Thick as Thieves (2009)

This is one of those crime thrillers that screams, "See how clever I am." You know from the mild beginning twists to expect more plot twists. The game I played was "How many twists can you identify?"Famous art thief Ripley (Morgan Freeman) recruits jewel thief Gabriel Martin (Antonio Banderas) to help him pull an impossible heist. Gabriel falls for Alexandra (Radha Mitchell) a friend of Ripley's. Meanwhile Lt. Weber (Robert Forster) is investigating Ripley, knowing he is going to rob a rich Russian living in NYC.The film moved quickly and kept me entertained. I enjoyed the acting and the dialogue with its innuendos. It is light enough of a crime thriller for the ladies to enjoy. The characters remind you, "Don't assume anything."Parental Guide: Brief F-bombs, sex, and nudity, but not excessive. Each in itself might constitute a PG-13 rating but collectively they would get an "R." Was that Banderas' naked butt in that love scene or a body double? I am guessing a double.

The Code, or Thick As Thieves as it's known on DVD in some regions, is pretty much just Morgan Freeman and Antonio Banderas strutting their way through a B-grade, R-rated Ocean's Eleven. It's second tier stuff, but it has one hell of a cast and enough serpentine twists and betrayals to keep the viewer interested. Freeman plays a slick master burglar, recruiting Banderas' younger thief to pull off one of those 'impossible' heists that requires all kinds of over elaborate planning and stylish execution. This is all in order to pay an outstanding debt to the Russian mob in the form of dangerous Rade Serbedzija, aka Boris the Blade, aka Boris the Bullet Dodger, who has a few surprising secrets of his own. All of them are also hounded by a classically dogged detective (Robert Forster, intensely excellent) and his rookie partner, who of all people is played by Tom Hardy in a role so small and random I'd love to hear the tale behind his casting. There's also an obligatory love interest for Antonio, played by leggy Radha Mitchell. Now, it's all mostly as pedestrian as it sounds, except for a few garnishing touches that elevate it just enough that it sticks in your memory. The master thief. The Ahab-esque cop. The vicious Eastern European gangster. The love triangle. Backstabbing. These are all ancient archetypes that have been done quite literally to death, and they're all present and accounted for here, but there's a few moments that genuinely surprise and break feee of that somewhat. Revelations involving the Russian who isn't what he appears to be, a third act twist that feels welcome, and snares of dialogue that snap our attention amidst the clichés. For what it is, it does its job well enough, and a few times shows actual inspiration. Not bad at all.

This is only here to help push down the overall rating of this time waster. I don't think it made the cinemas, I'd have been very grumpy if I'd wasted an outing to a cinema to see it. Renting it on cheap-night was bad enough. Made with 100% recycled material. No acting, writing, or directing talent was exercised in this production. The presence of well known actors is merely a marketing device, any resemblance to actual professional quality acting, writing, direction or editing is entirely coincidental, and completely undetectable.It should have starred Steven Segal. Then I'd have known at once to avoid it.Oh, and the spoiler? What's with naming the lead character "Ripley"? A Very Untalented Mr Ripley this one was, so why the name? Trying to hitch a subliminal ride on good movies with the same character name? ("Oh, a new Ripley movie.. sounds good!")

Three stars is the best I could muster for this movie. The acting was OK, the directing was crap and the plot was the worst. I saw this in Hughes Theater as a screener and they stopped us for Q&A. Right of the bat the movies had goofs and there were a lot of spoilers from the start. The name was undecided hence the 2 name title, and the climax was very very disappointing. What makes the movie so horrible is that it does not have a follow path and the sexual scene is not needed at all. In the end the entire heist were for some Fabergé eggs that were older than the actual Fabergé eggs. Actual meaning that the eggs were made of wood and wood carvings. One scene in particular I was disappointed in is when they have to enter the vault to get the heist...well I will let you go through it yourself.