. . . with two legendary actors? Anyone who's under 40 who can't judge the film based on its own merit, has no sense of film.

The King of Cool, Steve McQueen, plays a wealthy businessman and thrill seeker who masterminds a bank heist for no other reason than personal gratification. Faye Dunaway plays an investigator who is able to connect him to the crime and falls in love with him over the course of her investigation.It's a slick, high gloss production with A list stars and a big time director in Norm Jewison. It's an engrossing plot with some intriguing police procedure, well played by McQueen and Dunaway. 1960s films always look great to me because of the filming technique used at the time, although you wouldn't necessarily be wrong if you said this one looks pretty dated. Our preoccupation with high technology was starting to show even in 1968. There are numerous scenes of big punchcard computers, electronically controlled typewriters and the like, all cutting edge stuff back then but pretty antique looking now. McQueen cruises around the beach in an orange dune buggy, an iconic 1960's image if there ever was one. While this movie has a pretty familiar crime drama at its core, there are some defects. The only reason McQueen gets implicated in the crime is Dunaway's wild guess that the mastermind shipped the money to Geneva in numbered bank accounts. The police don't have a smidgen of evidence that this actually happened, but he fits that profile, making numerous trips there shortly after the robbery. However, several others fit the profile as well, and she only focuses on McQueen because she finds him personally attractive, and her female instinct tells her that he's the one. As the movie goes on, they really don't get any hard evidence connecting McQueen to the crime. McQueen plays it close to the vest and implicates himself only by his silence and evasiveness on the subject- he never says he did or didn't do it. Only near the end does he tire of the cat and mouse game and tell Dunaway to call in and make a deal with the cops. That's the closest thing to an admission we get. The motivation behind the crime is a little uncertain and a little thin. Thomas Crown is a rich businessman who wouldn't seem to have any incentive to pull off this particular crime. He's a thrill seeker-piloting gliders, playing polo, etc., so we're invited to make the inference that this is just another way for him to get off. There's also a subtle suggestion that after his divorce life is empty, and maybe he doesn't care if he risks everything with this. They do set up Thomas Crown as a rich man who's got some disdain for other rich men, but there's no indication that he's punishing the bank for something, and he's got no problem risking his henchmen or the innocent public to pull off his bank robbery thrill. One man does get shot in the robbery, so although you like his character, you could easily argue that Thomas Crown is not a very sympathetic good guy and maybe actually a bad guy. Good guy or bad, McQueen gets the last laugh as another robbery takes place while he leaves Dunaway high and dry and escapes to rich man's paradise on a private plane.

Unfortunately, the movie's more about striking hip poses than anything else. McQueen shows what a cool guy he is by endlessly playing with adult toys, while Dunaway gets to model every high fashion on the rack. But neither manages to get beyond the posturing stage. In fact the movie's plot—what there is of it—revolves around cat and mouse between greedy investigator Dunaway and millionaire bank robber McQueen. Yet, crucially, the movie lacks what every cat and mouse theme should have—namely, suspense or even a modicum of tension. Instead, we're treated to over-done romantic interludes, tedious chess game metaphors, and director Jewison's split-screen tricks, none of which immerse the viewer. Pity the poor animated Paul Burke who appears to have wandered onto the wrong set..The best moments are the grabber opening that unfortunately proves misleading, and the subtle close that makes good use of McQueen's practiced deadpan. The in-between unfortunately amounts to little more than empty technique, as does the movie itself.

Faye Dunaway is beautiful and well cast in this film where she plays a seductive, intelligent high-end insurance claim investigator out to find a bank robber, played by Steve McQueen. The chemistry between them seemed sizzling and genuine, and I liked how their relationship develops. I liked the film, had seen the modern version first, and am glad the original could stand up still to the latter one. This one's story was less sophisticated, and as such slightly less likely, and the main flaw for me was the HUGE initial leaps of assumption that Vicky (Dunaway) makes in her investigation given absolutely NO clues as to who the perpetrator of the robbery was. However, from that point, her investigation of Thomas Crown was exciting. The chess scene was excellently done, and must classier than the comparable black and white ball dance scene in the modern version which was a bit cheesy. Sexier too.The trouble with the 1968 version is that it's not aged well, and looks very dated. It is well filmed but has amateurish sound/soundtrack and the split screen boxes don't really add a whole lot for the most part but perhaps they were cutting edge at the time. In a few scenes they do add to the action but only a few. I like that the ending leaves the viewer hanging, whereas in the 1999 version the end is more finished and played through and that does add something, I think. The film is a little improbable but enjoyable to watch and worth the time especially given the lead characters, although they weren't so well developed or rounded but given I'd seen the modern one, I could make comparisons and fill in some of the story. Whereas I prefer the actors in the early film, the latter one is a better film for the most part, and one I've seen a number of times. My advice with this film is to see both of them and enjoy the similarities and differences and this film has a lot to offer in the comparison.