User reviews

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

One of those (many) rock solid Sean Connery flicks in which he plays his usual charming gentleman character. This time around Sean Connery is trying to pull of the biggest heist ever with Catherine Zeta Jones by his side.

Great surprising plot turns, subtle gentleman like jokes and some wonderful budding romance (for the ladies) as wel. Lots of good action sequences and enough supsense to keep me fascinated how this story would end till the very last minute. What's not to like?

Just one of those solid made heist movies I keep rewatching every other year or so and it's still such a joy to watch because of these fine 2 actor's and their wonderful chemistry together!

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.

"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

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.

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 ****

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)

In 1999's Entrapment, an insurance investigator, Virginia Baker, Gin to her friends, is sure that thief Robert MacDougal, Mac to his friends, has stolen a Rembrandt painting. Her boss isn't convinced. He's very wealthy and past an age where breaking into things is easy.

Gin is certain he's the criminal. The question is, how can she recover the painting? She approaches Mac as a fellow thief, stating she wants to steal a Chinese mask from the Bedford Palace, nearly impossible. She has a buyer. She needs his help.

Mac has her steal the security plans for the palace, all the while tracking her movements, so she knows he can throw her in prison at any time. She succeeds in getting them, and they repair to his castle in Scotland to work out the complicated heist.

Of course, there's a mutual attraction. As my late friend used to say, "Well, you can't blame them. They're both pretty gorgeous." The question is, who is playing whom?

Directed by Jon Amiel, Entrapment has a fun, intriguing, and twisty plot that will keep you guessing. The leads are wonderful though they do not have the sparks-flying kind of chemistry often seen.

Very entertaining.

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.

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

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.

"Entrapment" is one of those Hollywood movies that are so bad, you have to wonder how they got made in the first place. Just awful, I'm giving it 2 out of 10 instead of 1 out of 10 because the beginning is kind of interesting. Then it turns into this utterly silly movie with Connery and Zeta-Jones as super-thieves who slink around in black stealing things... it was just unwatchably AWFUL. Nothing like this would ever happen remotely in real life. I place the entire blame for this movie on screenwriter Ron Bass, who to his credit, wrote the great script for "Rainman." But this piece of junk... it's not worth any further comment.