Hey folks, Harry here with a bucket load of screenings of THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR. The response seems to be that this is a fun bubblegum and popcorn film that is quite sharp and enjoyable. It also marks a weird little bit for me, since I always thought I'd be seeing McTiernan's EATERS OF THE DEAD (aka the shitty titled THE 13TH WARRIOR) first... but Disney being Disney has continually delayed that project to the point that now we'll be getting the 2nd to be filmed movie first. If I hadn't thrown a party for Cora Smith where we screened the Fleischer GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, DAVID AND LISA and THE CONVERSATION out back, I would have definitely been at the theater to see the studio paid sneak of this film that occurred last night. So... without further ado, here's the start of the deluge with Withnail.... now a warning... there will be spoilers in this group of reviews!

Withnail here over in the UK. Well, a few weeks ago I saw John McTiernan's The 13th Warrior, and the other night I got the chance to see the finished version of his other summer flick, The Thomas Crown Affair - a very different movie indeed, with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo in the lead roles.

Fans of the original will know that it centres around a rich businessman who pulls off art heists for fun. And it kicks off with Crown nabbing a priceless Monet painting. Enter Rene Russo as the insurance investigator hired to recover the painting. Working alongside Detective Denis Leary she immediately homes in on Crown as a suspect and uses any means to try and catch him and get back the Monet.

Of course, the success of a movie like this depends on the two leads, and the chemistry between Brosnan and Russo is fabulous, very reminiscent of Clooney and Lopez in Out of Sight. Their flirtatious sparring covers over major cracks in the narrative and gives the film its sparkle.

McTiernan's direction is very 1960s. Lots of quirky angles and whip pans, and gives the movie a very distinctive and stylish feel. The big disappointment is Leary, who's given very little to do and really makes no impact at all.

But that aside, The Thomas Crown Affair delivers big time, managing by turn to be both sexy and thrilling. Scenes with Faye Dunaway as a psychiatrist seem to be an unecessary add on, but the final art robbery when dozens of bowler hatted Brosnan look alike descend on the art gallery has a beautiful sting in the tail, which keeps you guessing to the very end. (It's just apity there was no chess game).

Withnail.

And then here's The Juice with his/her opinion of the film... Although this time, I'll do as he/she requests and refer to him/her as an uncultured little bastard...

Call me an uncultured little bastard but ive never seen the original Thomas Crown Affair. Im not particulary familiar with Steve McQueen (HARRY NOTE: THIS IS A CRIME, GO GET FAMILIAR WITH THE MAN!), and I had no clue Fay Dunaway played a part in the original as well as the remake. But I did catch a screening of the new version starring Pierce Brosnan, and Rene Russo's breasts. (Maybe Im pointing out the obvious here in that all the horrid Haunting reviews basically would not shut up about how it doesnt meet the standards of the original, whether or not Thomas Crown suffurs the same fate is still up in the air.) Ive read several reports that say TCA is at a disadvantage because its the "second caper flick" of the summer. Thats laughable because TCA is miles above Encrapment.

The premise is this, Thomas Crown is a millionare with a certain taste for rare art, a brilliant opening scene involving a museum heist gets you into the movie immidiately, unfortunately you have to wait for the final scene to get a treat like that again. The middle of this movie is very slow...not boring but at a slower more romancing pace as Thomas falls in love with the insurance investigator sent to nail him (in more ways than one). The beginning and ending really make this movie, without them working the way they do i doubt this movie would quite have the effect it does. All the perfromances are at par (although Brosnan's character seemed a little too much like bond without the weapons.) Denis Leary continues his apearances in serious roles and he does good again, although i always have the urge to see him stand up in the middle of the flick and sing im an asshole.

This is the best heist movie of the summer, and an interesting flick, I only hope comparisons to the original does not hurt it...

Later says the Juice

Here's a look from TIMM...

It's 3:00 in the morning and I just finished watching it. Thought I'd share my thoughts if you were interested. If not, sorry I wasted your time. Haven't seen many reviews of it on your site, though. As the preview catches everybody's eye tomorrow, I thought I'd waste little time posting my review before the potential deluge spits forth.

2nd Exposition: I have seen the original 1968 version starring McQueen and Dunaway, albeit on video and recently, by which I intend to make it clear that I did not see the original on the big screen, nor have had the opportunity to understand how whimsical or important the film was for those first audiences who saw it. Which can make a lot of difference. Everybody hates Eyes Wide Shut right now. It's too long, it's too tame, Cruise sucks, the digital cover-ups leave too much for the imagination to handle, the two-note piano motive is more annoying than the "This is a test of the emergency broadcast station, this is only a test" whine, Kidman disappears, Cumming's cup spilleth over, the prudes are shocked, the vervists are bored. Nobody's happy. Thirty years from now, the restored, re-re-released special edition, packaged with all his greatest hits sells-out round the clock. Or doesn't. Who knows? But film students, especially, won't know, and there is a difference in having been there the first time around as opposed to seeing a reduced copy, home, alone, as a technical exercize to get published on the web. Here's what I did get from viewing the '68 version...

Transition: Norman Jewison was doing some form of drug, or he couldn't decide if he wanted the movie short or long. Either way, from the opening bank heist, the picture breaks up over and over into little cascading picture windows, some connected, others revealing action elsewhere while "The Windmills of Your Mind" suggests that whatever the Beatles or Simon and Garfunkel were doing was the drug of choice for the cinematographer. There is an elaborate prelude where McQueen hires a goon. We're meant to believe McQueen (who we don't actually meet until later on) is some sort of smooth mastermind ensconced in some nebulously held secret identity. There's a bank heist, an easy getaway, money swapped in a cemetery, and on to some Sunday golf. McQueen's Crown runs into Dunaway's Insurance agent, and sparks fly (according to the cinematographer who captures every nose twinge, every tremulous lip quaver, every fleck of mascara, every soft look through dense sunglasses.) Crown, you see, is a thrill-seeker, really. He's not a thief, he's not a bad person, no! He's just looking for some sport. One minute he's flying in the air, swooping up and down. The next he's driving a dunesbuggy left and right, just desperate to show Dunaway, and the audience, that it's all fun and games for a man who has it all. He's Austin Powers with a touch of Evil, and a little faux-Connery. Crown sucks Dunaway into his version of life to the exclamation point! She's willing, but she wants to catch him too. He holds up another bank to test her loyalty. She goes after him. He walks away and flies off into the sunset leaving her all alone to weep foolishly over the fairy tale ending she just let go of. And that's it. The movie is fast, breezy, overbaked and over before you know it. For 1999 summer movie aficianados, the one true scene to glean from the film is the extended chess sequence that must have been the subliminal inspiration for the Austin Powers/Ivana Humpalot chess match in The Spy Who Shagged Me. Don't tell me Myers didn't watch that scene frame for frame. Of course, in Austin's version, they're only interested in chess for the seeming sheer randomness of Ivana's request and the lasviscious piece-licking that ensues. In The Crown version, the chess scene serves a few purposes, among which is to show that Dunaway is trying to impress upon Crown that she can beat him at his own game. The other is to allow the game to reveal their mutual admiration for each other through suggestive body-language innuendo and one-up-manship. Tell me ladies that your pulse doesn't quicken a little when McQueen yanks Dunaway up from her chair and into his arms. Other than that, you can see McQueen trying to show that he can be dashing enough, charming enough, and gosh darnit, intelligent enough to be the next James Bond...

Development: which makes it more the ironic that here we have Bond trying to loosen the shackles and take on a spin-off like Crown. The chess scene is gone. The opening set-up is gone. The lip-gloss close-ups and bad hair are gone. The goofy stock characters, redeemed only by their goofiness and sheer transparency are transmuted into East European stereotyped stock villians who Crown doesn't even let in on his scheme. The goofy, unorganized, entirelly uninteresting robberies are gone, the cheesy liners are ... well, not gone, but delivered as if not cheesy. Instead, the robberies (now sophisticated, intricately possessive art thefts) are right from the Die Hard school of suspense and whodunnit intrigue. Instead of chess we have fawning amongst the leads in slinky, see-through outfits (or sans outfits) at hot Latin dances or European secluded island locales. Instead of witty repartee and cool sight gags like Dunaway's gift to a gumshoe detective (a slate that reads "think dirty"...you'd have to watch the original), you get smoldering, come-hither Russo looks and...Denis Leary, plus a gumshoe detective. Added to the mix is Faye Dunaway now playing Crown's shrink (natch!), a "thrilling" whirlwind, who's going to get the last laugh action sequence ending, updated token signs of wealth and decadence, and a happy ending-epilogue.

Recapitulation: The movie works. And yet it's unconvincing, deep-glossed, superficial, self-indulgent, marginally satisfying, blustery fare. I liked the film. It's a good update of a decadent, richesse plotboiler. Brosnan is as self-assured, yet sensitive, tricky, but pining as usual. He's a sly Bond, but he's also convincing in the role of a man who thinks highly of himself and his lifestyle choices and is not unwilling to flaunt the chest hair and show more butt than his partner. Russo gets to show a lot of skin. Why? Who could really say? But kids and other people will flock to see the movie to see boobs and thigh that look just as good as what they've been seeing all summer long from other movies, one of which I've mentioned. She comes off as vivacious, and when she's clothed and self-assured, she's everything sexy that Kidman will never be, though Kidman will win oscars, and Russo will win...poor, shoddy, badly pixelated internet croppings, "be the first to see Russo's see-through butt shot on the web, etc., yawn, grow-up, and so forth..." Leary is Leary-lite which doesn't distract, but doesn't add cool ambiance the way his 68 counterpart did, and doesn't come across as convincingly jealous of Crown, just impressed. The heist scenes are fun, showy, and bragadoccio, without any zip, sparkle, or wit: they serve their purpose and move the story forward or backward. The happy ending epilogue is the one weak point, but the steak-craving masses will like it, the caviar-sniffers will, well, probably skip the film, and the purists will cry foul and pinch McTiernan effegies (even though Brosnan probably had more to do with it). The highlights: Dunaway and Brosnan matching dark-lighting, shadowy portrait beauty, Russo dancing with Brosnan miscellaneously, beautifully rendered but completely inaccurate copies of paintings suppoedly haning in MoMA, the locales, the cheesy "The Windmills of your Mind" covers, and the after-sex after-glows. The lowlights: an uninspired Leary, lots of Producer exerted influence, occasional lack-of-focus, and lack of snap in the repartee.

Coda: Go see the film. Why not? It's harmless, gee-whiz fun. The girlfriend will probably like it. The boyfriend will attempt not to drool foolishly. The father will wax nostalgic, the mother will chip in for Notting Hill tickets, the grandmother will say something deliciously oversexed, the best friend will race home to the internet, the acquaintance will go on and on about how they ruined the ending. I give it a solid B grade. Definitely worth a matinee price, but go see it with the mainstreamers at 7:00, and then go and burn some paintings.

Timm

Now here's Tyler Durden, who'll kick the shit out of you if you do or do not listen to him... so be prepared to be pummeled

I didn't see a review up on your site yet, so I thought I would send you one for the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair. I caught this one at a sneak at the theater across the street from where I live. But before beginning the review let me say that I have NOT seen the 1968 Steve McQueen Original so I cannot make any comparisons between the two.

Imagine a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie with an actual story to tell. I, for one, have been utterly disappointed by the last two Bond flicks and I think part of the problem is that Brosnan tries too hard to be Bond instead of just letting the savviness flow like he does in this movie - of course they haven't come up with a decent villain for him in at least the last two movies. I hope Robert Carlyle will end the streak though.

Anyway, on to Thomas Crown. This is one of the best movies I have seen this year. Its one of those films I consider "movie magic," one of those films that sweeps you off your feet for two hours and lets you into the lives of characters who you can't help but love.

For those of you who don't know the plot, Brosnan plays a millionaire playboy looking for a new thrill so he decides to steal a Monet original from a New York museum. Rene Russo plays his foil in the form a bounty hunting insurance investigator working for the owners of the painting. The rest of the story is basically a highbrow chase movie with enough twists and turns to keep you guessing up to the end.

Its not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a story well told, beautifully photographed and superbly acted. So if you're in the mood for a change from the Phantom Plots of this summer give your money to this one for treating you like the thinking audience you are. I'll be renting the original today.

Later All,

Tyler Durden

Here's a review from The Man Who Never Was... cause he wasn't cous.

Good Evening Harry,

Greetings from New York! I The Man Who Never Was has just returned from an advance screening of the Thomas Crown Affair" and wanted to report to you what I saw...

A warning to all of those that are expecting a "Die Hard-esq." type of action film...forget it!!!!! When I first heard that Pierce Brosnan was going to star in this remake, I had visions of him being the ultra cool art thief. But when I heard that John ( Die Hard) McTiernan was helming it, I had an epiphany! Imagine the New York Police and the art world going on a mad chase searching for the elusive art thief. Add Rene Russo into the mix , shake it, don't stir and what do you get?

Tedium. Yep, that's what I said. Tedium.Let me explain why... me thinks that old John was coming down from his work on the 13th Warrior ( my sources told me that he made Crown after it). If this is the case, them it shows. The pacing seems off and Rene Ruso's character never really lets us in to her world, leaving us to wonder if there is a bigger story behind what we watch. After watching the far superior "Entrapment" I could not help but make comparisons. To elaborate:

1. Pierce: He plays the part of Thomas Crown in a smart, non Bond style. He is a player and loves what he is doing. He shows the same kind of reckless abandon that he puts into Bond, but its more for kicks than Her Majesty's Service. Overall, we realize that Thomas is a man that is searching for his soulmate ( which he finds in Russo). But, he just steals paintings for kicks. Unlike Connery's thief in Entrapment, Brosnan needs help from others and that took away the cool edge the film works up.

2. Rene Russo: WHAT THE HELL!!!??? methinks that Rene is re-igniting her career with this one. Why you ask? One word: nudity!! We see her in all her glory in several shots (one a very seductive dance sequence). It seemed rather odd in some places, almost to the point that you cannot help but wonder if McTiernan was pulling a Kubrick. Watch and you will know what I mean.The nudity and sex seemed oddly out of place. Again I bring up "Entrapment" because there were sexual overtones, but in "Thomas Crown", it seemed excessive and sorely out of place.

Another odd thing is her motivation. We never really understand what drives her character. She seems odd and mysterious ( especially that weird green goo she drinks, what the heck is it I wonder?) with no real sense of what drives her. She works for an insurance agency, but unlike Catherine Zeta-Jones character, there really is no back story to make her a credible character. Rene Russo in an awesome actress, but I feel she will be better suited for the sexy mysterious type when we see her in Rocky and Bullwinkle.

3. Faye Dunaway: For the few moments she is in the film, she shines, acting as a good counter to Thomas Crown's smugness.

4. Denis Leary: They should start giving this man more roles like this. He plays the detective-with-a-broken past part well. We understand his motivation and it shows. His character shows a lot of redeeimg qualities ( especially at the end, but I won't tell). He goes from tough street detective to compassionate partner in the blink of an eye and I feel that this role actually shows Leary in a better light. He is not the smug arrogant machine gun mouth that people remember him for on MTV, rather, he is a character that is like us: trying to solve the mystery of both Thomas Crown and Rene Russo's motives.

All in all, a good movie, 2 and half stars from me. But I just expected more from Mr. McTeirnan.The music, by Bill Conti, was very out of place at times. It made the mood seem really weird and that is why the pacing seemed off. I could not help but feel that a more symphonic score would have helped to give it more of a dramatic edge. If you are looking for some light action fare, Thomas Crown is for you. But if you really want a suspenseful film with action, humor, and a compelling story, see "Entrapment".

Thanks for listening Harry!

And now for Dr. Davis from up in Cora Smith's neck of the woods....

Hey Head Geek.....

Dr. Davis here, I don't know if you are interested, and I know that you are a busy man, however I have heard virtually nothing of The Thomas Crown Affair on your site. I live in Tulsa and was fortunate enough to get into the local sneak preview at the Starworld 20 last night, and I was very impressed. I have never seen the original Steve McQueen version, but I am sure that this film is an improvement. It had a seemingly vibrant storyline and a tight story. I was very impressed with Pierce Brosnan, but Rene' Russo looked pretty used up. Dennis Leary plays the NYC detective investigating Mr. Crown, and he performed surprisingly well. The Thomas Crown Affair does unfortunately follow a basic formula, but diligently tries its hardest to avoid the pitfalls of modern movie making. The film was overall very enjoyable and unique. Also saw a nice trailer for The World Is Not Enough... Denise Richards may be the best Bond Girl yet. I hope it doesn't get looked over under all of the other over-hyped shit that is cramming the theatres this summer.

Laterz,

DrDaViS

Here's a brief one from Decreax

Hi Harry, Tonight I saw the Thomas Crowne Affair and I must say that it was a pretty intellegent caper movie. The plot for anyone who hasn't heard of it is basically Thomas Crowne is a millionaire who is bored and wants to steal a painting for fun and Rene Russo is an inusrance investigator that is out to get him and the painting. To make a long story short they fall in love and their relationship is at jepordy because of his mysterious way of living and the crime he has committed. The thing that sells the movie is the chemestry between Rene and Pierce they are in top form in their roles. Pierce does what he does best and play suave a James Bond type of persona in this movie and he knows it. But the big surprise is Rene Russo who plays a character that she has never played before, this is basically her movie and she proves that she is a very talented actress. Denis Leary is pretty good in a supporting role as a detective after the thief as well. I just wanted to tell you that this movie is good and people will be pleasantly surprised by it. Thank you, Have a good one and call me Decreax

And finally we hear from David The Ghost Boy...

I'm sure everyone is thinking what I thought: that 'The Thomas Crown Affair' is just 'Entrapment' with a different James Bond. That assumption is correct, with one other rather major difference that I think audiences should be made privy to: this film is smart.

The plot concerns Pierce Brosnan, who plays Thomas Crown, a suave, debonair mega-millionaire with a penchant for theft. Not that he would need to steal anything, of course: the plot goes out of its way to display the opulence in which this man lives, and we never doubt for a second that he couldn't afford to purchase the items he aquires through a five-fingered discount. No, this is one of those BORED rich bachelors (are there any other kind?) who steals things because he CAN. And as the movie opens, he is stealing a very expensive painting by Monet.

After the ridiculous scenes in 'Entrapment' in which Sean Connery performs feats of acrobatics with the aid of equipment so advanced (and conveniant) that it probably doesn't even exist, it is refreshing to see a robbery achieved entirely through intelligence. Pierce even makes his move in a suit, proving that it is much more exciting to see a man in Armani comitting daring criminal feats than a black hooded character in a cat suit. The opening theft is largely given away in the trailers, but it is still funny and exciting as hell. And Bill Conti's wonderful jazz-piano based score never succumbs to the cliched chords of your normal thriller, giving a charming liveliness to the proceedings.

Denis Leary is the detective who is assigned to find the painting, but he is quickly walked over by Rene Russo, who plays an insurance agent working for the same goal. She is cold, calculating, and similar to Felicity Shagwell from the recent 'Austin Powers' flick in that she will go to any lengths to get her man. If there are any insurance agents as dedicated as Rene is in this film, I'd like to sign up under their policy.

Rene figures out pretty quickly that Pierce stole the painting, and makes sure he knows that she knows. This is one of the masterful moves the screenplay makes; these characters are, for the most part, constantly aware of each other, ruling out any of the predictable double crosses that continuously bogged down that other robbery movie that I keep mentioning in this review. Of course, they fall for each other, and it is in this area the movie makes its only real mistake.

After a seductive ballroom dance, Pierce and Rene finally succumb to their passions and FUCK. They don't just have some softly lit tryst in the magnificent bedroom of the Crown estate; they have hot wild sex all over the floor, all over the staircase, all over the desk, and, to be fair, all over the bed. During this scene, the movie grinds to a halt and turns into softcore porn. I have nothing against nudity or passionate love scenes, as long as they are there for a purpose; I think 'Eyes Wide Shut' is the best film of the year, and every bit of nudity and sex in that movie worked with the plot. The main purpose of the love scene in this movie, though, seems to be to give the femal audience an eyefull of Pierce Brosnan's hindquarters (he did produce the film, so that probably explains it). Rene Russo gets full exposure too, of course, but the movie didn't need any nudity at all. The scene should have ended with the shot of Rene's dress falling to her ankles, followed by the breakfast scene the next morning.

I am reminded of 'The Spanish Prisoner,' an excellent, intelligent film that was as thrilling as any other summer movie; it was only rated PG. This movie could have gotten awaw with the same thing. There is no violence in the movie; there is not even a single gun. The bad language is very minimal. This could have been a PG so easily, but it had to have these gratuitous sex scenes, and thus it is not suitable for an entire audience who would have enjoyed (and possibly benefitted from) the unusually intelligent and entertaining cat and mouse games between the two main characters.

Returning to the plot, however, we witness Rene's inner turmoil over her feelings for Pierce and her commitment to her job (we also get a brief look at Pierce's psyche during several scenes with his therapist, played by Faye Dunaway, who is here only as an in-joke for those who have seen the original 'Thomas Crown Affair'). But because the two characters are so well-written and defined, the predictable plot mechanics are entirely credible. It all ends in a big showdown that is anything but; to give any bit of this wonderful ending away would be cruel, so let me just say that it will have you laughing aloud, if not clapping along with the rest of the audience. John McTiernan is obviously aware that audiences are tired of thrillers that inevitably rip off his original 'Die Hard'--like 'Entrapment.' He and his screenwriters, Leslie Dixon and another whose name I can't recall, have fashioned an (almost) old fashioned film that proves that cinematic fireworks do not require massive explosions--or even any explosions at all.

--David the Ghost Boy