#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – Curator Harry Deane is an expert in fine art, but he’s equally accomplished in taking abuse from his insolent boss. That’s about to change. The plan – trick the avid art collector into buying a fake Monet painting. To assist in the heist, Deane hires a rowdy Texas cowgirl to help him fool the richest man in England. But as the plan begins to unravel, Deane finds he is falling in love with the rodeo queen, ensuing further complications.
Plot: An art curator decides to seek revenge on his abusive boss by conning him into buying a fake Monet, but his plan requires the help of an eccentric and unpredictable Texas rodeo queen.
Smart Tags: #painting #heist #art_forgery #cigar_smoking #man_wears_eyeglasses #hermann_goering_character #black_comedy #texan #hotel #reference_to_claude_monet #employer_employee_relationship #businessman #flatulence #animated_opening_credits #remake #caper #beer #gin #champagne #remake_of_american_film
|5.7/10 Votes: 23,630|
|5.4 Votes: 483 Popularity: 10.444|
Based on glancing at a lot of reviews of this movie, I was expecting to see a hot mess of a film. But I like Colin Firth, Tom Courtney and a few other featured actors, so I gave it a try. I enjoyed it, start to finish. Go figure. Not sure what the hate was all about: purists about Coen and Coen films (they wrote this but didn’t direct it), affection for the original version which I haven’t seen, or whatever. It is no masterpiece but it entertains. There, I said it. There was a plot gap here and there, but I was watching this for fun, nothing else. That is what I found.
I came to this because of the Coen brothers credit. It’s an anomaly in their filmography — one of only two feature-length films they wrote but didn’t direct, and the first since 1985. Sure, the poster makes the film look a lot less art-house-ready than the last film of theirs I saw, but I’ve enjoyed a Coen brothers farce before. Maybe the reason it hasn’t made it stateside is because it’s a misunderstood oddball. Turns out, no, it’s pretty easy to understand. It’s a cheaply-felt farce, replete with broad stereotypes sporting funny-sounding accents and the usual game of misunderstandings, several of which looking like they could quickly end if only certain characters decided to use peripheral vision. You wonder how different this film would have looked if the Coen’s script hadn’t reportedly been reworked or if they directed it instead. I did enjoy the idea that our conman hero initially paints his mark as a cartoonish and sour individual. But when we meet him in a more objective gaze, he seems much more rational, though clearly impatient with his employee. There’s an intriguing antihero-versus-antihero story in that. I wish the film had further explored that idea.
Quite good really
I watched this film on release night with my fiancée. We had previously seen a couple of trailers for the film and thought it looked funny and interesting, although on the day I was disturbed to see find such a low rating here on IMDb.
*Disclosure, I am not connected to the film’s production or any of the cast, and have no agenda here other than offering an alternative point of view.
The basic plot is already known in advance: that Colin Firth wants to con his evil boss using a beautiful Texan as bait. He travels to meet her accompanied by his friend and co-conman, Major Wingate. After watching her in a rodeo they go to a local bar to make the approach. The Major asks Colin how much is he going to tell her? He answers: “Oh, only enough for her to play her part”. And the same is true of the audience. You are only told enough to a) identify with Colin’s character and his motivation, and b) follow the plot to come.
We’re then treated to a brief ‘Ocean’s 11-style’ précis of how Colin imagines the con will play out from start to finish. Needless to say, no plan ever works out exactly as imagined!
The humour is very dry, never in-your-face, and this isn’t the kind of film to hand you gags. Laughing our loud isn’t the point. Instead there’s a mixture of situational comedy, miss-understanding comedy, wordplay, and great interaction between the characters. Some of the best jokes are the ones where you have to smile ruefully when things go wrong on a bad day. I thought at the time that the screen-writing was a lot like Richard Curtis, and could easily imagine Rowan Atkinson as the lead.
Instead the best joke is Colin Firth himself, playing a little man, in Cameron Diaz’s words, instead of a larger-than-life character for a change; playing it straight, rarely smiling because he’s not very happy (he wants revenge, remember) and not trying to seduce the very comely Cameron Diaz, who also plays a wickedly funny character without being cast as the comic side-kick.
But, from a critics point of view, I guess, there’s not much originality. You can perceive homages to other films; old Ealing- comedies like the Ladykillers, where the subject matter isn’t funny but there is some great humour. And I’m not referring to the re-make, which I didn’t like.
I’d like to watch this film again at a later time and see if I can. It might grow on me and become a minor classic, or it might drop to mediocre. Either way, if you watch it you have to appreciate it for what it is, rather than what it isn’t. And it probably helps if you have a temperament where you can see the funny side in unfunny situations.
Why pick this for a remake?
Colin Firth obviously wanted a less taxing role after stammering as King George VI. In this remake of a Sixties Michael Caine comic ‘caper’ he plays a disgruntled art dealer who decides to trick his unpleasant billionaire boss into buying a fake Monet. Shirley MacLaine’s Hong Kong dancer roped in as co-conspirator and candy-floss in the 1966 version has became a Texas rodeo queen – Cameron Diaz doing her best with a one-dimensional part.
Alan Rickman does an appropriately pantomime turn as the monstrously egotistical tycoon and gets some of the movie’s most embarrassing scenes, but he seems to be having fun. Colin Firth makes a visible effort to enjoy losing his pants on a ledge outside the Savoy Hotel, but the role would have perhaps been easier for Hugh Grant. Stanley Tucci plays a German art expert who may (or may not) be inspired by Albert Schweitzer. The London scenes are livelier than the scenes at Rickman’s Downtonesque country house, though a farting dowager moment targets a younger audience than this is likely to pull in.
This piece of fluff comes from the Coen brothers who usually apply themselves to something zanier and zingier. If they wanted to revamp a comedy heist movie, why didn’t they take on Peter Ustinov’s all-star Istanbul romp TOPKAPI (1964) or, if they wanted to keep the budget down, Warren Beatty’s KALEIDOSCOPE, also from 1966, which had more pace and plot than the original GAMBIT but not such deft performances? It’s really only the actors who raise this year’s GAMBIT from being potentially dire into something that is merely mediocre.
Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 29 min (89 min), 1 hr 40 min (100 min) (Germany)
Genre Comedy, Crime
Director Michael Hoffman
Writer Joel Coen (screenplay), Ethan Coen (screenplay), Sidney Carroll (short story)
Actors Colin Firth, Tom Courtenay, Alan Rickman, Mike Noble
Country USA, UK
Production Company Crime Scene Pictures
Sound Mix Dolby Digital, Datasat, SDDS
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Arri Alexa, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Leitz SUMMILUX-C lenses
Film Length N/A
Negative Format Codex
Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format), Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic), D-Cinema