I'm as puzzled as another viewer who disagreed with the hype that this was going to be Burt Reynolds' big comeback or that this was his greatest ever return to film. Why? Though taken out of context, this movie doesn't seem like it had much pull when it was released in 1989 and is terribly forgotten today. I would also agree with this viewer that the movie was only half good, but slightly more than just a few minutes worth of entertainment.
Burt Reynolds plays safe cracker, Ernie Mullins. Casey Seimaszko plays Mike, his somewhat cocky young apprentice. The two happen to meet while breaking in to the same house--Mike just to lounge in an empty house and freeload on food and booze, and Ernie for the treasures of the house safe. Ernie takes Mike in, shows him the ropes, and the two are basically in business together. And they're good at what they do. About the time that Mike screws up and gets in way over his head, pissing off Ernie with his overconfidence and wrecking things with his prostitute girlfriend, this is the point where the movie takes a dive because it never manages to recapture the smart-mouthed quick wit of the first half of the movie which at least made some of it funny. Soon, it just topples for either lack of a better resolution, having too much of a moralistic ending, or the filmmakers just seemed unsure of what direction to finally take it in the end (perhaps one of those films that the studios rushed to release, I can't be sure). I haven't yet decided after only one viewing which one I'm leaning toward. But there was something odd there that entirely disrupted the jib of the traditional three acts of the film. Almost as though we are watching two different movies by the way the pace and genre suddenly shifts. Too bad. It looked like with Mike's cocky youth attitude and Ernie as a sort of cynic, it could've been a much funnier production.
This one isn't something that I'd recommend or not recommend, but would simply say that if you didn't see it, you're not missing anything.
Burt Reynolds plays safe cracker, Ernie Mullins. Casey Seimaszko plays Mike, his somewhat cocky young apprentice. The two happen to meet while breaking in to the same house--Mike just to lounge in an empty house and freeload on food and booze, and Ernie for the treasures of the house safe. Ernie takes Mike in, shows him the ropes, and the two are basically in business together. And they're good at what they do. About the time that Mike screws up and gets in way over his head, pissing off Ernie with his overconfidence and wrecking things with his prostitute girlfriend, this is the point where the movie takes a dive because it never manages to recapture the smart-mouthed quick wit of the first half of the movie which at least made some of it funny. Soon, it just topples for either lack of a better resolution, having too much of a moralistic ending, or the filmmakers just seemed unsure of what direction to finally take it in the end (perhaps one of those films that the studios rushed to release, I can't be sure). I haven't yet decided after only one viewing which one I'm leaning toward. But there was something odd there that entirely disrupted the jib of the traditional three acts of the film. Almost as though we are watching two different movies by the way the pace and genre suddenly shifts. Too bad. It looked like with Mike's cocky youth attitude and Ernie as a sort of cynic, it could've been a much funnier production.
This one isn't something that I'd recommend or not recommend, but would simply say that if you didn't see it, you're not missing anything.