← Back to Reviews
in
Thief
A Lone shark ex-convict and a career thief is forced to collaborate with someone on a big payout heist.
This is one of the early Michael Mann movies and its kinda shocking to think that a director who has been in the zone for over 2 decades from thief to collateral somehow went off rails in the last decade. This movie kinda gives the idea of where Michael Mann got his style from. He was somehow able to smuggle the 80s neo-noir nightlife style of film-making into the millennium. That's one of the reasons why this movie has its best parts set during night. Actual stuff happens at night in this movie. James Caan was cast in this movie partly because of the godfather. He carried some of his persona from that movie into this. The only difference is in this movie he is in the world of mostly methodical people. He is the loose canon. But in Godfather he comes off as a light weight because he is all bark where as others are much more dangerous than him.
I watched it back to back with french connection. This movie is comparable to Oscar winning french connection. One is made by this newbie called Michael Mann and the other is by Oscar winner William fried-kin. That's a testament to Michael Mann's directorial skill. Its so strong. The ending sort of made me give this movie 4 rating instead of 3. The movie is much more a character piece than a heist movie. The director is much more interested in character study than the heist part. There is a subtle undertone of anti-establishment in this movie. Having grown up in a foster home Caan lives a life of misery. Once he got out the only way to make a living with a decent life is to be a criminal and that puts him at odds with cops.All this is inferred as opposed to shown. Thats' the brilliancy of Mann and Caan. They say so much through the characterization of this role than exposition. His toughness feels authentic. In normal society there are always those people who keeps pushing the boundaries of societal rules. They get into road rages or fight people in public places but their acts are not so criminal that they get them into jail but nonetheless they push and move through life with a bigger personality than most other people. In the presence of a stranger you always have many options. You can strike up a conversation or keep to yourself or you can be direct and do much more than just talk. All those are direct results of your personality. The movie captures that sub conscious tough guys in the society. The people who make their own destiny with out waiting for others.
Michael Mann movies can sometimes feel sexist. The female roles in his movies feel tied down to family or be stereotypical bad-ass characters or supporting the men. I am not sure if thats' because he is telling a male story or his inherent desire to just focus on male characters. That's the problem we have right now. We don't need more female actresses or diverse actors in-front of camera. We already have them. All we need are the female and POC directors that are comparable to a Spielberg or Nolan or Tarantino or Scorsese. Directors with strong voices that can attract large group of audience. No amount of Oscar nominations is going to change that. Lady bird got Oscar nominations but no one is influenced by the movie other than film critics. Ladybird should be able to influence wider public and have a unique directorial tone other than that of every coming of age movie ever made. More female directors Kathryn Bigelow is what we want. We need directors with a style. Hurt Locker , zero dark thirty and Detroit has same directorial flair. You can't force Nolan or Mann or any of the legends to make a female-centric movie. They make what they can make.
One of the things about the reception of James Caan's performances as opposed to Gene Hackman's gives us an insight into the way Hollywood looks at an actor and performance in a movie. When these movies came out in their respective careers James Caan was an established and slightly famous actor and someone who looks super macho even before he opened his mouth. Gene Hackman on the other hand was a very lesser known character actor who is tough only if he opens his mouth but otherwise he looks like an average man. That's an actor 6000 industry veteran oscar voters can get behind. They are not gonna get behind someone who is macho and a star unless they humble themselves with a performance that's unlike them. Because actors who have the skill set needed to be a leading man and have been in some high quality movies are gifted at something inherently. So rewarding for your gift is like giving two gifts at a time. You need to be able to show them some skill set you have developed and not something you are gifted with. That forms a major part of how actors are rewarded. Ryan Gosling is the same in every movie. But he is just lucky to be having the looks of a leading man and being famous and that automatically forces movies studios to cast him as a lead in those movies. Being famous can be of different types. You can be famous for being funny, being in romantic comedies, being action hero, being a star who is internet famous, being a good looking dude in serious movies. If you stay long enough in that arena without caving into commercial pressures of business you will eventually be cast in those Oscar movies because financiers are going to spend money on a movie only if some star is in it. So the industry treatment of performances from Caan and Hackman in a way is appropriate because I can't imagine Gene Hackman being a badass until I see the French connection. But one look at James Caan and I can see him being badass. Thats his natural gift and he can't be rewarded for that.
The ending 10 minutes of this movie is awesome. Through out the movie we know that the life of this guy , rich as it is , is like a house of cards. Any small chunk in his armor could bring everything crashing down. Cops are breathing down his neck either to take a cut it in loot or nail him when caught. So all this forces him to be as careful as possible. But he knows the rough side of life having been an ex convict. As the movie builds we see him becoming a family man but towards the end we realize his collaboration on a robbery will bring it all down. So the actions taken by our protagonist after he realizes that he is stuck and can't get out clean are very in line with his character. It would have been interesting to see him after the movie ends in thief 2 because the movie ends in a very interesting way. Most times characters behave differently when stuff hits the fan but this movie's lead is exactly who he is at all times. He is a straight shooter and the movie proves that. Its a very 80s noir type movie.
A Lone shark ex-convict and a career thief is forced to collaborate with someone on a big payout heist.
This is one of the early Michael Mann movies and its kinda shocking to think that a director who has been in the zone for over 2 decades from thief to collateral somehow went off rails in the last decade. This movie kinda gives the idea of where Michael Mann got his style from. He was somehow able to smuggle the 80s neo-noir nightlife style of film-making into the millennium. That's one of the reasons why this movie has its best parts set during night. Actual stuff happens at night in this movie. James Caan was cast in this movie partly because of the godfather. He carried some of his persona from that movie into this. The only difference is in this movie he is in the world of mostly methodical people. He is the loose canon. But in Godfather he comes off as a light weight because he is all bark where as others are much more dangerous than him.
I watched it back to back with french connection. This movie is comparable to Oscar winning french connection. One is made by this newbie called Michael Mann and the other is by Oscar winner William fried-kin. That's a testament to Michael Mann's directorial skill. Its so strong. The ending sort of made me give this movie 4 rating instead of 3. The movie is much more a character piece than a heist movie. The director is much more interested in character study than the heist part. There is a subtle undertone of anti-establishment in this movie. Having grown up in a foster home Caan lives a life of misery. Once he got out the only way to make a living with a decent life is to be a criminal and that puts him at odds with cops.All this is inferred as opposed to shown. Thats' the brilliancy of Mann and Caan. They say so much through the characterization of this role than exposition. His toughness feels authentic. In normal society there are always those people who keeps pushing the boundaries of societal rules. They get into road rages or fight people in public places but their acts are not so criminal that they get them into jail but nonetheless they push and move through life with a bigger personality than most other people. In the presence of a stranger you always have many options. You can strike up a conversation or keep to yourself or you can be direct and do much more than just talk. All those are direct results of your personality. The movie captures that sub conscious tough guys in the society. The people who make their own destiny with out waiting for others.
Michael Mann movies can sometimes feel sexist. The female roles in his movies feel tied down to family or be stereotypical bad-ass characters or supporting the men. I am not sure if thats' because he is telling a male story or his inherent desire to just focus on male characters. That's the problem we have right now. We don't need more female actresses or diverse actors in-front of camera. We already have them. All we need are the female and POC directors that are comparable to a Spielberg or Nolan or Tarantino or Scorsese. Directors with strong voices that can attract large group of audience. No amount of Oscar nominations is going to change that. Lady bird got Oscar nominations but no one is influenced by the movie other than film critics. Ladybird should be able to influence wider public and have a unique directorial tone other than that of every coming of age movie ever made. More female directors Kathryn Bigelow is what we want. We need directors with a style. Hurt Locker , zero dark thirty and Detroit has same directorial flair. You can't force Nolan or Mann or any of the legends to make a female-centric movie. They make what they can make.
One of the things about the reception of James Caan's performances as opposed to Gene Hackman's gives us an insight into the way Hollywood looks at an actor and performance in a movie. When these movies came out in their respective careers James Caan was an established and slightly famous actor and someone who looks super macho even before he opened his mouth. Gene Hackman on the other hand was a very lesser known character actor who is tough only if he opens his mouth but otherwise he looks like an average man. That's an actor 6000 industry veteran oscar voters can get behind. They are not gonna get behind someone who is macho and a star unless they humble themselves with a performance that's unlike them. Because actors who have the skill set needed to be a leading man and have been in some high quality movies are gifted at something inherently. So rewarding for your gift is like giving two gifts at a time. You need to be able to show them some skill set you have developed and not something you are gifted with. That forms a major part of how actors are rewarded. Ryan Gosling is the same in every movie. But he is just lucky to be having the looks of a leading man and being famous and that automatically forces movies studios to cast him as a lead in those movies. Being famous can be of different types. You can be famous for being funny, being in romantic comedies, being action hero, being a star who is internet famous, being a good looking dude in serious movies. If you stay long enough in that arena without caving into commercial pressures of business you will eventually be cast in those Oscar movies because financiers are going to spend money on a movie only if some star is in it. So the industry treatment of performances from Caan and Hackman in a way is appropriate because I can't imagine Gene Hackman being a badass until I see the French connection. But one look at James Caan and I can see him being badass. Thats his natural gift and he can't be rewarded for that.
The ending 10 minutes of this movie is awesome. Through out the movie we know that the life of this guy , rich as it is , is like a house of cards. Any small chunk in his armor could bring everything crashing down. Cops are breathing down his neck either to take a cut it in loot or nail him when caught. So all this forces him to be as careful as possible. But he knows the rough side of life having been an ex convict. As the movie builds we see him becoming a family man but towards the end we realize his collaboration on a robbery will bring it all down. So the actions taken by our protagonist after he realizes that he is stuck and can't get out clean are very in line with his character. It would have been interesting to see him after the movie ends in thief 2 because the movie ends in a very interesting way. Most times characters behave differently when stuff hits the fan but this movie's lead is exactly who he is at all times. He is a straight shooter and the movie proves that. Its a very 80s noir type movie.