Takers

I have wanted to see this movie since the first trailer I saw last year. I am a big fan of heist/action movies. Seeing Idris Elba and Michael Ealy and Paul Walker in the trailer, I knew I would at least get my quotient of eye candy. After seeing some of the reviews for this movie, I had very low expectations.

Takers turned out to be a decent heist movie. They didn't do anything that was all that original. It was pretty predictable. It was just mindless entertainment that I enjoyed watching. I thought there was some good action sequences...I wish there were more of them. There was more melodrama than I was expecting, but I think it helped give the movie an ounce of depth. Don't expect Oscar worthy material or big unexpected plot turns and I think you will end up enjoying it.

As the tittle says, if you want a really good thieves-crew movie go for "The Town" (Ben Affleck's new adventure), or, if you missed it, "Heat" (1995). If you missed this one, wait no longer and get it NOW, its a masterpiece.

Takers is entertaining, action packed, bang bang and all those flashy things. You will be as satisfied as in a meal without dessert, you are full but you still lack something sweet.

The story in "Takers" is solid, with a few shortcuts along the way, but nothing damaging to the overall value of the movie. Acting is also very decent, nothing fancy, also a few bad apples, but mainly in the "second line" of actors.

Also, for the love story fans this has very little value, and the the little it has does not turn out too good.

Overall, my humble opinion, give this movie a chance and you will be satisfied.

After reading the reviews posted here, I had little hope of seeing a good movie, although the fact that the movie was playing at a "budget" theater was incentive enough for me to see it. I'm glad I went. Over the last couple of years, I've found that reviews on movies have become extremely undependable. It seems as though a lot of folks, who fancy themselves as reliable movie critics, have become quite snobbish in their reviews. It's so easy to be critical. Some critics like to feel that they are a step above the rest of us, and therefore more likely to understand how the movie should have been written, versus the flawed production that was actually released upon the public. I'd have missed many a good movie had I listened to the "professionals". This is an entertaining movie. It's not "The Godfather" or "Shawshank Redemption", but it's a good old fashioned action movie that keeps your attention. Get some popcorn and soda, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Takers is a heist film that's pretty much the same as other heist films, where there's plenty of room for loud action, camaraderie, the elaborate planning stage, and how Murphy's Law enters to screw everything up. This film has it all which makes it pretty average. but there were moments which stood out and made it noteworthy, and hey, an ensemble cast (even if for a few scenes only) with the likes of Paul Walker, Hayden Christensen, Matt Dillon, Jay Hernandez, Idirs Elba, Zoe Saldana and the notorious Chris Brown doesn't hurt either.

The thieving bunch here comprises of a close knit group of brothers real and sworn who take a year to plan their large heists, in part to have some time off to allow for their latest escapade to cool off and fade off from the police's radar, to spend their ill gotten dough and of course, to allow for the meticulous planning of their next hit. They follow a strict regime of communication and the reliance of unique skills they bring to the table, and we see how that all come together in concert with their money making objectives. They don't kill unless necessary, and they don't see themselves as desperate robbers. They're above that - they take.

Director John Luessenhop slaps together scenes that tried to go beyond just a simple heist film, and dwells at length to the background of these characters, where we have one who's about to get married, and another grappling with his sister's drug rehabilitation. Even the token cops in the film doesn't get spared, with the story squeezing some time out to showcase how dogged Matt Dillon's Jack Welles is to his job at the expense of previous quality time with his daughter. In fact I don't see how the cops' stories are that compelling to be included in Takers other than to highlight that the world isn't made out to be black and white, but always with that constant opportunity for grey. Given the way the cops' story and subplot got resolved, it could have been totally eliminated and yet there'll still be plenty left in the tank for the film to entertain, since they don't add much to the plot.

The film really picked up past the halfway mark where their new heist proper gets put into action, courtesy of a plan from one of the team's past buddies Ghost (T.I.) whose multi- million dollar proposition involving an armoured truck and pulling off the equivalent of The Italian Job in the tunnels of Los Angeles is too much to handle, that the team chucks their one year per job mantra out the window for that once in a lifetime opportunity. Which spells trouble of course, beginning with a nail-biting build up right down to the ending. Despite being riddled with clichés and plot conveniences at times, or even gaping loopholes that stick out like a sore thumb, such as creating such a prolonged ruckus in a hotel room/floor that the police couldn't arrive on time until the action was over.

Don't get me wrong, the extended shootout was one of my favourite scenes in the film given director Luessenhop's flair in crafting it out and injecting something fresh in the presentation. For the most parts the story (with a total of 4 writers involved) made it out for the team to seem to be on the losing end, and having to execute their exit plans fast, only for some other incident to drop in unexpectedly and derail those plans, testing their resolve and their honour amongst thieves. There's the classic Mexican stand-off moment too ala John Woo and Johnnie To involving both sides of the fence that got resolved pretty quickly, unfortunately, devoid of meaningful suspense.

Still, Takers still had its essential ingredient that fuels average B-grade Hollywood action films, so if you're ready for a compromise of a plot that will stretch what's believable and that of the actors constantly swaggering around, this is for that action junkie in you.

This movie is fast-paced and the cinematography (specifically the shaky camera thing) is clever and interesting when it's not irritating. Also, there is some eye candy for the ladies and some of the cast is full of interesting and appealing characters, some who actually do decent acting jobs ("some" is the operative word.) Those are the good points.

Now the other side. I like T.I. as a rapper and even thought he did an okay acting job in ATL a few years ago, but his acting here was just downright criminal. There was one scene in which he dominated the dialog that I actually said out loud, "his acting is so bad, it's offensive." You're actually offended that that is being pushed off as something you should buy as a viewer. You're wondering how no one in the director's booth was offended by it. In fairness, the fast action of the bulk of the movie shields the poor acting a bit, so the blow is blunted a bit. But between his poor acting and Chris Brown's sometimey acting, it was just a lot being asked of the viewer. Speaking of characters, the lack of character development is also a low point of the film. I agree with another commenter that you're asked to feel something for a character who dies, but you feel nothing because you really haven't been given anything to know or care about. And finally as others have stated, the plot is clichéd to the point that you're wondering if it's supposed to be a satire of some sort. But no, no satire. They're seriously trying to wrap Heat and Set it Off and Dead Presidents up in a big bow and pass it off as a new present. Just not a good thing to do.

I rate it a 5 on a 10-point scale because while it's not a great movie, it does hold your attention and as bad as some parts are, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen. So I say giving it about half credit is pretty accurate. In that vain, I won't say you should pay to see this or you shouldn't pay to see it. I say do the 50/50 thing--flip a coin. Either way, the earth won't shatter. This movie is just not that significant either way. It will probably be forgotten pretty soon.