|It's a caper film where the caper is OK,
but the dialogue and character development are so much
fun that you don't even care about the plot. And it has a
lot of the humor that has often been needed in some of
Soderbergh's other films. Some of it is just good natured
banter, and some of it is really laugh-out-loud funny.
Clooney is a
career bank robber who has spent his entire life in and
out of prisons. In his latest prison break, he ends up
being driven away from the prison with a female federal
officer in the trunk of a car, and they just hit it off
on the ride. Something happens between them as man and
woman. The rest of the film involves her hunt for him
while he tries to pull off a big score, and a brief
time-out from the hunt, in which they have a romantic
liaison to see "what it might have been like if
things were different"
DVD info from Amazon.
about 20 minutes of
Clooney can't escape the fact that he's a crook, and
Lopez can't escape from the fact that she's a federal
marshall, so we know how it will all work out - or do we?
Even after seeing the entire film, I'm still not quite
sure how it worked out, because of various hints dropped
during Clooney's final trip back to prison.
doesn't tell the tale in pure chronological order, but I
like the way he re-arranges it. Like Atom Egoyan, he
places the revelations where they have the most impact,
not necessarily when the chronology would call for them.
I feel this is good for us viewers, not distracting. It
adds to our mental involvement, and gives us those
moments of "aha!" pleasure.
comic/filmmaker Albert Brooks doing a send-up of
financier Michael Millken, Michael Keaton as the world's
densest federal agent (he played the same part in
Tarantino's Jackie Brown), and director Steven Soderbergh
as a bank customer that Clooney uses as a decoy in a
General consensus: three
and a half stars. Ebert 3.5/4,
Berardinelli 3.5/4, Maltin 2.5. What the
hell was Maltin thinking about? He was
about the only person in the universe who
didn't like it.
summary. 90% positive overall,
100% from the top people.
- With their
votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters
score it 7.6, which is on the borderline
of the all-time top 250.
- With their
dollars ... a disappointment. Produced at
a $48 million budget, with some great
reviews, it grossed only $37 million
domestically on 2000 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 B+.