Gino Cox "Foolproof" has a good cast and decent production values, although one jiggly-cam shot in particular may leave some viewers reaching for the Dramamine. The script has a solid three-act structure, but is hopelessly contrived and inconsistent. Some have compared it to an Ocean's 11/12/13 caper, but it plays more like an episode from the old "Mission Impossible" television series. The three leads bring new depth to the role of underachiever. Reynolds's character seems to be a brilliant engineer, negotiator and strategist, but works as an insurance adjuster. Jarsky's character is a talented electrical engineer and a bit of a computer whiz, but repairs consumer electronics. Neither has any money, a girlfriend or a decent car, but they have money to engage in elaborate self-designed role-play games. We're not sure what Booth's character does, but she is an adroit pickpocket and could probably earn a living doing sleight-of-hand magic or stealing wallets. They plan, test and rehearse elaborate heists, but do not execute them, preferring the psychic rewards of beating the system. They have a fascination with larceny, but are unwilling to put their elaborate plans to the test. Unlike Redford's character in "Sneakers," they do not attempt to monetize their endeavors by exposing security flaws to the businesses that are in jeopardy. Nor do they use their material as the source for novels or screenplays. Why do they do it? Although the screenplay tries mightily to justify their expensive self- indulgent role-play games, it comes across as nothing more than an elaborate and not particularly credible set-up, allowing a vicious criminal to hijack their plans, implicate them in the crime and extort their cooperation in an even more elaborate heist. The film tosses the audience's willful suspension of disbelief into the dust, stomps on it and grinds it under its boot heel. In one particularly egregious incident, a character cuts through an elevator's cables with a few squirts of acid. One would expect the molecules of acid to react with the molecules in the steel cable on a one-to-one basis, creating new relatively inert molecules. One would think that it would require a substantial volume of acid to eat through a cable that's a couple of centimeters thick and the process would probably take hours not minutes. The several cables supporting the car should be the same length, otherwise the longer cables aren't supporting any weight. If one is severed, the others might stretch fractionally, but not enough to cause the car to lurch. Without the weight of the elevator car counterbalancing it, there's no reason for the counterweight to rise to the roof. It would simply fall to the ground. However, the elevator and elevator shaft are equipped with multiple safety features to prevent cars from falling freely and to cushion the fall if it does. The first braking system was invented by a guy named Otis, who demonstrated it by standing on a elevator platform and cutting the cable. The platform fell a couple of inches before the brake stopped its descent. Movie makers love bearer bonds as a plot device, but the IRS and CRA aren't very fond of them, so they're basically outlawed. It makes no sense that anybody would plan weeks in advance to ship a large quantity of bonds to a location overnight and move them the next day. The dry ice was actually somewhat clever. Dry ice sublimes, turning directly into carbon dioxide, but it does cause condensation that can leave stains that might be noticeable against a chrome background. (Liquids evaporate, Mr. Phillips. Dry ice sublimes.) Of course, the difficult part is finding dry ice in the necessary size and shape and keeping it that size until needed.The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies. The team rejects and returns several small, valuable objects, but they somehow have them again at the conclusion. A character is surprised that another character has purchased an expensive item, but at the end it is implied that the character knew how it was afforded all along. A character claims a pistol is unloaded because the magazine is removed. But the character then inserts the magazine and racks the slide, ejecting a round that was in the chamber. One hopes they used dummy cartridges and not live ammo when they filmed the scene. If you're going to switch pistols with a known criminal who is likely to be arrested in the near future, you probably don't want to use a pistol that is registered to yourself. The script offers intriguing double- and triple-crosses, but they're marred by technical implausibility and the characters simply knowing too much in unrealistic detail. Production values are superior to those of a television movie or low-budget independent film, but not on par with most action/heist films. The camera is usually in motion, slowly panning or tilting to mask vibrations in the jiggly-cam shots. One wishes they would buy a tripod and plan the shots. Good performances, particularly by Jarsky, Reynolds and Suchet. The film is a pleasant diversion, provided one doesn't approach it too critically. It might have been much better if the author had conducted more thorough research and worked through some cleaver notions to make them more plausible. The ending is a little too Goody Two-Shoes. Fans of heist films want the protagonists to get away with the spoils, possibly through an unexpected reward ("Out of Time") or keeping a portion, as in "Flawless," not revert to their pre-adventure stasis.

Targe Being Canadian I am extremely embarrassed by most Canadian movies and was cringing when this one started.What you get instead is a tight, well written and reasonably well acted (Ryan Reynolds... NOT) heist movie, as a group of three friends who devise intricate robbery plans for a hobby are suddenly force-recruited by the criminal elite of Toronto (don't laugh - we got mafia too) to pull off their latest crime scenario for real.Naturally, with the intelligence in the group you know they will turn the tables, but the fun is trying to figure out how they do it, which the movie does a reasonable job of keeping hidden until the end.There are some predictable gaffs along the way, like the excruciatingly long time they take to get under some security lasers when they have already shown they are skilled enough to have just turned them off, and the fact that if your going to fake your own death, you really need to know ahead of time how the bad guy is going to do it so you can plan it! How exactly did they know he was going to drop the elevator on them? He wouldn't have told Rob ahead of time as he might tell them! All in all very well written, look for some great acting from Kristin Booth as the super sexy ninja-girl and William House as the sinister mobster crime boss trapping them in the plan.Do NOT watch Ryan Reynolds, this guy should go back to modelling.

alex-c-3 Recently, I have seen this film, which is great combination of action and crime. Much better than Oceans 11 and 12...This movie also has one of the best actors working today. Yea, Ryan Reynolds, who also did a great performance on this one too. this film showed he could play in action stories, with his humor always presented in a right direction.The most valuable thing in this movie is it's plot. Kevin,Sam and Rob are three smart, young thieves and they have plan how to steal some diamonds from a high security building. But, much experienced criminal, Leo, steals it first with the assist of Kevin planes and blackmails them...The twist is really fantastic, when it turns out that Rob is on their side, after all...Highly recommendable, for all you good action kind a people.

aimless-46 If you turned an intelligent writer loose on "The Perfect Score" or "Catch That Kid" to gave these traditional heist pictures some "Enemy of the State" flavor and misdirection (and some good dialogue), you would end up with something like "Foolproof". There is the super secure vault to be cracked by a team of young male and female nonprofessionals. These folks (just slightly older than those in the other two films) have been playing at being robbers; planning and rehearsing elaborate burglary schemes but stopping short of actually putting their plans into action. But a local hood discovers one of their plans and executes it, then threatens to frame them for the crime unless they assist him in pulling off a $20 Million heist. This is an $8 Million Canadian production, pretty big money for their film industry and almost all of it makes it onto the screen. It actually has a better look than the $80 Million "Enemy of the State" although they cheat a bit and under light almost every scene. The caper itself is pretty ordinary and obviously overused but the misdirection is very convincing, ironically it works best on those most familiar with the conventions of the genre who trap themselves by focusing in on what they think are plot holes. The group includes Ryan Reynolds, Kristin Booth, and Joris Jarsky; all Canadian and all unknown to me. Booth looked familiar, like either Tyler Layton or Lindy Booth-who played the airhead student secretary on "Relic Hunter". The latter was somewhat correct-Kristin is Lindy's older sister. In the case of "Foolproof" she was the reason for most of my enjoyment. Reynolds and Jarsky are competent and do all that is required of them but Booth's performance cements everything together. There is no interesting scene or sequence in which she does not have a central part. The DVD is probably the way to go as the deleted scenes actually contain funnier jokes than those that make it into the final cut. The rest of the cast is pretty much of the mediocre quality that you find in this type of film no matter the budget. It's not the sort of challenging film that attracts a really talented actor. Had "Foolproof" starred a big name or had an aggressive marketing campaign it could have caught on and made some money-its better than two thirds of heavily promoted films that do make it to the typical megaplex. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.