-air to avoid capture, a trick that becomes increasingly hard to swallow and hampers the film's credibility. All in all, though, Entrapment is a harmless time-killer that keeps you moderately entertained, especially if you catch it in the right frame of mind.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well to begin with, the film "Entrapment" has Sean Connery as the main actor with co-star Catherine Zeta-Jones. Could you pick better actors to star in a movie? Probably. Although, I think they were well picked for this film in particular. Sean was perfect to play the suave and sophisticated gentlemen and Catherine was perfect to play the beautiful and confident lady. What do they both have in common in acting abilities? They both are convincing when it comes to playing intelligent characters who can survive in fantasy film plots.

    I think Entrapment is a really good film! This action film actually has an interesting story where you more or less follow two criminals, who are working together, who are stealing rare artwork from famous museums and galleries from across the globe. They are also only working together because they are both using each other secretly, but neither one finds out until nearly halfway - to the end of the film. Action films, I think, are only good when there is an interesting and different story behind it to give it some substance. Otherwise, I get bored of watching films where there is just fighting and people firing guns when the plot is pathetic.

    If you are a fan of Sean Connery or Catherine Zeta-Jones's as actors, then you should definitely see this film. I actually think they make a very attractive on screen couple, even with the big age gap, although, I am probably biased given that I love them both as actors.

    This film is a lot of fun to watch, so don't miss out on it!
  • Entrapment showcases clever heists, stunning leads, and beautiful locations resulting in a well-crafted and entertaining heist film. The question of "Who is playing who?" constantly has the viewer guessing what twists could come and wondering what each character is really up to. The first half of the movie is stronger than the second. The planning of the first heist and its execution have great pacing and intrigue. After all that, the second half of the movie, which is supposed to be the bigger and more difficult heist, feels rushed and less satisfying. And let's just say it, the awkward romance between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones when he is nearly 40 years older and 69 at the time of Entrapment's release is CRINGE. They could have taken the father/daughter or mentor/student relationship and kept it from being weird. All in all, Entrapment is a solid entry in the heist genre because of the effort, planning, and prep behind each robbery and great performances from the beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones and the classic Sean Connery.
  • lanceblades29 September 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    Rather enjoyable to be honest. It's the same slick heist scenario we've seen before in Ocean's Eleven and many more. An elderly Sean Connery does what he does in most of his movies - plays Sean Connery, this time as an undercover policeman. Catherine Zeta-Jones shows incredible physical flexibility as a sort of high end cat burglar. That there could be a love interest between them is stretching things a little far. Cross and double cross and a few spectacular stunts along the way, we're led to the finale, complete with a little twist. I've sat through much worse and it's worth watching if you're a Connery/Zeta- Jones fan.
An error has occured. Please try again.