Gambit

I was prepared to like this film as I'd seen the original Gambit. This film however, had a completely different story line. Colin Firth does his best with it and there are a couple of smiley moments, especially when he loses his trousers climbing round a hotel ledge but it is not enough. The film is very short, and when it ends you wonder what possessed the Coen Brothers to make it. Cameron Diaz is extremely irritating and the character goes nowhere. Tom Courtenay was wasted in his role and some of the so called funny situations are too contrived ie when they book into the London hotel. The twists in the tale aren't twists at all, just cop outs. It just seems a pointless film and is not clever or funny enough. Colin Firth is a brilliant actor but sometimes his lightweight film choices are very strange. A disappointment.

Art heist comedy.

An art curator (Colin Firth) in London devises a way to rob his wealthy art collector boss (Alan Rickman) with the help of a rodeo champion from Texas (Cameron Diaz).

It's a remake of an old Michael Caine film I remember really liking because you see the heist plan smoothly imagined and then you get the somewhat different reality. In this version the imagined plan is brief and sadly does not firm a key component of the movie.

Overall, the film is just okay, mildly amusing with a mediocre plot, but not that memorable. Rickman and Firth are entertaining though.

Colin Firth obviously wanted a less taxing role after stammering as King George VI. In this remake of a Sixties Michael Caine comic 'caper' he plays a disgruntled art dealer who decides to trick his unpleasant billionaire boss into buying a fake Monet. Shirley MacLaine's Hong Kong dancer roped in as co-conspirator and candy-floss in the 1966 version has became a Texas rodeo queen - Cameron Diaz doing her best with a one-dimensional part.

Alan Rickman does an appropriately pantomime turn as the monstrously egotistical tycoon and gets some of the movie's most embarrassing scenes, but he seems to be having fun. Colin Firth makes a visible effort to enjoy losing his pants on a ledge outside the Savoy Hotel, but the role would have perhaps been easier for Hugh Grant. Stanley Tucci plays a German art expert who may (or may not) be inspired by Albert Schweitzer. The London scenes are livelier than the scenes at Rickman's Downtonesque country house, though a farting dowager moment targets a younger audience than this is likely to pull in.

This piece of fluff comes from the Coen brothers who usually apply themselves to something zanier and zingier. If they wanted to revamp a comedy heist movie, why didn't they take on Peter Ustinov's all-star Istanbul romp TOPKAPI (1964) or, if they wanted to keep the budget down, Warren Beatty's KALEIDOSCOPE, also from 1966, which had more pace and plot than the original GAMBIT but not such deft performances? It's really only the actors who raise this year's GAMBIT from being potentially dire into something that is merely mediocre.

I watched this film on release night with my fiancée. We had previously seen a couple of trailers for the film and thought it looked funny and interesting, although on the day I was disturbed to see find such a low rating here on IMDb.

*Disclosure, I am not connected to the film's production or any of the cast, and have no agenda here other than offering an alternative point of view.

The basic plot is already known in advance: that Colin Firth wants to con his evil boss using a beautiful Texan as bait. He travels to meet her accompanied by his friend and co-conman, Major Wingate. After watching her in a rodeo they go to a local bar to make the approach. The Major asks Colin how much is he going to tell her? He answers: "Oh, only enough for her to play her part". And the same is true of the audience. You are only told enough to a) identify with Colin's character and his motivation, and b) follow the plot to come.

We're then treated to a brief 'Ocean's 11-style' précis of how Colin imagines the con will play out from start to finish. Needless to say, no plan ever works out exactly as imagined!

The humour is very dry, never in-your-face, and this isn't the kind of film to hand you gags. Laughing our loud isn't the point. Instead there's a mixture of situational comedy, miss-understanding comedy, wordplay, and great interaction between the characters. Some of the best jokes are the ones where you have to smile ruefully when things go wrong on a bad day. I thought at the time that the screen-writing was a lot like Richard Curtis, and could easily imagine Rowan Atkinson as the lead.

Instead the best joke is Colin Firth himself, playing a little man, in Cameron Diaz's words, instead of a larger-than-life character for a change; playing it straight, rarely smiling because he's not very happy (he wants revenge, remember) and not trying to seduce the very comely Cameron Diaz, who also plays a wickedly funny character without being cast as the comic side-kick.

But, from a critics point of view, I guess, there's not much originality. You can perceive homages to other films; old Ealing- comedies like the Ladykillers, where the subject matter isn't funny but there is some great humour. And I'm not referring to the re-make, which I didn't like.

I'd like to watch this film again at a later time and see if I can. It might grow on me and become a minor classic, or it might drop to mediocre. Either way, if you watch it you have to appreciate it for what it is, rather than what it isn't. And it probably helps if you have a temperament where you can see the funny side in unfunny situations.

I really don't think this film deserves the poor reviews it has received! I have never seen the original so am not comparing this, simply judging it as a film in its own right. The cast is brilliant, I love Diaz, Firth, Rickman and Tucci so was never going to be disappointed! Yes it's a ridiculous caper movie, it's not meant to be taken seriously on any level! It's great fun, I was weeping with laughter at some of the hotel scenes, and that doesn't happen often in a movie! I'm not quite sure what some of the reviewers on this site were expecting, but I was thoroughly entertained! I came out with a smile on my face so in my books that's just fine!