One of the toughest things about writing weekly reviews is picking the films to review. If I'm going to invest seven bucks and two hours, I'd just as soon see something I think I'll like. Besides, it's too easy to write negative reviews with the plethora of mediocrity that permeates the theaters. The other issue though is the audience for the reviews. Do I pick films to review that I think the audience should see? This is the castor oil approach-as in "go ahead, it's good for you". Or should I review films that I think the audience is likely to see. This week my schizoid ambivalence is on display for all to see. The best films now showing are the Argentinian nominee for best foreign film, Central Station, and Robert Altman's delightfully offbeat Cookie's Fortune. The former is in Spanish with subtitles, and the latter is, well, offbeat. Feeling trapped between high-brow pretentiousness and the populist formula film, I decided to go with the easy crowd-pleaser.John Amiel's Entrapment is surely that. An action-adventure thriller with overtones of romance and intrigue, Entrapment is at the very least, fun. Sean Connery here redeems himself from his dreadful, overblown caricature in The Avengers, and Catherine Zeta-Jones establishes herself (in her first major role since her star-making appearance in The Mask of Zorro) as having the stuff that leading ladies are made of. There is no substitute for good chemistry, and these two have it.What makes the film a bit unusual, and refreshing, is the way that chemistry is developed. One of the most sensual moments in the film is when Connery's character "Mac" gazes at the Zeta-Jones character, Gin, as she lies sleeping, barely covered. When Mac reaches out towards Gin it is to pull the cover up, to cover her. It is a tender moment, and a lot more original than the typical "roll in the hay" in this kind of film.Gin is supposed to be an investigator specializing in art thefts, and Mac is the world's greatest art thief. As the story develops, she appears to be setting Mac up for a bust, and at other times she seems to be interested in being his partner in crime. Part of what keeps the story engaging is trying to decide just who is the fisherman (or fisherperson) and who is the fish? Or perhaps they are both just fishing together. Just when you think you know, the story will spin round again, leaving you in doubt once more.There are some great supporting performances here. Especially noteworthy is the solid performance by Ving Rhames as Thibedeaux, Mac's supplier and occasional partner in crime. Mission Impossible fans may remember Rhames as the computer whiz in that film. There is no question that this is a formula form in the action-adventure genre. The best genre films emerge out of a dialectical interplay between the conventions of the genre and the inventions of the director. There is enough invention here to make this an engaging example of the genre. If you can't handle the subtitles of Central Station, and aren't into Altmanesque offbeat films, Entrapment is fun and engaging with some great scenes along the way.

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".

The presence of Sean Connery can often rescue a dire movie but not when it is a truly dire movie because one of the main actors, Catherine Zeta Jones, has not talent whatsoever. This Welsh woman can mimic an American accent but that is all she does, mimic not convince, nor can she convince us that she is a savvy , experienced, hard-nosed insurance investigator. Without her, the movie might have been a success, but her presence was required because she was married to Michael Douglas. She has never provided a memorable performance in any of her movies, and not even in the little English TV comedy drama from which she sprang. She cannot even make the light romance with a much older man, Connery, believable, even though she had plenty of experience with her aged husband.

Cringe-Fest of the first order. Full of expensive Scenes at the expense of anything involving or Entertaining. It even fails as a bit of attractive Fluff. It misses at every turn and is a grueling get-through and an embarrassment to all involved.Sean Connery is a good Actor but his choice of Roles after James Bond is mind boggling. A lot more misses than Hits. CZJ is attractive and competent and can add some dimension to one dimensional Beauty parts, but this is one unattractive Movie.The Plot is laughable, hard to follow at times, seems incompetently disjointed and misfires in all three Acts. The ending is unwatchable and the icing on this deflated cake is the finger down the throat Romance forced on the Audience, when in the beginning they promised not to. This Film fails to deliver on anything it promised.