Bait (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
|The Robbins Recipe: "The
Last Boy Scout" meets "In the Line of
This sure made it to DVD fast. It was
still playing first-run only two months ago.
|Comedy-actioner with Jamie Foxx. Jamie is
a small-time crook in prison with the dying survivor of a
successful Federal Reserve gold heist. Just before he
dies, the gold thief gives Jamie a cryptic clue to pass
|The rest of the film is a battle of wits
T-men, who bug Jamie's body
high-tech genius who was the other partner in the
gold heist, and who also stalks Jamie
electronically. Guy does a perfect John Malkovich
impersionation, pretty much an homage to
Malkovich taunting Clint Eastwood in "In the
Line of Fire"
himself, who finally realizes that all the good
and bad guys are eavesdropping on his life
a near-miss action film, with Jamie as the funny
trash-talkin' street guy whose outward persona masks a
guy of integrity and sensitivity. You know, the usual
Bruce Willis crap. Think of Jamie as Willis with a really
character is funny, at least sporadically, and the
direction is technically spectacular - an MTV video or TV
commercial style of fashionably tinted scenes, dazzling
fast cuts, slick music, indirect angles, dramatic chase
it's a pretty good action flick, not a masterpiece, but
it deserved better reviews than it got. I think you'll
find it satisfactory if you like the Willis action genre.
It's a lot like The Last Boy Scout, with horse racing
replacing football in the finale. (Roger Ebert gave it a
good three star review, but he stood almost
The biggest weakness is that it drags on
too long, slowed somewhat by an unimportant sub-plot
involving Jamie's brother and some low-level thugs, all
of which could easily have been chopped completely from
Ebert 3/4, but he was
pretty much the only critic who liked it.
summary. 34% positive overall,
only 14% from the top critics.
- With their
votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters
score it 5.8.
- With their
dollars ... it made a disappointing $15
million domestically. That's enough to
make a success out of moderately budgeted
films like the ones Altman or Woody Allen
make, but this was made for $35 million,
and was distributed to 2300 screens.
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, this film is a solid C. It is a good
comedy/action film which should please the people
who like the old Willis movies.
the Movie House home page