Rating: 
Summary: The best movie of 1999
Review: This fabulous remake of the 1968 classic is definitely on the list of my 5 favorite movies of all time. This movie has the ingredients to make a film successful... action and sex. But this movie has more, it is classy, intelligent and unpredictable. Pierce Brosnan is an ultra-rich business man who just happens to also be an art thief, for pure fun. When a multi-million dollar piece of artwork disapears from the Metropoliton museum of art, Catherine (the beautiful Rene Russo) is called in to investigate. She works for an insurance company and will collect a percentage of the value for finding the thief. They both do such an outstanding job in this film. Pierce gets away from his role of "Bond" and does well. The on-screen romance and the way they physically compliment each other is an excellent example of perfect casting. The movie is non-stop excitment that will challenge you to use your brain, but is sure to entertain you. Dennis Leary does a great job as a regular city detective thrown onto this case involving amounts of money that is unfathomable to him. The finale of this movie is one that you will not soon forget, it was creative, original, and well planned. I have seen this movie three times in the theatre and I bought it as soon as it came out on video. This movie appeals to anyone, it has action but not in a blood and guts kind of way that turns off many viewers. Even Faye Dunaway, who starred in the original, makes an appearance. I would also recommend the movie Entrapment. You won't be upset with this purchase. I can't say enough about it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Very rarely do I rate something 5 stars, but this deserves it.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Movie, Great DVD!!
Review: Summary:
Remake of 1968 film with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway (appears as Crowne's Psychiatrist - conscience). Great story, script, acting, locations, scenery, music, theme, editing, etc. Everything is interesting, moving, paced and fits together. And, the directing must have been great behind the camera because each actor performed at their best. The DVD has a great Director's Commmetary (John McTiernan) - one of the better commentaries I've heard.Story:
Pierce Brosnan comes unto his own as an actor as Thomas Crowne, a bored billionaire who concocts the impossible art theft to bring excitement into his life. But, he got a bigger challenge than he planned for when Catherine Banning (Rene Russo) shows up as an art bounty hunter who uses her womanly wiles to catch Crowne. Dennis Leary plays a regular guy type detective He pulls her along for high stakes fun and games! The final twists were better than the first. The music is outstanding and the "Thomas Crowne Affair" CD is a great buy (except its missing a few songs). On the side, the art theme also generates a new appreciation for fine art. Negative:
Can't think of anything negative, except I wanted more! ...
Rating:
Summary: Great chemistry and plotting
Review: I saw this movie when it first came out in 1999. Knowing it was a remake, I didn't expect much. However, the presence of Rene Russo, Pierce Brosnan and Denis Leary were enough to push me past my prejudice, and it was an hour and a half (or so) well spent. Anyone looking for anything remotely deep will be disappointed. This is a fun, fluffy, ultimately consequenceless plot. Pierce Brosnan, the man who has everything, amuses himself by robbing the Met in New York of a famous painting and then putting it back almost immediately. Rene Russo, Brosnan's perfect match, is a high class bounty hunter out to catch him. Naturally, things get complicated when they begin an affair- just for fun at first, but then emotional complications set in. Denis Leary is the world weary NYC cop who raises his eyebrows in Russo's direction and helps her prove the case against Brosnan, but ultimately states at the end of the movie that in the grand scheme of everything he's seen, he doesn't have a problem letting Brosnan go (lucky for them). From the sets at the Met to the high society parties, restaurant and exotic getaways, the movie is visually satisfying from beginning to end. And speaking of visuals, anyone watching this movie shouldn't be too much of a prude- there is almost a half hour period where Russo (and Brosnan, to a lesser extent) spend much of their screen time naked. While both look great, after the first fifteen minutes I did start wondering when they were going to put their clothing back on. The movie is also fast-moving in the appropriate places, particularly when Brosnan makes the initial theft and then foils the sting to capture him. Of course you have to suspend your disbelief that someone (even James Bond) could pull all of this off, but the plotting is so much fun that you find yourself nodding along. While the chemistry between Russo and Brosnan is palpable, I've got to say, I found myself wishing at times that she would choose Leary over Brosnan. Who knew that Mr. Crass Comedian could do so well as a potential romantic lead? Finally, a word about the original. I rented the McQueen/Dunaway version shortly after I saw this, thinking it would be even better. I was bitterly disappointed. While some of the dynamic between McQueen and Dunaway had hints of the chemistry in this movie, the whole tone of the movie was ultimately much more nihilistic than this 90s bit of fluff. And robbing a bank? Been there!
Rating:
Summary: The Thomas Crown Affair - An excellent heist/caper film!
Review: There is very little not to like about this movie that is a gem among the genre of heist/caper movies. As many are aware, this 1999 movie is a remake of the 1968 original starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, a movie that I haven't taken the time to watch yet but this remake certainly prompts one to do so. The on screen relationship between Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo is one of those rare ones that works extremely well when combined with an intriguing script; all making for an excellent movie watching experience. The performances given by Mr. James Bond himself, Pierce Brosnan and by Rene Russo were perfect for this movie. I've heard many people state that the topless scenes with Rene Russo were gratuitous for this movie, which is an opinion I do not share. It fits easily with her character that has spent a fair amount of time in Europe which could easily lessen ones shyness about such things. Denis Leary's performance in this movie was pretty much on par with his past performances. Director John McTiernan, known for several big movies such as "The Hunt for Red October," "Predator" and "Die Hard," does a wonderful job of making "The Thomas Crown Affair" in his vision, an even bigger movie than the script calls for. Everything about this great heist movie is thrilling in its sleekness and style making it an enjoyable film whether it be the first or the fifth time you've watched it and much of the credit for that goes to director John McTiernan and the performances given by Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo. The Premise: Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) is an extraordinarily wealthy business man who has become too bored with life and has found a way to bring a bit of a thrill to it by engineering the perfect crime; stealing a painting worth one hundred million dollars from a New York gallery. In comes, Catherine Olds Banning (Rene Russo) who works for the insurers of that painting and her mission is to find the thief and the painting... What follows from there is one of the most ingenious heist/caper movies that I've watched in quite some time that, for the first time viewer, will certainly have you on the edge of your seat as director John McTiernan takes you through the paces of the script, wondering if Thomas Crown will be caught and lose all or will he get away with his "perfect" crime. I highly recommend this film to any and all who are fans of films within this genre! {ssintrepid} Special Features: -Feature Length Audio Commentary by John McTiernan
-Collectible Booklet
-Theatrical Trailers from both the 1968 and 1999 films
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite movies ever!
Review: Pierce Brosnan plays Thomas Crown, a billionaire executive who decides to have a little fun by stealing a priceless Monet from his own museum, basically just to see if he can get away with it. Enter Renee Russo's character, Catherine Banning, a high-class bounty hunter hired by the company that insures the painting who is intent on proving that Brosnan is guilty. Despite her professional obligations, she cannot help but fall for Crown's charm, and the two enjoy a fabulous romance while still trying to outmatch each other. Brosnan and Russo have incredible chemistry. They compliment each other perfectly on screen and make the most out of every scene, both the silly ones and the serious ones. Denis Leary has a great supporting role as the detective working on the Crown heist, and his scenes with Russo are excellent as well. The plot is very enjoyable, and there are a lot of twists and turns along the way that the audience doesn't see coming. Crown's final "prank" at the end of the film is absolutely priceless, as is his final scene with Russo. This is one instance where a movie remake is ten times better than the original. I'm glad that there are plans to make a sequel.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fantastic Flick
Review: Normally, when a movie is redone 30 years later, the end result is worse than the original. Not so in this case, as John McTiernan's version is highly superior. This movie brings the elegance that was missing from the original. The music is fantastic, and the aesthetic is that much better. Also, instead of bank robbery, the film revolves around a much more elegant crime; the theft of a Monet worth 100 million dollars. Thomas Crown(Pierce Brosnan) is the fabulously wealthy owner of Crown Acquistions. Supposedly, as his life is quite boring, he decides to steal a painting-not for the money, but for the thrill. He sends some Eastern Europeans to attempt to steal 200 pounds of paintings, while sending them to fail and sneaking away to steal a painting from another area. Catherine Banning(Rene Russo), an insurance "bounty hunter," comes from England to help the detective(Denis Leary) crack the case. While Banning is investigating Crown, they fall more and more in love, leading to a very interesting competitor/lover relationship. Pierce Brosnan plays Thomas Crown excellently. He brings elegance and class to the role that Steve McQueen could not. Rene Russo holds up as Catherine Banning. Denis Leary, though funny as always, just should not be in this film. He is somewhat of a comic relief character. Along with the shameless product placement of Pepsi One, that is what keeps it from getting 5 stars. However, the acting of Brosnan along with the fantastic score and unbelievably cool ending make this movie great fun. In regard to special features, they are lacking, but the movie is all too worth buying.
Rating:
Summary: The Two Crowns
Review: I have been a huge fan of the original Thomas Crown Affair since I first saw it while in the military in 1969..... and bought this "re-make" because I heard so many good things about it. I must say that honestly there are good points in BOTH films. I never quite bought the fact that the original Crown had McQueen's character robbing a bank.... so stealing the "Monet" made much more sense to me. I also thought the story was improved upon in the new version and I was more satisfied by the challenge Bronsnan's character found in Russo's bluntness. On the other hand, the sumptuous music score by Michel LeGrand in the early film was superior to the weak, lackluster and frangmented score that Bill Conti created for the new one. I also think I preferred the sensuous and sexy elegance of the fire between McQueen and Dunaway to the overtly sweaty lust that Brosnan and Russo desparately share. HOWEVER.... I must say I did enjoy BOTH films and find each beautiful and entertaining in their own ways. (...) The ART of the earlier version is a unique and compelling one and makes that film so fascinating to watch in widescreen!
Rating: 
Summary: Light hearted, fun entertainment.
Review: Stylish and sexy. If you really concentrate, at about 1/2 way through the movie, you should be able to pretty much predict the ending. I have never seen the original though.
Rating:
Summary: ABSOLUTELY SUPERB!
Review: This is a movie of surprise and surprise again. Every time you think you have it figured out, you are fooled by a beautiful twist right until the last scene of the movie. But the real treat, is the action between Brosnan and Russo. She is sexuality personified . . . and focused on Crown with a purpose. Brosnan (Crown) becomes intriqued by her determination and falls for her and begins to play her game. The action between the two crackles and sparkles.
It is a great movie. Much better than the orginal (can't say that very often) and writing and camera work is excellent. This is a movie to own and see over and over again.
Rating:
Summary: "It's worth a hundred million dollars."
Review: The Thomas Crown Affair (1999 version) stars Pierce Brosnan as Thomas Crown, a bored billionaire art thief, and Rene Russo as Catherine Banning, an insurance investigator who goes after him, then falls in love with him. Will Catherine do her job and nail Crown for stealing the Monet, or will she throw away her career for a life with her lover as a fugitive? "Fugitives with means," Crown tempts Catherine, "that makes all the difference." When it first came out, I liked this movie better than the original with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. The second time I watched it, wanting to zone out with a caper film, things bothered me almost from the beginning. Don't read any more if you want to see the film, because I'm going to reveal the plot. But I wanted to figure out what changed in my reactions to the movie, and why (I think) my reactions changed. At a museum in New York a teacher is trying to interest her grade-school students in a painting. She tells them it's the first Impressionist painting and is unique in the world. They're bored. When she tells them "It's worth a hundred million dollars," they snap to attention, stare, and make noises of awe - - not articulate speech, but animal sounds of transcendent bliss, like cows or sheep, as though they found themselves in the presence of a millionaire basketball star or pop singer. In other words, what passes for religious experience in a culture that tolerates ignorance and worships money. Crown has hired Romanian criminals to create a diversion while he personally steals a Monet. He makes sure the Romanians are caught so he can get away. He hides the Monet in his townhouse behind another painting he legitimately owns and spends the evening drinking wine and basking in Monet's genius and his own brilliance. Does Crown deserve to possess the painting because he's rich enough and smart enough to take it? To be fair, Crown returns the painting almost immediately to the museum in a way that once again proves his superiority, but did he have the right to risk damage to such a masterpiece? Anyway, my point here is that the first time I saw the move, it didn't even occur to me that Crown didn't have the right to risk the irreplaceable artwork. Why not? What about the Romanians? They look like Eastern European movie thugs - - shaved heads, sneers, but the equipment and tactics they use prove they're not stupid and they're not violent (though one does push a child, a way of making them less sympathetic). While they knew the risks involved in such a theft when Crown hired them, they didn't know he was going to literally trip them up and send them to prison so he could steal "his" painting from a different room. Why didn't Crown's betrayal of them even occur to me the first time I saw the movie? We first see insurance investigator Catherine Banning when she picks one of the Romanians to interrogate. ("Give me the quiet one.") Once she sees he understands German, she threatens him with the Securitate, Ceausescu's secret police, playfully walking behind her prisoner and stroking his neck, then pretending to snap it. In this movie people are cattle for the amusement of superhumans like Crown and Catherine, his queen. At this point I realized why these images didn't disturb me the first time I saw the film. Then I was too busy trying to follow the plot. In the interrogation scene I was trying to pick out enough German to understand what Catherine was saying. During the heist at the museum I was trying to figure out the significance of Crown's briefcase and all the other gimmicks involved in the theft. Later, Catherine learns that a young woman she thinks is Crown's girlfriend is really an art forger Crown has put through school. Why? Because her father (the young woman's tutor in forgery) is Crown's former partner, now in prison (for work he did for Crown?). Crown has used his generosity to the young woman to involve her in his scheme. Maybe she was going to be a forger anyway, but Crown is risking her freedom too. Crown flies Catherine to his private island, where she throws a sealed painting onto the fire to prove she loves him over drinks. I'm not sure how that proves she loves him. Crown says it's not the stolen Monet, but a "nice little Renoir." Copy or original? We don't find out for sure. Again, Crown and Catherine play with irreplaceable art to spice up their erotic games. In the climax we learn that Crown has surreptitiously replaced the Monet, but while he's confounding everyone with an army of look-alikes (their appearance taken from a famous painting) he steals another picture Catherine told him she liked. ("Everything's obtainable.") The detective Catherine is working with lets her know he won't chase her if she runs away with Crown. He can go back to arresting real criminals, instead of looking for stolen art that's really only important to some "silly rich people." How many people every year go to the Metropolitan, MOMA, the Louvre, the Orsay, the Pompidou, the Prado, the Reina Sofia, the Uffizi, the Tate, the Rijksmuseum, just for starters? How many are rich? At last all the paintings are back where they belong and Crown and Catherine are together. The first time I was glad for them. But after Bush's tax cuts, Enron, and Haliburton, people like Tommy and Catherine just aren't as amusing as they used to be.
| 
