The "Retro Game Reviews" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This film has been described as a thriller, crime, mystery and a brit flick a la 'Lock Stock'. When choosing something to see, this film did not really appeal, as the genres already mentioned aren't among the types of film I would usually be interested in. I prefer to watch big blockbusters, or films with a more avant garde nature. So, allowing my partner to make the choice, I agreed to watch 'The Bank Job'. I was mildly excited as I would be watching something that I wouldn't necessarily choose myself, but had a feeling I would hate it.
Well, I was wrong. At first, I half-heartedly followed the plot and within about 20 minutes, I was hooked. Set in the 70s, this film is based on the true story of 'Baker Street Bank Robbery' from 1971, when a group of 'dodgy' characters plotted to break into Lloyds Bank (on Baker Street) and rob the contents of it's vault of safety deposit boxes. This story had a 'gagging order' on it from the Government, for over 30 years, and after watching, I am not surprised.
The robbing team had duel motives for breaking in. After hatching their plan to dig a tunnel under a couple of shops and get into the vault through the floor, we have some wanting the money and jewels. Then there is one other, who unbeknown to her 'criminal colleagues' who wants one box in particular. This box contains more 'precious' articles, being photographic evidence of 'royal activity' (a sex scandal), that needed to be stolen in order to 'protect' it from getting into the wrong hands, namely, the press. But largely, to counterattack a bribe from a yet to be, convicted activist, Michael X (who had the photos taken initially). The 'precious' contents lie in safety deposit box 118, and it is its content that triggers most of the appauling crimes.
The story, ultimately is complicated, but quite easy to follow. Characters plot, bride, double-cross and scheme against each other, creating a tangled web on criminal intentions. The drama builds up to the break-in itself, but the action didn't stop there, what plays out after is as gripping as the break-in itself, with enough tension and drama to keep us entertained. I can't help feeling though, that this film is more aimed at men (or anyone who finds ladies attractive) due to quite a fair bit of female nudity, which I wasn't expecting. Performances were fair, the best probably going to lead actor, Jason Statham (The Transporter, Revolver) who plays Terry Leather, the man who holds the plan together. The female lead, Martine Love was played by Saffron Burrows (Frida, Reign Over Me) who I'd never seen act before, but did an alright job, didn't blow me away by any means. Inevitably, the best performance was from the legend David Suchet (Hercule Poirot himself) who played the old perve and 'baddie', Lew Vogel with brilliance.
Director, Roger Donaldson (Cocktail, The Recruit) did a great job in capturing enough action, drama whilst not neglecting to highlight the human side of the characters, good and bad. Credit should also go to the writers, Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, for finally bringing this true story to light. The tagline describes it as a crime that went wrong in the right way, because it brought to public attention, so much underhand activity that would never had been discovered had those safety deposit boxes not been raided. Interestingly enough, it turned out that most of the stolen property was never declared or claimed, as most of the 'private' contents would have been so damning to their owners. Tut tut.
The most remarkable thing about this story, is the sheer amount of criminal activity (and I'm not just talking about the robbers). Then I found out that paradoxically, not one arrest was made, nor was any of the money recovered. I can't believe this stuff actually happened. It doesn't make me feel safe in the hands of our police system or happy with the state of corruption within our government either. Disturbingly, the thieves turned out to be the most innocent people in this crazy mess! Also, at the end, before the credits roll, we read that there is even more story to be told, but has a silencing order put on it until 2050! What else went on, is what I want to know! Well, in another 48 years, maybe we'll find out.
I really enjoyed this film, it wasn't the best thing I've seen this year by far. However, the story surprised and intrigued me, even more so that it is based on truth. It also got me thinking about corruption in the public eye that we never hear about, and also about other matters. And if a film can do this, it can't be a bad thing.
Obviously, watching this film in Blu-ray will certainly be a good experience visually, but can be more expensive to buy or rent. If you're particularly fussy about watching blu-ray's then this is ideal, I'm happy with an ordinary DVD but hey - diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes and blahdy blah.
I would give it 4 out of 5.
© MarcoG 2008
Well, I was wrong. At first, I half-heartedly followed the plot and within about 20 minutes, I was hooked. Set in the 70s, this film is based on the true story of 'Baker Street Bank Robbery' from 1971, when a group of 'dodgy' characters plotted to break into Lloyds Bank (on Baker Street) and rob the contents of it's vault of safety deposit boxes. This story had a 'gagging order' on it from the Government, for over 30 years, and after watching, I am not surprised.
The robbing team had duel motives for breaking in. After hatching their plan to dig a tunnel under a couple of shops and get into the vault through the floor, we have some wanting the money and jewels. Then there is one other, who unbeknown to her 'criminal colleagues' who wants one box in particular. This box contains more 'precious' articles, being photographic evidence of 'royal activity' (a sex scandal), that needed to be stolen in order to 'protect' it from getting into the wrong hands, namely, the press. But largely, to counterattack a bribe from a yet to be, convicted activist, Michael X (who had the photos taken initially). The 'precious' contents lie in safety deposit box 118, and it is its content that triggers most of the appauling crimes.
The story, ultimately is complicated, but quite easy to follow. Characters plot, bride, double-cross and scheme against each other, creating a tangled web on criminal intentions. The drama builds up to the break-in itself, but the action didn't stop there, what plays out after is as gripping as the break-in itself, with enough tension and drama to keep us entertained. I can't help feeling though, that this film is more aimed at men (or anyone who finds ladies attractive) due to quite a fair bit of female nudity, which I wasn't expecting. Performances were fair, the best probably going to lead actor, Jason Statham (The Transporter, Revolver) who plays Terry Leather, the man who holds the plan together. The female lead, Martine Love was played by Saffron Burrows (Frida, Reign Over Me) who I'd never seen act before, but did an alright job, didn't blow me away by any means. Inevitably, the best performance was from the legend David Suchet (Hercule Poirot himself) who played the old perve and 'baddie', Lew Vogel with brilliance.
Director, Roger Donaldson (Cocktail, The Recruit) did a great job in capturing enough action, drama whilst not neglecting to highlight the human side of the characters, good and bad. Credit should also go to the writers, Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, for finally bringing this true story to light. The tagline describes it as a crime that went wrong in the right way, because it brought to public attention, so much underhand activity that would never had been discovered had those safety deposit boxes not been raided. Interestingly enough, it turned out that most of the stolen property was never declared or claimed, as most of the 'private' contents would have been so damning to their owners. Tut tut.
The most remarkable thing about this story, is the sheer amount of criminal activity (and I'm not just talking about the robbers). Then I found out that paradoxically, not one arrest was made, nor was any of the money recovered. I can't believe this stuff actually happened. It doesn't make me feel safe in the hands of our police system or happy with the state of corruption within our government either. Disturbingly, the thieves turned out to be the most innocent people in this crazy mess! Also, at the end, before the credits roll, we read that there is even more story to be told, but has a silencing order put on it until 2050! What else went on, is what I want to know! Well, in another 48 years, maybe we'll find out.
I really enjoyed this film, it wasn't the best thing I've seen this year by far. However, the story surprised and intrigued me, even more so that it is based on truth. It also got me thinking about corruption in the public eye that we never hear about, and also about other matters. And if a film can do this, it can't be a bad thing.
Obviously, watching this film in Blu-ray will certainly be a good experience visually, but can be more expensive to buy or rent. If you're particularly fussy about watching blu-ray's then this is ideal, I'm happy with an ordinary DVD but hey - diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes and blahdy blah.
I would give it 4 out of 5.
© MarcoG 2008
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
This film has been described as a thriller, crime, mystery and a brit flick a la 'Lock Stock'. When choosing something to see, this film did not really appeal, as the genres already mentioned aren't among the types of film I would usually be interested in. I prefer to watch big blockbusters, or films with a more avant garde nature. So, allowing my partner to make the choice, I agreed to watch 'The Bank Job'. I was mildly excited as I would be watching something that I wouldn't necessarily choose myself, but had a feeling I would hate it.
Well, I was wrong. At first, I half-heartedly followed the plot and within about 20 minutes, I was hooked. Set in the 70s, this film is based on the true story of 'Baker Street Bank Robbery' from 1971, when a group of 'dodgy' characters plotted to break into Lloyds Bank (on Baker Street) and rob the contents of it's vault of safety deposit boxes. This story had a 'gagging order' on it from the Government, for over 30 years, and after watching, I am not surprised.
The robbing team had duel motives for breaking in. After hatching their plan to dig a tunnel under a couple of shops and get into the vault through the floor, we have some wanting the money and jewels. Then there is one other, who unbeknown to her 'criminal colleagues' who wants one box in particular. This box contains more 'precious' articles, being photographic evidence of 'royal activity' (a sex scandal), that needed to be stolen in order to 'protect' it from getting into the wrong hands, namely, the press. But largely, to counterattack a bribe from a yet to be, convicted activist, Michael X (who had the photos taken initially). The 'precious' contents lie in safety deposit box 118, and it is its content that triggers most of the appauling crimes.
The story, ultimately is complicated, but quite easy to follow. Characters plot, bride, double-cross and scheme against each other, creating a tangled web on criminal intentions. The drama builds up to the break-in itself, but the action didn't stop there, what plays out after is as gripping as the break-in itself, with enough tension and drama to keep us entertained. I can't help feeling though, that this film is more aimed at men (or anyone who finds ladies attractive) due to quite a fair bit of female nudity, which I wasn't expecting. Performances were fair, the best probably going to lead actor, Jason Statham (The Transporter, Revolver) who plays Terry Leather, the man who holds the plan together. The female lead, Martine Love was played by Saffron Burrows (Frida, Reign Over Me) who I'd never seen act before, but did an alright job, didn't blow me away by any means. Inevitably, the best performance was from the legend David Suchet (Hercule Poirot himself) who played the old perve and 'baddie', Lew Vogel with brilliance.
Director, Roger Donaldson (Cocktail, The Recruit) did a great job in capturing enough action, drama whilst not neglecting to highlight the human side of the characters, good and bad. Credit should also go to the writers, Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, for finally bringing this true story to light. The tagline describes it as a crime that went wrong in the right way, because it brought to public attention, so much underhand activity that would never had been discovered had those safety deposit boxes not been raided. Interestingly enough, it turned out that most of the stolen property was never declared or claimed, as most of the 'private' contents would have been so damning to their owners. Tut tut.
The most remarkable thing about this story, is the sheer amount of criminal activity (and I'm not just talking about the robbers). Then I found out that paradoxically, not one arrest was made, nor was any of the money recovered. I can't believe this stuff actually happened. It doesn't make me feel safe in the hands of our police system or happy with the state of corruption within our government either. Disturbingly, the thieves turned out to be the most innocent people in this crazy mess! Also, at the end, before the credits roll, we read that there is even more story to be told, but has a silencing order put on it until 2050! What else went on, is what I want to know! Well, in another 48 years, maybe we'll find out.
I really enjoyed this film, it wasn't the best thing I've seen this year by far. However, the story surprised and intrigued me, even more so that it is based on truth. It also got me thinking about corruption in the public eye that we never hear about, and also about other matters. And if a film can do this, it can't be a bad thing.
Obviously, watching this film in Blu-ray will certainly be a good experience visually, but can be more expensive to buy or rent. If you're particularly fussy about watching blu-ray's then this is ideal, I'm happy with an ordinary DVD but hey - diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes and blahdy blah.
I would give it 4 out of 5.
© MarcoG 2008
Well, I was wrong. At first, I half-heartedly followed the plot and within about 20 minutes, I was hooked. Set in the 70s, this film is based on the true story of 'Baker Street Bank Robbery' from 1971, when a group of 'dodgy' characters plotted to break into Lloyds Bank (on Baker Street) and rob the contents of it's vault of safety deposit boxes. This story had a 'gagging order' on it from the Government, for over 30 years, and after watching, I am not surprised.
The robbing team had duel motives for breaking in. After hatching their plan to dig a tunnel under a couple of shops and get into the vault through the floor, we have some wanting the money and jewels. Then there is one other, who unbeknown to her 'criminal colleagues' who wants one box in particular. This box contains more 'precious' articles, being photographic evidence of 'royal activity' (a sex scandal), that needed to be stolen in order to 'protect' it from getting into the wrong hands, namely, the press. But largely, to counterattack a bribe from a yet to be, convicted activist, Michael X (who had the photos taken initially). The 'precious' contents lie in safety deposit box 118, and it is its content that triggers most of the appauling crimes.
The story, ultimately is complicated, but quite easy to follow. Characters plot, bride, double-cross and scheme against each other, creating a tangled web on criminal intentions. The drama builds up to the break-in itself, but the action didn't stop there, what plays out after is as gripping as the break-in itself, with enough tension and drama to keep us entertained. I can't help feeling though, that this film is more aimed at men (or anyone who finds ladies attractive) due to quite a fair bit of female nudity, which I wasn't expecting. Performances were fair, the best probably going to lead actor, Jason Statham (The Transporter, Revolver) who plays Terry Leather, the man who holds the plan together. The female lead, Martine Love was played by Saffron Burrows (Frida, Reign Over Me) who I'd never seen act before, but did an alright job, didn't blow me away by any means. Inevitably, the best performance was from the legend David Suchet (Hercule Poirot himself) who played the old perve and 'baddie', Lew Vogel with brilliance.
Director, Roger Donaldson (Cocktail, The Recruit) did a great job in capturing enough action, drama whilst not neglecting to highlight the human side of the characters, good and bad. Credit should also go to the writers, Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, for finally bringing this true story to light. The tagline describes it as a crime that went wrong in the right way, because it brought to public attention, so much underhand activity that would never had been discovered had those safety deposit boxes not been raided. Interestingly enough, it turned out that most of the stolen property was never declared or claimed, as most of the 'private' contents would have been so damning to their owners. Tut tut.
The most remarkable thing about this story, is the sheer amount of criminal activity (and I'm not just talking about the robbers). Then I found out that paradoxically, not one arrest was made, nor was any of the money recovered. I can't believe this stuff actually happened. It doesn't make me feel safe in the hands of our police system or happy with the state of corruption within our government either. Disturbingly, the thieves turned out to be the most innocent people in this crazy mess! Also, at the end, before the credits roll, we read that there is even more story to be told, but has a silencing order put on it until 2050! What else went on, is what I want to know! Well, in another 48 years, maybe we'll find out.
I really enjoyed this film, it wasn't the best thing I've seen this year by far. However, the story surprised and intrigued me, even more so that it is based on truth. It also got me thinking about corruption in the public eye that we never hear about, and also about other matters. And if a film can do this, it can't be a bad thing.
Obviously, watching this film in Blu-ray will certainly be a good experience visually, but can be more expensive to buy or rent. If you're particularly fussy about watching blu-ray's then this is ideal, I'm happy with an ordinary DVD but hey - diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes and blahdy blah.
I would give it 4 out of 5.
© MarcoG 2008