"Foolproof" has a good cast and decent production values, although one jiggly-cam shot in particular may leave some viewers reaching for the Dramamine. The script has a solid three-act structure, but is hopelessly contrived and inconsistent. Some have compared it to an Ocean's 11/12/13 caper, but it plays more like an episode from the old "Mission Impossible" television series. The three leads bring new depth to the role of underachiever. Reynolds's character seems to be a brilliant engineer, negotiator and strategist, but works as an insurance adjuster. Jarsky's character is a talented electrical engineer and a bit of a computer whiz, but repairs consumer electronics. Neither has any money, a girlfriend or a decent car, but they have money to engage in elaborate self-designed role-play games. We're not sure what Booth's character does, but she is an adroit pickpocket and could probably earn a living doing sleight-of-hand magic or stealing wallets. They plan, test and rehearse elaborate heists, but do not execute them, preferring the psychic rewards of beating the system. They have a fascination with larceny, but are unwilling to put their elaborate plans to the test. Unlike Redford's character in "Sneakers," they do not attempt to monetize their endeavors by exposing security flaws to the businesses that are in jeopardy. Nor do they use their material as the source for novels or screenplays. Why do they do it? Although the screenplay tries mightily to justify their expensive self- indulgent role-play games, it comes across as nothing more than an elaborate and not particularly credible set-up, allowing a vicious criminal to hijack their plans, implicate them in the crime and extort their cooperation in an even more elaborate heist. The film tosses the audience's willful suspension of disbelief into the dust, stomps on it and grinds it under its boot heel. In one particularly egregious incident, a character cuts through an elevator's cables with a few squirts of acid. One would expect the molecules of acid to react with the molecules in the steel cable on a one-to-one basis, creating new relatively inert molecules. One would think that it would require a substantial volume of acid to eat through a cable that's a couple of centimeters thick and the process would probably take hours not minutes. The several cables supporting the car should be the same length, otherwise the longer cables aren't supporting any weight. If one is severed, the others might stretch fractionally, but not enough to cause the car to lurch. Without the weight of the elevator car counterbalancing it, there's no reason for the counterweight to rise to the roof. It would simply fall to the ground. However, the elevator and elevator shaft are equipped with multiple safety features to prevent cars from falling freely and to cushion the fall if it does. The first braking system was invented by a guy named Otis, who demonstrated it by standing on a elevator platform and cutting the cable. The platform fell a couple of inches before the brake stopped its descent. Movie makers love bearer bonds as a plot device, but the IRS and CRA aren't very fond of them, so they're basically outlawed. It makes no sense that anybody would plan weeks in advance to ship a large quantity of bonds to a location overnight and move them the next day. The dry ice was actually somewhat clever. Dry ice sublimes, turning directly into carbon dioxide, but it does cause condensation that can leave stains that might be noticeable against a chrome background. (Liquids evaporate, Mr. Phillips. Dry ice sublimes.) Of course, the difficult part is finding dry ice in the necessary size and shape and keeping it that size until needed.The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies. The team rejects and returns several small, valuable objects, but they somehow have them again at the conclusion. A character is surprised that another character has purchased an expensive item, but at the end it is implied that the character knew how it was afforded all along. A character claims a pistol is unloaded because the magazine is removed. But the character then inserts the magazine and racks the slide, ejecting a round that was in the chamber. One hopes they used dummy cartridges and not live ammo when they filmed the scene. If you're going to switch pistols with a known criminal who is likely to be arrested in the near future, you probably don't want to use a pistol that is registered to yourself. The script offers intriguing double- and triple-crosses, but they're marred by technical implausibility and the characters simply knowing too much in unrealistic detail. Production values are superior to those of a television movie or low-budget independent film, but not on par with most action/heist films. The camera is usually in motion, slowly panning or tilting to mask vibrations in the jiggly-cam shots. One wishes they would buy a tripod and plan the shots. Good performances, particularly by Jarsky, Reynolds and Suchet. The film is a pleasant diversion, provided one doesn't approach it too critically. It might have been much better if the author had conducted more thorough research and worked through some cleaver notions to make them more plausible. The ending is a little too Goody Two-Shoes. Fans of heist films want the protagonists to get away with the spoils, possibly through an unexpected reward ("Out of Time") or keeping a portion, as in "Flawless," not revert to their pre-adventure stasis.

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.

Being Canadian I am extremely embarrassed by most Canadian movies and was cringing when this one started.What you get instead is a tight, well written and reasonably well acted (Ryan Reynolds... NOT) heist movie, as a group of three friends who devise intricate robbery plans for a hobby are suddenly force-recruited by the criminal elite of Toronto (don't laugh - we got mafia too) to pull off their latest crime scenario for real.Naturally, with the intelligence in the group you know they will turn the tables, but the fun is trying to figure out how they do it, which the movie does a reasonable job of keeping hidden until the end.There are some predictable gaffs along the way, like the excruciatingly long time they take to get under some security lasers when they have already shown they are skilled enough to have just turned them off, and the fact that if your going to fake your own death, you really need to know ahead of time how the bad guy is going to do it so you can plan it! How exactly did they know he was going to drop the elevator on them? He wouldn't have told Rob ahead of time as he might tell them! All in all very well written, look for some great acting from Kristin Booth as the super sexy ninja-girl and William House as the sinister mobster crime boss trapping them in the plan.Do NOT watch Ryan Reynolds, this guy should go back to modelling.

The above comment says it all. Disguised as a fireman....kinda like being disguised as SWAT team members...mocking robot...kinda like a robotic van.....need I go on? While most of the movie was enjoyable...I rather that Ryan Reynolds character been more smartassed, and less angry. He plays smartassed rather well (Van Wilder, Blade Trinity). I understand not wanting to be typecast, but there is a difference between being typecast and playing to your strengths. Overall I thought it was a solid effort, but found it to be less of an homage to Oceans, and more of a blatant copy. I do agree that it was refreshing to see a movie made in a Canadian city that wasn't being passed off as an American city....and I'm from the States.