(Let the games begin…)
CAST: Pierce Brosnan, Renee Russo, Denis Leary, Frankie Faison, Ben Gazzara, Mark Margolis, Faye Dunaway, Esther Canadas.
DIRECTOR: John McTiernan
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and first-rate games of sexual (and emotional) cat and mouse straight ahead.
There are two expressions that are very apropos to our next review. They are: (1) “You always hurt the one you love”; and (2) “The only way two porcupines can fuck is very carefully.” Whoever coined these two phrases must have had the two leads of THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR in mind. They seem to delight in constantly one-upping each other, and are two of the biggest porcupines I have ever seen in my life. Meaning, good luck trying to get close to either of them. In fact, that second thing about porcupines fucking very carefully is so appropriate for this flick and this couple, that it’s actually mentioned in the goddamned movie. How’s that for serendipity?
Our lovely leads are: (1) Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan), a billionaire playboy who has everything and is bored out of his skull - and takes to stealing priceless works of art for kicks, just to see if he can get away with it; and (2) Catherine Banning (Renee Russo), a glamorouser-than-thou insurance investigator who is like Hannibal Lecter and Sherlock Holmes and Elektra King and Catherine Trammell, squared, when it comes to the sport of mindfucking. In other words, Bored Art Thief meets Bored Bounty Hunter. Basically, these two have been moving towards each other all their lives and did not even realize it. Until now, that is.
Our story opens with a crew of art thieves trying to pull off a heist in New York’s Museum of Modern Art. Unfortunately, it turns out they’re five of the dumbest art thieves in the History of the World, because even the geriatric museum guards are able to shut their shit down in no time flat. Still, it’s enough to distract everyone from some other hanky-panky going on elsewhere in the museum. Namely, our hero Thomas Crown yanking a Monet worth a $100 million off the wall - and walking right out the front door.
Yes. The guy has quite the set of brass balls on him.
As you can imagine, the insurance company covering the painting isn’t exactly thrilled with the prospect of cutting a check for a $100 million dollars without foisting their best bloodhound on the case. In case you’re wondering who that might be, I’ll give you four clues: (1) She’s about 5’8”; (2) has gorgeous auburn hair; (3) looks a lot like Renee Russo; (4) can smell a rat from ten miles away; and (5) answers to the name ’Catherine Banning’. Oh, wait... that's five clues. My bad.
Catherine basically swoops into the museum and takes over the case from NYPD detective Michael McCann (Denis Leary), who can’t understand why this chick who’s wearing a fur stole more expensive than his pension is so cocky. Well, we don’t have to wait long to find out: Catherine is cocky for two reasons: (1) she quickly deduces that the gang of art thieves was just a diversion for the real thief - who grabbed the Monet off the wall and sauntered past the guards and out the front doors; and (2) because she, well, loves cock. More on that second part very soon…
Living up to her reputation as a fearsome eideteker (read: someone who can piece shit together with terrifying accuracy), Catherine posits that the crime was committed by “an elegant person” who doesn’t care about the painting’s value. She believes he did it because he was bored - and wanted to see if he could get away with it. Not only that, but Catherine now has zeroed in on a suspect, as well. Care to guess? Hint: read the title of the movie and think hard….
Oh, goddamnit… I’m talking about Thomas Crown, people… for fuck’s sake. Jiminy Christmas… Anyhow, Detective McCann pretty much laughs his ass off when Catherine tells him her prime suspect is a dude who owns half of Manhattan - and whose companies form the Top 10 of the Fortune 500. But Catherine doesn’t really give a fuck what this pissant little New York cop thinks. She trusts her own judgement - and her judgement tells her that Tommy C. is basically the rat bastard who made off with the Monet.
Before you know it, Catherine is scheming to expose Thomas Crown to be the thieving schmuck that he is. Her brilliant plan consists of: (1) “running into him” at a chi-chi party; (2) accusing him point blank about the Monet; (3) smiling at him seductively every chance she gets; before finally (4) fucking his brains out several times. My, my, my… our Catherine is certainly committed to her job, isn’t she?
But what happens when Catherine finds herself falling for Thomas Crown? What happens when he tells her that they are two of a kind and were fated for each other? Is he manipulating her to escape capture? Or do they truly have a connection? How can two “porcupines” who don’t mind fucking each other senseless, but are afraid to open their hearts to one another, have any kind of future together? Who will be the one to let their guard down first and take that leap of faith? Catherine? Thomas? Or are they doomed for a future of hot, meaningless sex while hiding their love for each other?
Frankly, I hope they’re doomed to have a lifetime of empty sex. We should all be so lucky…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: A remake of the 1968 heist film starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR is essentially a love story wrapped in a light-as-air thriller package. No one is ever in any physical danger at any given point in the film. But, emotionally? Well, that’s a different story. Emotionally, our lead characters are very much in jeopardy. Especially our heroine, Catherine Banning.
I remember reading an interview with director John McTiernan a few years after the film was released, around the time he was being courted to direct BASIC INSTINCT 2 - which he ultimately passed on (unfortunately). McTiernan stated that, stripped down to its core, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR is about a “a tough cookie who falls in love.” This hits the thematic nail right on its head. On the surface, this movie is about the cat-and-mouse games between a sly, wealthy art thief and the cool, calculating insurance investigator who is determined to nail him - and their surprise at discovering a soulmate in each other.
However, looking deeper in the story, we realize that the dramatic thrust of the film is actually Catherine’s dilemma: can she trust Thomas? Does he love her? Do they really have a connection, as he says? Or is he just using her as a patsy to get away with the theft of the Monet? In this regard, Catherine joins the pantheon of thriller heroines who aren’t sure if their love interests are friend - or foe. Such as the heroines in films like SUSPICION, GASLIGHT, BETRAYED, JAGGED EDGE, A KISS BEFORE DYING, SLIVER, NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS, KILLING ME SOFTLY, GUILTY AS SIN, and IN THE CUT.
The difference is all the lead men in the aforementioned films were potential murderers whose guilt or innocence were hard to pin down. In THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, Thomas is definitely guilty of art theft. The ambiguity lies in his true feelings for Catherine. When the film starts to focus on this plot thread, it gains a heft that the 1968 original never had. Catherine’s conflict about whether to turn him in - or run away with him - is the film’s emotional fulcrum. In my opinion, this films is way ahead of the first film.
There are two reasons that THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999 resoundingly trumps THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1968: Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo.
In the original, Steve McQueen’s Thomas Crown was an arrogant blue-blood who basically inherited his fortune. As in the remake, his boredom at having everything he could possibly want pushes him to commit a crime to see if he can get away with it. Unlike the remake, however, McQueen’s Crown hires a bunch of goons to rob a bank and threaten a bunch of innocent hostages. Basically, the guy just sits back and hires a bunch of criminals to do his dirty work for him. Where’s the risk or thrill in that?
In the remake, Pierce Brosnan’s Thomas Crown performs the daring art heist himself. Also, he’s not descended from aristocracy. Rather, he’s a self-made tycoon who rose from poverty in Glasgow, Scotland by riding on a boxing scholarship. Sorry, but I will always side with someone who earns his power, versus someone who is given it by mere birthright. In this regard, Brosnan’s Crown is the stronger hero.
Same goes for the female leads in both films. While Faye Dunaway was appropriately cool, seductive, and feline-like as Vicky Anderson (the Catherine Banning character), the minute Crown admitted his guilt, she basically became a passive lapdog. In the remake, Renee Russo gives us a heroine who is far more dynamic and feisty. Catherine fights Crown all the way to the end - all the while wrestling with her growing feelings for him. This complexity puts Catherine leagues ahead of Vicky. While we may not be sure if Thomas is on the up and up, we are equally unsure if Catherine will give in to her feelings - or look past them and technically do the right thing and turn him in. It’s a credit to Russo’s sexy, soulful, and riveting performance that she manages to show both the surface toughness and glamour to Catherine, as well as her deeper, more tender and uncertain layers.
Another huge plus is that Brosnan and Russo mesh well together. I remember reading in 1998 when casting had just begun that the producers were looking at casting Sharon Stone as Catherine. While that would have been great as well, since Stone had pretty much perfected the “Soulful Femme Fatale” number with her roles in BASIC INSTICT and THE SPECIALIST, Russo’s unexpected casting gives us a fresh take on this kind of role. Stone as Catherine would have been good, but a little too familiar. Put it this way: who would you rather see as Catwoman in the new Batman movie: someone a little too perfect for the role like Angelina Jolie? Or someone unexpected but still perfect like Anne Hathaway? That’s the same contrast with Sharon Stone, Renee Russo, and the role of Catherine Banning.
As for the support cast, Denis Leary is the standout as Detective Michael McCann. I truly was not expecting this bit of casting. Not that I’m not a fan of Leary’s. I am, and have always appreciated his edgy, acerbic humor. I just didn’t think he could pull of this layered, sympathetic character. But he does - which pretty much proves in my books that he’s more than sarcastic humor.
In the end, THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999 is a far better film than THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1968. You’ll get dissenters who think the original is unassailable, and the remake is just a very good-looking, but inferior, copy. And I respect their opinion. Privately, though, I have to wonder whether we saw the same two movies.
One quibble though: this film has a large plot hole that should have been papered over sufficiently but wasn't. Because of that, I was tempted to knock the rating down by half-a-star. But, in the end, I enjoyed the cat-and-mouse romance so much that I almost didn't care about this small misstep in plotting. I'll let you figure it out for yourselves.
In the meantime, the **** rating stands.
