Foolproof (2003)

Admirable film.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The acting in this movie is really good.

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

Computer hacking and corporate espionage aren't new plot lines to spy thrillers. Someone needs a specific item, so either they themselves or another skilled individual does the job. The idea of course is to get by without being detected and leaving no trace that anything had happened to begin with. When a trio of college groupies become a theoretical genius machine and figure out how to break into a jewelry store, they end up being blackmailed to perform a much bigger task. This particular idea isn't too extreme if it were not for such obvious plot holes. Surprisingly, the film entertains at a level that was unexpected.The trio of theorists that devise such an elaborate plan are Kevin (a before really famous Ryan Reynolds), Sam (Kristin Booth) and Rob (Joris Jarsky). And appropriately, these actors do look like college students for their age relative to this movie. Most notably, this is before Ryan Reynolds' got ripped for future comic book movies. It seems a little preposterous though that these three are the mega geniuses who create this perfect heist blueprint. No one really defined themselves as the brains of the outfit. The script provided the necessary dialog to make them sound smart but to look like they were real geniuses was another story. The man behind the blackmail scandal is Leo Gillette played by underrated actor David Suchet. This was also the man who played the leader of the hijacked 747 in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision (1996). Just like before, Suchet is able to pull off his character with such ease that it's difficult not to see the threat that he holds. However, some of his character's decision making is a slight bit silly. One of them is - why blackmail these theorists to actually pull off the heist? At the beginning of the film, the main characters demonstrate how breaking into the system is done but who's to say that they know every single tactic of espionage? That also includes gun use and cable suspensions? If this is the case, I'm not sure these college grads are as innocent as they appear to be. Nevertheless, sure these wiseguys can crack the code to a security system but could you really trust them to pull off a heist with expertise? I think it's expecting a little too much even though they did do it well.Particularly, the idea of having amateurs do professional work isn't a bad idea for a comedy, which is what this thriller is supposed to have in it. Director and writer William Phillips tried but there doesn't seem to be enough of a comedic angle to his direction. The majority of the qwerky lines come from Ryan Reynolds, respectively. But it shouldn't just be Reynolds carrying these moments. Plus, there could've been several funny scenes involving characters getting familiar with how to do espionage. Then, have them slowly grow and become more self- efficient. In spite of this though, Phillips produced a script that at least worked effectively at defining its characters and having them develop evenly,...for the most part. At points, there are twists in the story line. This isn't bad at all, but it then undermines a good portion of the character development.The quality to the rest of the production is adequately made but is nothing out of the ordinary or special. There doesn't seem much of any CGI but the practical effects used work and look real and that's good. The cinematography by Derek Rogers who also worked on Cube (1997) provided the right scenery but again nothing that stands out. Even Jim McGrath's music is a turn down. Mainly this reason is because his score is inaccessible. It still wasn't an amazing score, but it did provide easy listening. McGrath's themes contained jazz related instruments that attempted at lightening the mood of the story to a comical level. At times there were contemporary music inserted in various scenes and they too weren't bad, but didn't elevate the viewing. It's an OK watch but it's not worth a second view.The script has its moments of being clever and its cast works. Yet, the frequency at which it works at being a funny spy thriller is not very often. It's okay for a one-time watch.

Watch this if....you enjoy heist films with twists and turns. This movie reminds me of a poor man's Oceans Eleven (2001) in some of it's presentation and story telling.Acting/Casting: 6* - Ryan Reynolds does a great job in the lead role and comes across very convincing as the mastermind behind his group's heists. Kristin Booth and Joris Jarsky are average actors at best and I would have liked to have seen others in their roles, but an 8 million dollar budget doesn't offer a ton of options. I really liked David Suchet, who I felt played the nemesis role extremely well.Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 6.5* - The directing is pretty good and the movie has an OK pace to it once it gets going. If you can get past a somewhat slow start, it is well worth the watch. A glaring issue with the film is the music, which is terribly out of place and doesn't fit the film whatsoever.Plot/Characters: 6.5* - Kevin (Reynolds) and his crew are planning a big jewel heist, but end up having their heist plans stolen and have to pull off a job for a vicious gangster in order to not have them turned over to the authorities. It is a different take on the heist genre and this is a well written story.Entertainment Value: 6.5* - As mentioned, if you can get past the slow first 30 minutes or so, then the movie is a good watch. I would recommend to anyone looking for a clever heist film.My Score: 6+6.5+6.5+6.5 = 25.5/4 = 6.375 Email your thoughts to [email protected]

This movie is actually pretty good, only the pace is a bit uneven. At the beginning there is stretch that is a bit boring, until the action begins. If it is ever re-released in DVD I would suggest some editing to delete unnecessary scenes at the beginning of the movie. The three protagonists are very good, particularly Kristin Booth. Leo and the guardian of his jewels are not very believable as bad guys, they are just OK. Obviosly, Hollywood created some bad expectations here... ;) The plot is quite interesting and the end of the movie is positively surprising. Too bad I haven't heard of this movie until I found it by chance at the city library.

The budget of this movie was $CAD8,000,000. Astonishingly $2 million of them, and in a record-breaking move, were spent on marketing. Let alone that it had, at its time, the widest release of a Canadian movie in history. The problem though is that the total gross of it was $460,978, namely less than the quarter of its budget's quarter ! No doubt it's a smart movie. I enjoyed it, with its lovely plot and cool dialog. The director made such a nice time. So what was the problem, or according to the aforementioned info, the BIG problem ? While (Kristin Booth) was a very very talented actress (I usually say talented only), (David Suchet) did good work despite the fact that he's not my cup of tea, and (Joris Jarsky) was near to flawless, (Ryan Reynolds) wasn't as good. And sorrowfully, no one of them is that charismatic as a lead. Let alone the tragedy of not being that famous and lustrous internationally as well.The twist was predictable, yet for a viewer like me; accustomed to watch movies all along. It just lacked the American, rather the Hollywood wrapping. The cinematography got the job done without the gloss (of Ocean's Eleven for instance). The soundtrack isn't that crowded with pop songs and catchy music that could be fit to be sold apart later. The sets aren't that expensive. But in fact there were other, more big and real effective, missing things.It lacked the octopus-like distribution all over the planet AND the huge noisy publicity where you run into the making everyday on all the channels, watch the teaser, then the trailer, then the other trailer in every cinema or internet site, with huge posters in your city's main streets maybe weeks before the release…you know, the things that make Hollywood so Hollywood (look even at the poster; it's really poor!). So in general the movie ended up looking like any independent American movie, and has been dealt with as one too. In 2003, there were some noticeable heist movies. Just recall : (Matchstick Men), (The Italian Job), and (Confidence). I think (Foolproof) is no less, if not better. The thing is it missed the stars, the guaranteed presence in the movies, and the propaganda. So in brief the only problem of this movie from Hollywood North is that it wasn't Hollywood…Enough !