Diagonaldi Very well executed

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

toptna This movie had so many good things going for it: handsome and debonair lead actor (this movie could have been written for Brosnan),good ing cast, great scenery, surprise twists and turns, etc). However, I thought all of that was undermined by a horribly miscast Rene Russo as the female lead. I've always loved the performances of mature actresses such as Helen Mirren and Judi Dench who never lost their appeal even as years ed. But featuring Russo as Catherine Banning made me cringe. Her actions and dialogue never fit her post-menopausal persona. She looked more 54 than her actual 44, and I found it made her role more annoying than alluring. At times, even pathetic. It's not Russo's fault. Writers simply wrote the part for a young seductress as the lead, and then casting tried to shoe-horn Rene Russo into the role. I would have much rather seen Brosnan and Russo play chess (like a scene in the original version), than see Russo grind on the dance floor wearing a formal gown. Indeed, Russo appeared to rely on her looks and sex more than her intelligence as the film progressed. In the original, 1968 film version there was a memorable kissing scene between Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway that went on to become famous. The kissing scenes in this 1998 version made me say,"Ick."The original and the remake are different enough to stand on their own. If you weren't wild about the original, you may still enjoy the remake I like both films, but for different reasons.

tom-durham I watched the remake and the original back to back for the first time, so this review is more about whether you should watch the original or the remake.Both movies involve a heist, a love connection and a police investigation. However most of the details are quite different in the two movies, and they almost stand alone.The heist:The heist in the remake is much more interesting, detailed, and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The original's heist is straightforward and there are no surprises. It is just a plot device in the original, whereas in the remake it is very well done. The item being stolen makes more sense and really helps the story in the remake.The love connection:The remake does not just rely on the two main characters to create intrigue. The original spends most of it's time on this. To me it is quantity over quality. If you prefer the classic 1960s actors gazing at each other communicating via body language instead of dialogue, you may prefer the original. I prefer the remake.The police investigation:The remake has additional side plots which make it much more interesting. The original is very straightforward, there is an edge of your seat moment or two, but they are not as well done. The way the driver is caught is just wrong and unbelievable, not clever. The remake is far more interesting and well done.ConclusionThe remake is more interesting and contains much more action. The original is more of a drama about two people.

Dr_Sagan My Quick recommendation: Go see it. It's a great movie. It's fun. It's (in a good way) complicate. The main cast does a great job. The direction of John McTiernan is excellent....You wanna wish for more......but...that was back in 1999. Now 15 years later and the long awaited sequel (rumored to be called Topkapi at some point) is nowhere to be seen.Well there is a complicate explanation. Thomas Crown complicate. John McTiernan was accused with criminal charges and end up in prison. He fought for years in courts, so any future project of his got frozen. Brosnan said in 2009 that Paul Verhoeven was attached to direct the new film. Seems like a great choice to me to replace McTiernan but unfortunately he left because of creative differences.The good news are that a few months ago John McTiernan revealed he had written a script for the sequel whilst in prison, called Thomas Crown And The Missing Lioness!!! So there must be hope after all for a good sequel!In the meantime DON'T MISS this movie. It has everything, and the consensus is that is far better than the original..

movie reviews Gross: $124 million Cost: $48 million ( when million dollar movies were exceptional)--inflation.Slickly produced expensive "Roger Moore" style heist film. It was not meant to be taken too seriously--some reviewers complain about holes in the plot--this movie is meant to be a lighthearted romantic comedy.Features an upbeat prettified New York of the rich and famous while also appealing to our antisocial natures.The only part that I could have done without were the sex scenes...both Pierce Bronson at 47 and Russo at 45 were a little too long in the tooth for torpid insatiable sex on marble stairs etc....especially Pierce looked a little saggy with out a shirt on. Ditto the true love angle at this age is unbelievable but is part of the formula. Bronson looked like he needed a few hits of amphetamines and viagra a couple times to keep up his manic behavior...The only part I didn't care for was the ending at the museum with a dozen men with bowler hats somehow confusing a large contingent of the NYPD. Too dumb.Still flawlessly filmed well acted but expensive formula star stuff..a 7 ...I am a tough but consistent grader.... 6 is boiler plate (but decent)...say a Jacqueline Suzanne novel...7 a cut above....I like sleepers and surprises. Also try to grade in context....8 is very very good...10 still looking...Russo is definitely the better half of the duo quite funny. But Bronson was OK.Recommend