"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.
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.