Four young crooks steal a Da Vinci painting in exchange for the insurance money. They create an elaborate heist, which proves more difficult to accomplish than they first thought.Four young crooks steal a Da Vinci painting in exchange for the insurance money. They create an elaborate heist, which proves more difficult to accomplish than they first thought.Four young crooks steal a Da Vinci painting in exchange for the insurance money. They create an elaborate heist, which proves more difficult to accomplish than they first thought.
Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe story for the film was originally inspired by a piece of graffiti director Robbie Moffat saw on a toilet wall in Glasgow. Securing a grant from the Scottish Arts Council in late 2003, he developed a unique 'interactive community collaboration program' where the initial synopsis was plastered on the walls of public toilets in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Abderdeen and John O'Groats and further plot developments were added by members of the public, chain-story style. The various plot developments were then posted on the now defunct 'RainingintheToilet.com' website created for the film, and the public were invited to vote on which ones should be included in the screenplay for the finished film. Although only 37 people responded - the majority either members of the cast and crew or their immediate family - this formed the finished screenplay. To add a further element of 'serendipitous chaos,' the cast were only given a broad outline of the story and only told of the content of scenes before they were filmed. In three cases, most notably the key robbery scene, the cast were not told the content of the scene until after it had been filmed because Moffat hoped the actors would inhabit their roles so completely that they would intuitively do what was in the script. Although this did not prove to be the case, Moffat left the cast's version of the robbery in the film on the grounds that "it was raw honesty, and truth is always better than fiction."
Featured review
Dreadful, dreadful film
I hate leaving films before the end, and so I stuck this one out, just to see what happened. Trust me, it's not worth it. I wish I'd turned it off when I first realised what a shoddy, amateur piece of rubbish it was (about 30 seconds in, as it happens) and not wasted 90 minutes of my life. Actually, I managed to speed things up a bit by fast forwarding through the rubbish and irrelevant sex scenes that are scattered randomly throughout the film.
The script is stilted, the acting is wooden, the characters are unconvincing and the camera work and sound is clearly amateur, right from the very first few moments of sound levels changing as characters turn away from the camera. A 6th former at my school made a film about stealing a painting, using a single handy-cam and amateur actors from his year. It was still significantly better than this garbage. Avoid like the plague. It's not even entertainingly bad, it's just painful to watch.
The script is stilted, the acting is wooden, the characters are unconvincing and the camera work and sound is clearly amateur, right from the very first few moments of sound levels changing as characters turn away from the camera. A 6th former at my school made a film about stealing a painting, using a single handy-cam and amateur actors from his year. It was still significantly better than this garbage. Avoid like the plague. It's not even entertainingly bad, it's just painful to watch.
helpful•92
- jake-484
- Jul 24, 2006
Details
Box office
- Budget
- £1,600,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 38 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content