How to Rob a Bank (2007)

Why so much hype?

So much average

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I literally just made a IMDb account to rate this movie. If I could rate a - I would. The film is very basic and cheaply done. Tbh I think I could have made it better myself at university on my BA film and television course. The comedy in the film is shocking the acting isn't very good (better than mine) but pretty poor and another annoying thing I found is that there are numerous continuity errors. Some of the errors that I spotted were that the phone was in the right hand at one point then the left at another and the bank in one scene is shown to be under the bank robbers and not adjacent which it is perceived in other scenes.People may enjoy it but in my case I just found it very irritating to watch and ended up writing this review half way through the film.

a "dark" comedy with some weired moments,very "new age" production style; hot babe (by universal terms at least).i did not find it "bad" at all; i have seen better from this genre, yet there is a certain "sweetness" that will likely keep you watch on, without feeling "bored" generally(the first 5-10 minutes i found them as irrelevant), even if the whole action happens in and in-between the "valut"(Nick Stahl and Erika Christensen), bank's main floor (with the bad guys+ hostage), and the front street with Terry Crews (as the negotiator).i say "new age" dark comedy because there are many scenes that technically suppose to be funny but they are not; such as letting you think" along the line "ok...and...?". however the plot keeps reinventing itself to the point where the unfunny becomes comic, but still with the ability to hold its course. basically if you like British humor( even if it is a Hollywood production) and looking for pure entertainment values, this might be for you. and especially if you are part of the young generation and/or withing the start of the middle age one.i found the end to be disappointing in traditional sense and there also some references to internet use that play out right from the "regulaters" political agenda! there are way too many phones and calls involved yet i THINK i can see the sarcasm in itself (if this was intended to be commercial it definitely fails flat and the investors should demand their money back).actually the plot in itself falls flat as well, since the "surcharge" theme has been played out many times before and much better. the thing that holds quiet well the movie together are the wacky dialogs(or most of them) and the camera work. David Carradine is a nice touch even if only actually see him once(i recognized his voice from a mile away without looking into credits first).all in all is a good "progressive" time waster. it entertains

Sure this MAY contain spoilers, but the thing that will be more spoiled is your time by watching it. It took me a while to realize it was a "PG-13" movie, but then I realized I didn't hear any "naughty" words. This is a teenage bank robbery / hostage flick.That would explain why people talk like teenagers, and that the cop in charge acts like a teenager, instead of like all of other hostage negotiators you may have seen in all of those "R" rated bank hostage movies. ("R" for "realistic") The biggest problem was that it was trying SO HARD to be funny, or witty, or whatever, and it was just STUPID.Quick question for those who've seen the film. Do banks have PHONES any more? I believe they DO, but you wouldn't know it if you saw this movie. I just remember one ringing RIGHT AWAY with the cop in charge calling in like the first 3 minutes of just about every other bank hostage flick I've ever seen. I also remember the cop-in-charge REALLY knowing what he's doing, too, you know, like he's taken a class or something.The thing that I find a real shame about this is that, technically, it was well made - all the pieces where there. The story wasn't really bad, as an outline. The DIALOG was a BIG problem, along with the lack of believable characters, and editing that was too smart for itself by way of "lock, stock and two smoking barrels" whose self-conscience style has infected cinema with its small-screen editing and overlays. Please give me a long shot and some atmosphere! There's one good thing about this film, however, Erika Christensen is HOT, and seriously, if it weren't for her, I would have stopped this within the first half hour.

This movie is okay for a rainy day. The slow plot development can somewhat get annoying and the plot is overused and predictable with few minor changes. Not much thrill into the story, just slow. The ending was somewhat lame and left much to be hanging. The acting was decent with some slight humor from Terry Crews. "Plot" About a man named Jason Taylor who was going into a bank to use the ATM to get money for food. As he learns the bank is being robbed and somehow manages to get locked in the vault with the robbers on the outside. Basically a cry of surplus charges and taking from the little guy.Dialog is pretty cheesy at best...If you're bored and there is nothing better.. Go for it.