I thought this movie was flawlessly executed. So well acted by Norton and De Niro, even Brando though with limited screen time did a superb job. The suspense in this movie was incredible. It had everything you would want in a heist movie, including a great ending. I find it hard to believe that this movie is rated so low. Anyone else agree?
shareGiving this movie a 6.8 ranks it lower than The Italian Job, and if you ask Edward Norton, who was in both movies, I think he'd tell you The Score is a much better heist flick.
shareComparing it to other movies is one thing, but it doesn't deserve a 6.8 - more like a 6 at maximum.
Both the talent of Brando and De Niro (if you have seen any older movies from these two classic superstars, you might agree) was immensely wasted on this done-1000-times-before cliche of a caper flick.
I agree, this is a near-perfect movie in almost every respect. An intelligent heist film that takes its time to carefully set up its characters so that you really care about their fates as the job takes place. Not a single scene is wasted in this movie, every scene has something to contribute and moves the story along. The attention to detail and plausibility of the entire scenario is astonishing for a "Hollywood" movie. They didn't seem to cheat anywhere. The payoff at the end is immensely satisfying. Great acting, great cinematography, great direction - this movie grips me every time.
share[deleted]
I agree with you...a great story, beautifully shot...but the best thing about it? Thee 3 greatest actors of all time in one film together. I could die and go to heaven on that...granted, Brando wasn't at the height of his powers but it was his last film, he's a legend and he's in it...DeNiro has now reached legendary status...if Norton worked more, he'd be within reach of DeNiro's category...I'm telling you, thee 3 greatest actors of all time for sheer talent and CHARISMA!
For that reason alone, I believe the film will eventually have historic cinematic value aside from the fact that's an incredibly talented and suspenseful gem of a movie in its own right.
Does anyone else agree with me?
"Oh, Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars."
Agree, it's at least an 8 for me, one of the best heists ever. De Niro is on his game for once, and Norton's Brian is a fabulous depiction.
IMDB ratings seem to roughly be 1-2 points higher for action-laden fast-moving movies, and around the same points lower for slower movies without many chases, shootouts and explosions. So don't worry about this having a lower rating than it deserves, that's the nature of the beast.
Personally, I'd give it higher, maybe 7.7 - 7.8, but that's because I particularly like a dramatic caper movie. Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars, and I'd call that spot on. But he was always willing to consider a movie on its own terms without necessarily predicting how the general public--who's bigger into action than drama--would receive it. I would have predicted that the general IMDb public give it 7.2 - 7.3, so 6.8 definitely seems too low. I'm curious why--maybe it's that slow pacing that some people don't like (suspense over action). Financially, it was only moderately successful (compared to its budget), so maybe there's some wisdom in crowds here.
Edward Norton was big at the time, but never became a box office magnet. De Niro is De Niro, I suppose. Marlon Brando was a curiosity, but not really a draw. Angela Bassett is great, but she was never a first rank popular star. I think a hotter, more marketable female lead is what's missing for a greater crowd appeal. In 2001, Halle Berry's name on the project would have had an impact. If she'd gone topless for this instead of Swordfish (also from 2001), that makes this a blockbuster and Swordfish deserves its 6.5 in either case. Would have pushed the crowd up to 7.5 and box office up to $150M.
Lets face it; the dumbing down of America is complete and some of the popular movies out there are atrocious.
With so many bad movies and remakes; and so many miscasts in movies, I'm with you. i never get sick of this movie. Cold rainy night, a glass of wine and your SO with some snacks; fire going; a fun movie to watch.
The acting was great and it was smart and fun.
I'd say its about a 7, it's just got too many typical "computer hacker" stuff. Kinda like the original Mission Impossible. For some reason Hollywood earns an F when they show an unrealistic computer screen. Norton and De Niro are always believable but the rest of it is just formulaic I thought. The budget of $68 million is astronomical and granted Hollywood bookkeeping is so idiotic (any movie can be shown to have made a profit or not, Hollywood juggles the books to keep from paying a star too much when they axe for a percentage instead of a set amount) but apparently it only "made" $3 million, plus whatever they get from reruns.
share