Crappy film

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

In this film, an employee of an insurance company will seek to investigate and arrest a professional art thief without anyone knowing, however, that she's also a professional thief. The game of cat and mouse is very nice and gives this movie the pleasant adventure flavor, especially when we combine this with the sequences of the robberies, some of them so incredible that they stink the false (without this bothering us too much). Another nice point that helps keep the interest in the movie is the relative vagueness in which the movie keeps Gin's situation. Only in the end did we clearly see if she is a thief or invented all that to approach Mac and arrest him. In addition, the pair crosses with other dubious characters, whose connections also only clarify in the end.In spite of all this, its not a particularly deep film and doesn't have a very strong or solid story giving it basis. These basis is the action scenes and adventure/mystery atmosphere, and its around this that the script is developed, not the other way round. The film still has some romance but chemistry between Connery and Zeta Jones is virtually nil and romantic scenes aren't convincing. This doesn't bring any demerit to their sex-appeal, but there are some things that sound false and I think the mood of distrust was fundamental to discarding this attempt to do romance. The remaining cast is limited to what they have to do. The two main actors, combined, support the film successfully. So the end result is a good action/adventure film, with some mystery, charm and elegance, where the biggest absence is a solid story that builds on everything we're seeing on screen.

Well to begin with, the film "Entrapment" has Sean Connery as the main actor with co-star Catherine Zeta-Jones. Could you pick better actors to star in a movie? Probably. Although, I think they were well picked for this film in particular. Sean was perfect to play the suave and sophisticated gentlemen and Catherine was perfect to play the beautiful and confident lady. What do they both have in common in acting abilities? They both are convincing when it comes to playing intelligent characters who can survive in fantasy film plots.I think Entrapment is a really good film! This action film actually has an interesting story where you more or less follow two criminals, who are working together, who are stealing rare artwork from famous museums and galleries from across the globe. They are also only working together because they are both using each other secretly, but neither one finds out until nearly halfway - to the end of the film. Action films, I think, are only good when there is an interesting and different story behind it to give it some substance. Otherwise, I get bored of watching films where there is just fighting and people firing guns when the plot is pathetic. If you are a fan of Sean Connery or Catherine Zeta-Jones's as actors, then you should definitely see this film. I actually think they make a very attractive on screen couple, even with the big age gap, although, I am probably biased given that I love them both as actors. This film is a lot of fun to watch, so don't miss out on it!

Great film .Clever,exciting,with great chemistry between Connery and Zeta Jones.The soundtrack is brilliant .The plot is plausible ,as film plots go. The last time I saw an age gap relationship that I could believe was Charade with Hepburn and Grant -this film is in that class. Watch this film if you can .

As a young adolescent in 1999, I remember watching "Entrapment" and enjoying it immensely. It was one of my favorite films from that time period. I just recently watched the film again in 2015 and discovered two things: 1. The film is pretty much made for adolescents; and 2. It truly is only a product of its times.For a basic plot summary, "Entrapment" sees insurance agent Virginia Baker (Catherine Zeta- Jones) on the trail of notorious art thief Robert MacDougal (Sean Connery). Whereas other agents have failed to catch "Mac" and bring him to justice, Virginia hopes to use her seductive powers to catch him off-guard. What follows is a game of cat-and-mouse in which you are never 100% sure who is the cat and who is the mouse.Purely on a plot level, this film isn't all that bad. There are a number of twists/turns, as well as a "who is playing who" atmosphere in which viewers never quite know which side any character is on until the very end.The major problem with "Entrapment", though, is that it is badly miscast and contains characters that you really don't care about from beginning to end. Sean Connery was having a bit of a late- career resurrection in film at this point, but all it does is create a number of uncomfortable moments of him leering at the shapely, svelte Zeta-Jones. For a movie that so heavily plays on a seduction angle, it is almost comical to see an old man such as Connery playing the leading role. Then, there is the subsequent issue that there really isn't any great chemistry between those two leads (again, probably due to the enormous age gap). End towards the end of the film, when you are really supposed to care about how those two feel about each other, all that potential emotion falls completely flat because it is so unbelievable and acting so unconvincingly.Another issue with this film is that it seems to want to create a sleek, technological environment, yet surprisingly little technology is actually used. There are a few scenes (especially the opening) that look really great, but otherwise there is a lot of roaming around an ancient mansion and inside art museums.So, I believe that "Entrapment" can very clearly be designated a "product of its times" and only that. Back then, Zeta-Jones was a sex symbol, it was still a novelty to see an "old James Bond- ish Connery", and the film was set right before the turn of the millennium. I can see young theater-goers of that time finding some enjoyment out of the experience (I know I did!). But, analyzed as purely a film, it falls short of even being called "okay".