IMDb user comments for
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

387 comments in total

---

54 out of 68 people found the following comment useful :-
A classy piece of work, 9 January 2004

Author: Old Crow-2 from Finland

Forget all the explosions, car chases, crazy villains, special effects... The Thomas Crown Affair is not an action movie. It´s not even a thriller. Instead, it´s a well-done cat-and-mouse movie that´s smart, entertaining and very sexy. If you had to use one word to describe the film it would have to be sophisticated. The movie might appeal more to mature audiences as both the leading man and the leading lady are over 40 years old. Pierce Brosnan can obviously do other roles beside James Bond, but the role of Thomas Crown is at least somewhat similar to 007. Both guys "enjoy women" and are very suave. Overall, Brosnan gives a solid performance and is overshadowed only by Rene Russo who simply oozes sexuality and class. She is simply perfect in her role and though she´s twice as old as I am I find her a real knockout. Not only is she extremely hot, but also a very talented and charismatic actress. A perfect combination! The classy dance scene between Brosnan and Russo belongs to the most sexually-charged scenes in history and the following love-making scene manages to be both sexy and stylish. Usually nude scenes in Hollywood movies seem somehow "uneasy", but in this movie the scene is done in real style and with sensual music the atmosphere is sizzling. Who would want a disposable bimbo like Britney Spears when you could have a real class-act woman like Rene Russo? I would also like to mention Bill Conti whose simple yet refined music is simply outstanding. Just listen to the music during the scene in which Crown and Banning go glider flying... You can just close your eyes and listen to this wonderful music. Now I have to find the soundtrack for this film! I guess I should mention that I´ve never seen the original Thomas Crown, but now I don´t even have to bother as its updated version is a true pleasure to watch. I have nothing negative to say about it so just go get this film on DVD and enjoy!

---

57 out of 80 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Movie - Much Better Than The Original!, 21 January 2001

Author: bloomstr from Connecticut

It was wonderful - much better than the "original" The characters were more interesting, the plot more interesting!

The entire cast gives marvellous performances, Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan are wonderful, sexy, intelligent and never boring!

I am tired of hearing about Rene's age being a factor, there are sexy talented women of all ages! Her performance is what thrilled me - she gives a multifaceted performance. And its interesting that most of the critical people of her on this site are male. I guess they can't handle a strong- yet vulnerable, intelligent woman.

Kudos to Pierce Brosnan for selecting a woman lead who is not only his contemporary but equal in intelligence and moxy!!

---

43 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
"Thomas" is the "Crown" Jewel for your collection... SEE IT!, 4 May 2001

Author: koconnor-1 from Attleboro, MA

This DVD was an impulse buy, pure and simple. My wife and I like Pierce Brosnan, and I have enjoyed Renee Russo's other works, so what did I have to lose? Only my mind! This film was positively one of the most enjoyable, nail-biting, suspenseful romantic capers ever made.

A remake of the steamy 1968 Steve McQueen flick updated to the sleek and self-referential 90s, "Thomas Crown" features Brosnan as the title character - a bored billionaire businessman in the business of "acquisitions". For a thrill, he heists an extremely valuable Monet from the New York Museum right under the noses of security guards, cops, and about a thousand unsuspecting museum-goers. Renee Russo is the very sexy, very worldly Catherine Banning, whose insurance company underwrites the painting - and she is determined to get it back at any cost... But the cost just may be her soul as she woos, and then falls under the spell of the enigmatic Crown. Will Russo discover the location of the Monet? Will she rat out Thomas Crown? Or is Crown manipulating her affections like Bobby Fisher manipulates the pieces on a chess board?

What we have here is a high-speed chase film whose vehicle is clever dialog, rich and exotic direction, and more than a little sexual tension! Brosnan, as Crown, is ever the cool Brit charmer whose every word and action are as calculated as the movements of a Rolex. Russo smoulders every time she appears on screen. And when the two of them get together, the chemical reaction is pure dynamite.

Dennis Leary has a nice bit as a streetwise NYPD detective on the case, who dispenses advice to Russo's Banning, and watches her begin to spiral out of control. His role here most likely resulted in the deserved attempt at a television series on ABC ("The Job").

The action in the film moves exotically from caper to cover-up and back with dizzying speed... All the while, we are kept guessing about the motivations of the two lead, and find ourselves eagerly anticipating their next move. When the final checkmate comes, we are left totally bewildered, befuddled, and baffled... which is most-likely the director's intention!

On all levels, "The Thomas Crown Affair" will steal the hearts of men and women alike... but for different reasons - Men can enjoy the action and thrill of the chase, and Crown's ability to win over the most beautiful women and his attempt to get away with the ultimate heist... Ladies can marvel at the suave Brosnan and his life of extreme wealth, and all-the-while wonder if he will betray her, or if she will betray him...

I will not betray you... I ain't saying!

---

38 out of 53 people found the following comment useful :-
Original reworked right., 23 June 2003
Author: jaywriterXIII from USA

Obligatory comparison to the first film: The first Thomas Crown Affair really wasn't that great with its split screens that would make even Brian De Palma sick. Like other films from that era of history, it's lost some of its shock with time but unlike true classics, Thomas Crown Affair has lost a lot of its charm. Worth a viewing, but not worth worshipping.

Only vague concepts carry over from film to film, really. The same basic plot curve, same basic events, same basic characters, except everything is retold and reinterpreted from a different point of view. And I much prefer John McTiernan's interpretation despite the more glaring plot holes such as 'Why didn't the security tape reveal who set the briefcase in the gallery to begin with?' Theoretically the culprit could've been caught then and there, but then there'd be no movie.

The caper's execution is rather spectacular, far more entertaining than the original's, though much less likely to happen. But who cares, really? McTiernan directed this as a film you can't take 100% seriously anyway. This is a fun cat and mouse movie, not a documentary.

The premise-an art theft-strikes me as more interesting than the original's robbery; besides, how many films have bank robberies? How many films steal art? It's something different.

The characters and their portrayals are colorful and interesting, walking a thin line of camp but never pushing it too far. This movie isn't about 'Everyman' nor is it meant to. It's about a billionaire who gets his kicks out of high stake gambles and wages-how do you do that without a larger than life portrayal?

I particularly liked the ending sequence, as goofy, perhaps corny as it is, it's still fun. Especially the music selection, Nina Simone's Sinnerman, a well chosen track. Bill Conti provides the underlying score, which proves quite unique having a slightly bouncy 'piano recital' quality to its first few themes. Very fitting for the museum setting. It's a CD worth purchasing for the sake of variety alone.

In the end, Thomas Crown Affair works not because of the film's subjects or its characters . . . it works because of -how- it portrays everything. Its tone is fun and relaxing, and it never tries to take itself too seriously. After all, we are at the movies and not a training seminar . ..

---

15 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
The Thomas/Catherine Love Feast, 28 February 2006

Author: Max A. Lebow from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Thomas Crown Affair is an exception to the Hollywood rule that the remake must be true to the original. In 1968, Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway served up a 1960s sexy confection of skimpy clothes and clever heists. John McTiernan turns the flick into a sultry, almost jaded, romance. Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan, slick from practicing seduction as James Bond) is a power-lunching, billionaire robber-baron who gets his kicks stealing art treasures from taxpayer-supported museums. Catherine Olds Banning (played by the tough, but sexy Rene Russo) is the insurance company detective determined to get back the painting he steals at the beginning of the film. If she can get it, she will save her insurance conglomerate a nice chunk of change. The billionaire and the detective try everything to outsmart each other including a highly charged love affair that's a heated mix of business and pleasure. Russo looks very good with her clothes off.

The director's attention to the detail of the sumptuous, luxury sets, provides a suitably comfy backdrop for the steamy action. McTiernan also directs the action pieces almost as well as one might expect from the director Die Hard.

Brosnan and Russo supply most of the heat for the developing romance. The witty dialog by Leslie Dixon make the film move by with enough grace to paper over the fact that it is the sex we are interested in. Russo is beautiful, stylish, smart, self-possessed, and incredibly sexy.

Denis Leary gets a good character role as a police detective smitten with Russo, and Faye Dunaway (the love interest in 1968) gets a wholly enjoyable cameo as Brosnan's therapist, who helps him try to figure out why he is such an irresponsible business man.

One wonders now, after Enron, Tyco, and other big payoff corporate heists, just whom Crown is robbing to pay for his high-tech robbery crew. How many of his company's employees will have to give up their pensions or health benefits to keep his company looking good on Wall Street. Who cares? It's just a movie! Actually, it is a great date movie. Pop it in. See if it works.

---

20 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Bang-Up Fun Fresh Re-Make, 21 December 2005

Author: noralee from Queens, NY

Hooray for Hollywood! The world may be falling apart so like we needed money spent on a remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair." But then heck if Tinseltown in all its unoriginality doesn't do a bang-up fun job of unreality with characters who have no place in the Unreel World, from the classy looking opening credits to Sting covering "Windmills of my Mind" over the closing credits.

In the opening scene I'm thinking, wait I know that woman's voice and voila it's Faye Dunaway from the original film as Crown's shrink - I cheered out loud (OK so I was the only one in the audience that got the joke).

Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo are an age-appropriate couple with genuine fireworks and chemistry (with help from director John McTiernan and editor John Wright in the tango and copulation scenes).

There's unconventionally good music choices - that tango is from Three Penny Opera of all things and a terrific use of Nina Simone's "Sinner Man" in a marvelous Magritte-inspired ironically tense heist scene. Brosnan's trainer gets a credit, as there's plenty of skin. Russo laughs, a gorgeous belly laugh, unlike so many frozen femmes fatale.

The credits also say that no museum was used as a locale, so gosh they really recreated the Met amazingly accurately (and how much did that cost?), though it didn't seem crowded enough Crown goes in at 9 when the museum doesn't open until 11.

I would think this is a great date movie.

(originally written 8/22/1999)

---

19 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
A very good film, but a very average remake, 25 March 2000

Author: ~?~§íX~?~

Well, what can I say after watching this film, being a fan of the original. To begin with, I enjoyed it as it was almost a 90's play by play remake, and I am always pleased to see how a 60's or 70's classic would have looked 20 something years later. The early scenes in the film were very close to the original, with the business deal going through, and then Crown going to observe the heist; although participating this time around, and so, with what I saw I saw a hell of a lot of promise to shine up to the original. The heist seems in both are superbly conceived and very well filmed, with just the right amount of tension about the problems arising. Good stuff.

Enter Russo, dressed as a total Dunaway clone (Remember the headscarf?) and with some scenes of total over acting which could have worked well but on the whole didn't. Where Russo seems to let go and enjoy herself is a slip mistake that the character would never have done; Dunaway ALWAYS kept her cool in the original.

Enter the cat and mouse thriller element of the film. I have seen a few reviews here that say that this dragged the film along, slowing it down considerably. However, this film, in both versions, is not about a robbery, it is about the chase. The point of the film is the exchanges between the two protagonists, each trying to catch the other out; and this is the brilliance of the film, because it isn't a visual action plot with little in it that so many films are today. This makes you watch, this makes you observe and it makes you think.

Moving on to the character of Crown by Brosnan. Some people have said that Brosnan was hollow and one dimensional, with no background to his motivation to the robbery. This is EXACTLY the point and this is why the ending of the 1999 version does NOT work. Thomas Crown only has two things that he cares about: Greed and acquisition. The scene in both versions with the business deal at the beginning is the evidence at this, with the corporate suits joking about "Thomas Crown actually selling something" then we find out that he only sold it because, unknown to them, they were offering 30 million more than anyone else. All Crown cares about is possessing as much as he can, this is why he has been alone all this time. And, with this being the point of the character, that is why the ending of the film is so disappointing and unbelievable compared to the original. Crown desired to own the painting and he would not have given this up for the love of a woman, because, although it is obvious he wants a woman to love him, he cannot love women, because he can only love what he owns, and he wants to own everything. The original version, with McQueen deceiving Dunaway, after she betrayed him and then leaving her on the plane is a much more convincing ending.

Another unconvincing aspect is the comparison between the McQueen/Dunaway and Brosnan/Russo relationships. Firstly, the dance scene comes nowhere near comparison to the chess scene of the original; and the dance scene is very poorly filmed as well. The chess scene showed both characters attempts at dominance over each other, their lust to win over each other, and they sexual tension between them as they play with the chess pieces, slowly and seductively. The dance scene is a quick montage of unclear movement with the only piece of sexual tension being Brosnan laying his hands on Russo. All the dominance that Dunaway had in the original was disposed of and Russo caved into to sleeping with Crown very easily. Then, there is the Brosnan/Russo sex scene; which in my opinion was HIGHLY unnecessary. McQueen and Dunaway never needed to do a nude scene together, as the sexual tension between the two was so obvious that it could be cut with a bread knife. However, Brosnan and Russo do not have that touch, the spark was nowhere near as big, and the inclusion of a nude scene still does not bring it anywhere near the status of attraction that the original couple had.

This film could have been a classic remake if it didn't try to be so politically correct. The only reason why the remake switched from a bank heist to art theft is because, in today's world, armed robbery cannot be presented as an elegant theft. This is ridiculous, as the reason that the original's heist was so smooth was because of the planning, timing and element of no one of the criminals meeting until midway through the heist; all goes on while McQueen watches from across the road. Where was the planning and recruitment in this remake? Oh yes, Russo mentioned it so quickly, it would have been dismissed faster than one of Brosnan's butler's lines. And the idea of a happy ending, with both of the characters, now definitely lovers, flying off into the sunset with plans for happiness together. Garbage. These two characters are selfish and greedy because they only look at for number one in a dog eats dog world. McQueen's Crown saw this, knowing to drop Dunaway or go to jail; and this PC happy ending is just not compatible with this film; as with a cat and mouse thriller, someone has to lose.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Slick, 11 June 2005

Author: sgpfan from New Zealand

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Those who maintain that remakes never are as good as the original on which they are based should take a look at this film.

Pierce Brosnan recaptures the rebellious cool that Steve McQueen displayed in the original film of the same name and adds a further gloss and polish to the character.

While the story line remains basically true to the original, it has been modernised and comes across even tighter.

As in the original, Thomas Crown is a successful businessman to whom everything comes easily, so much so that everyday dealings leave him bored. Bored enough to strike out in a non-violent way and stage a super art heist, where the thrill of staging the caper and the following cat and mouse game to stay ahead of a feisty female insurance investigator assigned to the case provides the kicks he is missing.

Eventually and expectedly, the relationship develops and the viewer is dragged on an interlude of exotic locales besotted with the props of a very good life.

The lead players display a sizzling chemistry that propels the film along at a scorching pace, culminating in an ending that is better resolved than the original McQueen edition if you are a sentimentalist.

Good support cast, with a cameo by Faye Funaway (who was the female lead for the original), help the film along. If one listens carefully to the background music, the original theme ('Windmills Of Your Mind') may also be heard. It is touches like these that pay homage to the original version, while allowing this renewed edition to have an identity all its own.

Overall, a classy and dynamic remake that scores highly on its own.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Emotional Chess . . . updated, 26 August 2007

Author: cubsinengland

Firstly, it's not a cookie-cutter remake of the original staring Mr. McQueen and Ms. Dunaway - so no comparison required.

You might say Brosnan was typecast by Bond, and the idea of a suave player getting one over on yet another woman might be the obvious outcome, but not this time! Instead we're treated to a sophisticated game of cops and robbers, played out in this stylish and seductive entertainment. Mr. Brosnan (Thomas) is at the top of his game and may be involved in something illegal. Ms. Russo (Catherine) is called in to investigate, claiming an office and sharing confidences with the local police department looking for clues. Catherine epitomises sophistication with hair, makeup and fashions styled to perfection. She's an understatement of success; a woman playing a man's game, bounty-hunting life and sex on her own terms and 'enjoying the chase'.

Once Catherine is on the trail of Thomas Crown you'll join her in a hedonistic game of one-upmanship. She's done this kind of work before and must stay on her toes if she's going to implicate the wealthy Thomas Crown. The local cops and cultured community believe Mr. Crown to be beyond reproach; an untouchable pillar of wealth and good taste.

These two characters exist in their luxurious world through strange circumstance and have made it their own through hard work and some bluffing. The movie provides glimpses into their lifestyles, and at the same time, keeps them both just outside what you'd expect from a wealthy businessman and a woman working for an insurance company.

Supporting character Mr. Leary makes a cynical, yet caring detective attempting to save face by nabbing Thomas Crown - however it's quite obvious in a city the size of New York that a bored millionaire looking for thrills by staging a theft is not his priority. Mr. Leary is guilty of a bit of cussing and jaded police behaviour, but ya 'gotta hope he's still on the force.

The story races from one clue to the next, and we glimpse a world where time means nothing, and money is just, well, not an issue. The film really sets the tone for the lush life with ultra-posh, elegant sets, millionaire-hobbies and exotic locations. The soundtrack is perfect, giving the entire movie an upmarket, worldly feel that befits a modern romance.

This is really a love story for anyone who imagines being whisked away from the mundane into places that you've only read or heard about in glossy magazines. It's a film for any person out there who'd like to have the freedom to do what they want and damn the consequences. Well, either that or have enough money to do anything, then disappear.

There is some hot on-screen chemistry between Thomas and Catherine, making the love scenes, coupled with the sexy music and breathtaking backgrounds, erotic. They have a healthy appetite for each other so the love scenes in his apartment and 'island retreat' are the 'stuff that dreams are made of.'

Yes, there are little snafus, such as a painting being folded in a manner that would permanently ruin it, and the usual gaffes that serious film-goers will pick over - but heck, it's just a movie and a love story - let yourself go and imagine you're a woman who's just crashed a black tie event in a dress making every man in the room salivate, or that you're the man she's heading for on the dance floor - then have fun with it . . .

In the end, for all their cunning, Thomas and Catherine must decide if they can trust each other, just like most men and women must do in any love story. What you may find hard to decide though, is who to root for, and who really wins the game of cat and mouse at the end of this movie.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Men make women messy., 2 October 2007

Author: lastliberal from Florida

I usually hate remakes, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

Pierce Brosnan is so much more classy that Steve McQueen. He is utterly convincing as a rich playboy and an entrepreneur. While Faye Dunaway did a marvelous job in the original and I have no criticism of her performance, I am enchanted with the performance of Rene Russo.

Brosnan and Russo were a pair that were perfectly matched. The soundtrack was fantastic, even including "The Windmills of Your Mind" from the original. Adding Dunaway as a Psychiatrist was a masterful touch.

This is much more of a caper film as you actually saw some beautiful work her. The "other woman" was beefed up and really added to the plot. The ending was much more satisfying, and, unlike the previous version which had to be rated "R" because the bad guy won, this actually earned the rating with some magnificent scenes.

---

---

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history