FILM REVIEW ONLY - NO DVD INFO

Heist films need to be big. In fact, the bigger the better in my book! Believability isn’t really the name of the game. The original version of this film (1968) was good. Fantastic car chases, good humour-filled acting and a decent story made the film into a classic and I for one really hoped that the “remake”, as it was billed, was not going to destroy the fun and magic of the original and that it would achieve, as Ocean’s Eleven did, something more. Boy, am I pleased!

The Italian Job (2003) breaks with cinematic tradition in many ways yet in others provides just what the movie-goer wants. Action, fights, chases, romance (just a touch) and humour gel together to provide a perfect whole. I would not class this as a remake, more of a tribute to the original. It doesn’t have the feel of a new blockbuster, yet neither does it feel dated.

In a nutshell, it’s good!

*** THE PLOT ***

No spoilers here. Suffice to say that this is very much your traditional heist movie. There’s a hint of a thriller, too little action (just) for it to be a real action movie, just good (clean-ish) family fun! If you have seen the original you will recognise many of the same themes and ideas yet be prepared for something different. The new storyline is not slavish to the original and you may well have to be prepared for a few twists other than in the car chases!

The basic plot revolves around what is billed as the ultimate heist but then goes a little haywire when the old adage “honour among thieves” is disproved. Expect laughs, tears and amazement as we watch honour restored. It’s fast and predictable yet, unusually, the predictability doesn’t spoil it one bit!

The plot is over the top yet as the audience we have some empathy with the crooks. There’s something good about restoring honour, even amongst those for whom we would usually have no sympathy. You cannot take the plot of this film seriously yet a lot of thought has clearly gone into it. I lost count of the number of times I thought (or on one occasion proclaimed rather too loudly) ‘how did they do that’ only for the truth to be revealed slightly later and for me to immediately register ‘how clever!’.

There were even cute little touches that made you realise just how much effort had been pumped into this film, such as the irony of a Metallica poster during a conversation about the demise of Napster (they were one of the bands who eventually brought about the real demise of Napster) or perhaps the quasi-cameo appearance of Michael Caine on the TV in the original version of the film.

*** THE CHARACTERISATION AND ACTING ***

If there’s one thing that lets the film down a little it is the acting. It’s not poor, I just felt that so much more could have been made of some of the characters.

There are a couple of exceptions. Veteran gang leader John Bridger played by Donald Sutherland is one. As befits an actor of his standing Sutherland really injects something into his character and we are made to believe in him. Alas, our encounters with Sutherland are short-lived.

The other is Seth Green who takes on the role of the geeky computer whiz. He reminds me so much of Boris Grishenko in Goldeneye, boundless enthusiasm, a strong desire to be recognised as the genius he is. He brings some of the best comic moments to the fore and one almost wonders whether he is doing himself a disservice in taking such a comic role. He is clearly more able than the films lead, Wahlberg.

Mark Wahlberg’s character, mastermind Charlie Crooker is, in fairness, rather less developed. Despite being rather attractive, one is left thinking of a schoolboy rather than master criminal. He was a weak choice (if indeed he was the choice) as the lead and unfortunately was upstaged a lot of the time.

In a nod to the buffoonery of the original, the rest of the gang comprises an eclectic bunch of people sporting all manner of contrived regional accents. These serve, in my opinion, merely to remind us of the past efforts rather than adding anything to the present.

Eye candy for the men comes in the form of Charlize Theron who plays Stella. I’m reliably informed that she did the trick! She is, perhaps one of the most believable of the characters but is playing in a bounded role with little room for her to make her mark as anything other than candy.

Mos Def provides the cast with a comic element in his character Left Ear and the rough but diamond geezer Handsome Ron is played by Jason Statham.

There has to be an all round bad guy in the movie and suffice to say he is so stereotypically cast that you will hate him. A weak, pathetic character with no mind of his own summed up fabulously in a quote towards the end of the film that starts “You’ve got no imagination. You couldn’t even decide how to spend 35 million dollars on your own….” but will remain unfinished so as not to spoil a joke! Again though, the general character was under-developed and the result was more meanie than nasty!

There could have been an immense comic moment in the character Skinny Pete but alas it never came.

Lovers of “take-home-and-use” quotes will not be disappointed. Expect to hear more of the word “fine” (freaked-out, insecure, neurotic and emotional) and when it comes to trust “I trust everyone. It’s the devil inside the person I don’t trust”.

*** THE CAR’S THE STAR ***

No review of The Italian Job would be complete without reference to the cars. The original Mini Coopers have made way for their new relatives.

Fans of the Mini will not be disappointed and, as with the original, the car chases are to behold. If I were in charge of Mini sales I would be bracing myself for a rush of orders it’s that good an advert for the car!

I will be looking forward to the DVD that will hopefully show how some of the car chases were constructed as certain moments left you wondering just how close to the edge the cars were pushed!

*** CINEMATOGRAPHY ***

This is one movie not to be late for. Miss the opening sequence and you have just done yourself out of a good time. Don’t expect to be led gently into the plot for you won’t be. Think James Bond-style opening scenes and you will be closer to the mark. Venetian canals provide the perfect back drop to the first of many fantastic chase scenes, the sheer scale of which would usually be reserved for the end of a traditional Hollywood film.

Director Gary Gray tips his hat to the original in his choice of setting for the film as we are whizzed around the globe and treated to some spectacular scenery particularly in the form of aerial shots. In fact, tipping the hat is something that is done a lot in this film and is why I am adamant that this is not a remake but a tribute. It’s faster than the original and understandably makes use of more technology but it retains the wit and elegance of the original. The story is different, bang up to date and suited to the modern cinema-goer yet those who go expecting the original will not be upset.

*** SFX ***

What I found most welcoming about this movie was the fact that the special effects were not overdone. Yes, they were there, but ultimately, with the exception of a few bangs, flashes and sequences that were shot at a slightly slower speed than they were played, the film didn’t rely on them. This is the sign of a good film.

There are a lot of Bond-style stunts that left you laughing and wondering how they were done at the same time. What this film does not have is SFX of the style seen in the latest Bond movie, thank goodness.

*** MUSIC ***

The music, in common with the rest of the film, tips it’s hat at the original. It’s new, yet predictable, rising and falling with the action. It doesn’t get in the way but neither is it special. I can’t see the soundtrack zipping off the shelves at Amazon in the same way as I’m certain the DVD will go when it is released.

One thing that I think was remise of the makers was the lack of a catchy theme tune. There really is no “Mission: Impossible” moment. It’s a shame because this is such a feel-good movie that I can’t help but think that people would come out singing it were there such a tune!

*** AUDIENCE APPEAL ***

So, ultimately, who should go and see this.

In my opinion, it really is one for all the family (unless you’re Ukrainian – for some inexplicable reason they get picked on). It’s been given a 12A rating from the BBFC for mild violence and one or two naughty words. Basically if a child can cope with Bond they will love this.

Lovers of the original will not, I think, be disappointed. For those who missed out first time round, this is an opportunity to make up for it.

It’s a film for the boys and one for the girls. There’s sufficient eye candy, motors, fights, chases and action to keep all but the most hard-core amused. Audience reaction as I left the screen premiere last night was one of universal enjoyment. It left a bit of a buzz, a feel-good factor that is so often lacking in today’s box-office hits.

*** WHAT WOULD I CHANGE? ***

Character development would be top of my list – the set up is there but it doesn’t go quite far enough. I’d follow this closely by a re-cast, particularly Wahlberg who does little to his role (other than looking fantastic!).

The only other thing I’d change is the way the credits roll. There’s a sickly voice-over at the end which attempts to tie things together. It’s neat, but adds nothing. If there’s one film where the showing of out-takes would work, this is it!

______________
THE BOTTOM LINE

Despite my quibbles with the characters this IS a good film. If you’re up for a bit of feel good then go see this. It’s more unbelievable than the first, yet faster and, dare I say it, a tad more entertaining. 2 hours well spent!

On general release 19 September 2003.