Entrapment: En-crap-ment (Yeah, once I thought of it, I could think of nothing else)

Entrapment (1999) Dir - John Amiel

John Amiel is not a name which immediately springs to mind when you think of the silver screen. That's because he's done so little, and directed such crap people have wiped him from their minds. This is possibly his greatest cinema achievement which is like saying contracting HIV is the highlight of your sex-life. That might be a little cruel, he did after all direct The Core (2003). No wait, that was a minefield of absolute rubbish too. What is it about this man and completely fictional science? We need to fix the planet by starting the core spinning again? Stop it.

Speaking of crap science, I'm going to do something unexpected and drop a spoiler right at the beginning of the review before I've even detailed the cast or basic plotline. Assume you are one of the greatest criminal minds of the past few decades. When you steal a solid gold mask from on top of a pressure switch, why would you casually plant DNA evidence on the scene of the crime, precisely where you took the mask from? Because that's exactly what Catherine Zeta Jones' character does. She holds the pressure switch down with her damn chewing gum. This is 1999 supposedly! The police team (which you supposedly work for by the way) would pick up her old wad of gum, send it off to the lab, identify her as the culprit and pick her up faster than she could leave the city. It kills the credibility faster than an alien race kills the dude who happens to be wearing the red shirt in a Star Trek landing party.

That's the face of a man who is
checking his heart is still beating

Right, the cast. To be honest, this was pretty high budget stuff. Catherine Zeta Jones plays the feisty Virginia Baker - a double or triple or quadruple agent, no-one really knows. Either way she's part cop, part robber and a whole gravedigger. I mean Christ, the love interest is an aging Sean Connery and she's married to this dude. Micheal Douglas. Yup, 25 year age gap. This woman obviously has more daddy issues than Elisabeth Fritzl. Anyway, the character displays more complexity than Ramond's description of String Theory and I can't honestly tell you having watched this film multiple times if I give a damn about her. She changes side so many times that unless there is 4 hours of extra footage on the cutting room floor this film makes NO sense. So what are you? Master thief? Police officer? Art insurance saleswoman? Gymnast? I'm not sure if I honestly care.

Actually, on the topic of gymnastics, the costume designer for this might be the costume designer on 300's heterosexual cousin. I can only imagine the conversation sounding like this: "Let's pack her into as much tight clothing as possible and get her to stretch really close to the camera!" - "That's a marvellous idea! More Viagra, Harold?" - "No thanks, I'm hard enough already from the six I took before I started visualising a young actress in a skintight, neoprene leotard."

Exhibit A (A stands for 'Ass')

This woman honestly does more stretching and unnecessary balletics than is imaginable so if you have the hots for this lady from the Valleys, go nuts. If you like to hear sense, go elsewhere for your fantasies.

Next we come to the antagonist/protagonist/love interest/Scotsman Robert MacDougal - played very well by Sean Connery. It was only a matter of time before someone wrote him a role where he was Scottish when he insists upon maintaining his accent. Seriously, go watch The Wind and the Lion (1975) where he plays Arab-born Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli. First Arabic man I've seen with a broad, Scottish accent... In this film, you could be forgiven however if you confused him for his famous role James Bond. The similarities are beyond ignoring. Penchant for suits, nice cars, gadgets out his ass, breaks into secure governmental buildings, gets the girl despite his age (unfair in this case when you put him with someone who is almost verging on necrophilia). It's Bond through and through. Well not quite, Bond wasn't Scottish.

They even look the same!

Finally worth mentioning, Mr Ving Rhames as Aaron Thibadeaux. The character is an enabler for criminals by supplying difficult to obtain technology. HOLD THE PHONE! I'm describing his previous role of Luther Stickell in the Mission Impossible franchise! It's ok though, this character is later hired by a governmental body as an agent and technology expert. HOLD THE PHONE! You get the picture. They are the same character.

Now, the plotline. I won't use character names for sake of simplicity but I'm sure you'll follow along. Person 1 breaks into building, steals painting. Person 2 turns out to have actually stolen the painting. Person 1 works for an Art insurance company. Person 1 also works as a cop. Person 1 is sent off by cop, Person 3, to help capture person 2 by stealing a mask with them. Person 2 is also a cop, working with Person 3 to help capture Person 1 despite the fact Person 1 and Person 3 WORK IN THE SAME DAMN OFFICE. YOU DON'T NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO CAPTURE THEM. Person 4 helps Person 2 and Person 1 steal a lot of money, but they too are a cop working with Person 2 and Person 3 to help catch Person 1. They catch Person 1, but then let them go just for giggles. Person 1 and Person 2 then disappear into the sunset to go steal more stuff whilst Person 3 is angry and Person 4 watches. End of film. Put it this way, this is a complicated waste of time. And 'Person' doesn't look like a word anymore.

Maybe I'm being too critical of this film. It is moderately entertaining, has a good cast, some great acting, incredible cinematography and scenery, good effects, some clever twists and script and an overall sense of having been polished. This wasn't a slapdash, spur of the moment thing. Time and effort went into it. That said, it's somehow disappointing. You're left with this sensation that with such a good cast and so on, there would be more to it. It's like drinking piss. It will quench your thirst, but it won't taste good on the way down.