Customer Reviews

The Thomas Crown Affair (Widescreen/Full Screen)

5 star:		(129)
4 star:		(68)
3 star:		(36)
2 star:		(23)
1 star:		(25)

 

 

I have been a huge fan of the original Thomas Crown Affair since I first saw it while in the military in 1969..... and bought this "re-make" because I heard so many good things about it. I must say that honestly there are good points in BOTH films. I never quite bought the fact that the original Crown had McQueen's character robbing a bank.... so stealing the "Monet" made much more sense to me. I also thought the story was improved upon in the new version and I was more satisfied by the challenge Bronsnan's character found in Russo's bluntness. On the other hand, the sumptuous music score by Michel LeGrand in the early film was superior to the weak, lackluster and frangmented score that Bill Conti created for the new one. I also think I preferred the sensuous and sexy elegance of the fire between McQueen and Dunaway to the overtly sweaty lust that Brosnan and Russo desparately share. HOWEVER.... I must say I did enjoy BOTH films and find each beautiful and entertaining in their own ways.

(...) The ART of the earlier version is a unique and compelling one and makes that film so fascinating to watch in widescreen!

This movie is a witty and entertaining caper/romance. Lively plot twists and smart writing make this one of my personal favourite movies from the past decade. Don't let the pretty people deter you from thinking this more is intelligent and fulfilling -- they actually get the chance to act, this time out.

I am such an avid movie watcher that I rarely feel inclined to watch a movie more than once. Well, let me admit to not only having bought the DVD, but to having watched it numerous times!

I love the sound track of the movie and will be doing my own remake--going Duo Discus glider riding with my significant other ;).

The love scene is wonderful, the chemistry between the actors works like a MIT Lab experiment and the whole movie is simply spot on.

I recommend it highly!

I won't go into the plot of this movie, most buyers will already know it anyway. The DVD transfer is superb. This is the only movie I've ever seen where I liked Pierce Brosnan and thought he was cast properly. What makes this movie for me, though, is the performance of Ms. Russo. She is the perfect combination of sex and brains. Her wardrobe is amazing and she knows how to wear it! There are some slow parts to this movie, particularly the tropical part, but overall it's a keeper.

Stylish and sexy. If you really concentrate, at about 1/2 way through the movie, you should be able to pretty much predict the ending.

I have never seen the original though.

This is a movie of surprise and surprise again. Every time you think you have it figured out, you are fooled by a beautiful twist right until the last scene of the movie. But the real treat, is the action between Brosnan and Russo. She is sexuality personified . . . and focused on Crown with a purpose. Brosnan (Crown) becomes intriqued by her determination and falls for her and begins to play her game. The action between the two crackles and sparkles.
It is a great movie. Much better than the orginal (can't say that very often) and writing and camera work is excellent. This is a movie to own and see over and over again.

Pierce Brosnan plays Thomas Crown, a billionaire executive who decides to have a little fun by stealing a priceless Monet from his own museum, basically just to see if he can get away with it. Enter Renee Russo's character, Catherine Banning, a high-class bounty hunter hired by the company that insures the painting who is intent on proving that Brosnan is guilty. Despite her professional obligations, she cannot help but fall for Crown's charm, and the two enjoy a fabulous romance while still trying to outmatch each other.

Brosnan and Russo have incredible chemistry. They compliment each other perfectly on screen and make the most out of every scene, both the silly ones and the serious ones. Denis Leary has a great supporting role as the detective working on the Crown heist, and his scenes with Russo are excellent as well.

The plot is very enjoyable, and there are a lot of twists and turns along the way that the audience doesn't see coming. Crown's final "prank" at the end of the film is absolutely priceless, as is his final scene with Russo. This is one instance where a movie remake is ten times better than the original. I'm glad that there are plans to make a sequel.

I saw this movie when it first came out in 1999. Knowing it was a remake, I didn't expect much. However, the presence of Rene Russo, Pierce Brosnan and Denis Leary were enough to push me past my prejudice, and it was an hour and a half (or so) well spent.

Anyone looking for anything remotely deep will be disappointed. This is a fun, fluffy, ultimately consequenceless plot. Pierce Brosnan, the man who has everything, amuses himself by robbing the Met in New York of a famous painting and then putting it back almost immediately. Rene Russo, Brosnan's perfect match, is a high class bounty hunter out to catch him. Naturally, things get complicated when they begin an affair- just for fun at first, but then emotional complications set in. Denis Leary is the world weary NYC cop who raises his eyebrows in Russo's direction and helps her prove the case against Brosnan, but ultimately states at the end of the movie that in the grand scheme of everything he's seen, he doesn't have a problem letting Brosnan go (lucky for them).

From the sets at the Met to the high society parties, restaurant and exotic getaways, the movie is visually satisfying from beginning to end. And speaking of visuals, anyone watching this movie shouldn't be too much of a prude- there is almost a half hour period where Russo (and Brosnan, to a lesser extent) spend much of their screen time naked. While both look great, after the first fifteen minutes I did start wondering when they were going to put their clothing back on.

The movie is also fast-moving in the appropriate places, particularly when Brosnan makes the initial theft and then foils the sting to capture him. Of course you have to suspend your disbelief that someone (even James Bond) could pull all of this off, but the plotting is so much fun that you find yourself nodding along.

While the chemistry between Russo and Brosnan is palpable, I've got to say, I found myself wishing at times that she would choose Leary over Brosnan. Who knew that Mr. Crass Comedian could do so well as a potential romantic lead?

Finally, a word about the original. I rented the McQueen/Dunaway version shortly after I saw this, thinking it would be even better. I was bitterly disappointed. While some of the dynamic between McQueen and Dunaway had hints of the chemistry in this movie, the whole tone of the movie was ultimately much more nihilistic than this 90s bit of fluff. And robbing a bank? Been there!

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999 version) stars Pierce Brosnan as Thomas Crown, a bored billionaire art thief, and Rene Russo as Catherine Banning, an insurance investigator who goes after him, then falls in love with him. Will Catherine do her job and nail Crown for stealing the Monet, or will she throw away her career for a life with her lover as a fugitive? "Fugitives with means," Crown tempts Catherine, "that makes all the difference."

When it first came out, I liked this movie better than the original with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. The second time I watched it, wanting to zone out with a caper film, things bothered me almost from the beginning.

Don't read any more if you want to see the film, because I'm going to reveal the plot. But I wanted to figure out what changed in my reactions to the movie, and why (I think) my reactions changed.

At a museum in New York a teacher is trying to interest her grade-school students in a painting. She tells them it's the first Impressionist painting and is unique in the world. They're bored. When she tells them "It's worth a hundred million dollars," they snap to attention, stare, and make noises of awe - - not articulate speech, but animal sounds of transcendent bliss, like cows or sheep, as though they found themselves in the presence of a millionaire basketball star or pop singer. In other words, what passes for religious experience in a culture that tolerates ignorance and worships money.

Crown has hired Romanian criminals to create a diversion while he personally steals a Monet. He makes sure the Romanians are caught so he can get away. He hides the Monet in his townhouse behind another painting he legitimately owns and spends the evening drinking wine and basking in Monet's genius and his own brilliance.

Does Crown deserve to possess the painting because he's rich enough and smart enough to take it? To be fair, Crown returns the painting almost immediately to the museum in a way that once again proves his superiority, but did he have the right to risk damage to such a masterpiece? Anyway, my point here is that the first time I saw the move, it didn't even occur to me that Crown didn't have the right to risk the irreplaceable artwork. Why not?

What about the Romanians? They look like Eastern European movie thugs - - shaved heads, sneers, but the equipment and tactics they use prove they're not stupid and they're not violent (though one does push a child, a way of making them less sympathetic). While they knew the risks involved in such a theft when Crown hired them, they didn't know he was going to literally trip them up and send them to prison so he could steal "his" painting from a different room. Why didn't Crown's betrayal of them even occur to me the first time I saw the movie?

We first see insurance investigator Catherine Banning when she picks one of the Romanians to interrogate. ("Give me the quiet one.") Once she sees he understands German, she threatens him with the Securitate, Ceausescu's secret police, playfully walking behind her prisoner and stroking his neck, then pretending to snap it.

In this movie people are cattle for the amusement of superhumans like Crown and Catherine, his queen.

At this point I realized why these images didn't disturb me the first time I saw the film. Then I was too busy trying to follow the plot. In the interrogation scene I was trying to pick out enough German to understand what Catherine was saying. During the heist at the museum I was trying to figure out the significance of Crown's briefcase and all the other gimmicks involved in the theft.

Later, Catherine learns that a young woman she thinks is Crown's girlfriend is really an art forger Crown has put through school. Why? Because her father (the young woman's tutor in forgery) is Crown's former partner, now in prison (for work he did for Crown?). Crown has used his generosity to the young woman to involve her in his scheme. Maybe she was going to be a forger anyway, but Crown is risking her freedom too.

Crown flies Catherine to his private island, where she throws a sealed painting onto the fire to prove she loves him over drinks. I'm not sure how that proves she loves him. Crown says it's not the stolen Monet, but a "nice little Renoir." Copy or original? We don't find out for sure. Again, Crown and Catherine play with irreplaceable art to spice up their erotic games.

In the climax we learn that Crown has surreptitiously replaced the Monet, but while he's confounding everyone with an army of look-alikes (their appearance taken from a famous painting) he steals another picture Catherine told him she liked. ("Everything's obtainable.")

The detective Catherine is working with lets her know he won't chase her if she runs away with Crown. He can go back to arresting real criminals, instead of looking for stolen art that's really only important to some "silly rich people." How many people every year go to the Metropolitan, MOMA, the Louvre, the Orsay, the Pompidou, the Prado, the Reina Sofia, the Uffizi, the Tate, the Rijksmuseum, just for starters? How many are rich?

At last all the paintings are back where they belong and Crown and Catherine are together. The first time I was glad for them. But after Bush's tax cuts, Enron, and Haliburton, people like Tommy and Catherine just aren't as amusing as they used to be.

2/26/04 For those of us who like knowing the plot and most of the possibilities of the ending ,so that we can just watch the "play" :Act by Act via "scene after scene" : the movie video" The Thomas Crown Affair" was not a disappointment...the fact that it's most "saleable scene": "a mini tour of the New York Art Museum" opened the plot (Dunaway's conversation with Bronsan during the opening credit preceded the tour)helped even more..however the movie is no "Maltese Falcon" or "War and Peace" ,so a rating of three is parallel to its merits.