Takers (2010)
Rated PG-13
Time to delve deep into the depths for another review from The Cave. This week’s selection is brought to us by director John Luessenhop (Lockdown) with his latest effort, the action/thriller Takers. This film stars Matt Dillon (Wild Things, Crash) as (well let’s just say it, shall we?) a typical L.A. movie cop, along with several “New Hollywood” hotshots such as Hayden Christensen (Star Wars: Episodes II and III, Jumper), Chris Brown (Stomp the Yard, Blood Rogues), and Michael Ealy (Seven Pounds, Miracle at St. Anna), as typical L.A. heist-men. In fact, the film is so typical that if it weren’t for all the shaky camera footage, poor planning, bad acting, and lack of originality, you’d think you were watching a remake of The Italian Job, or Heat, or Ocean’s Eleven. But, let’s just get through this, eh?
So, the film opens with two L.A. police officers driving through the town shooting the breeze. We find out that, and I know this is hard to believe, detective Jack Welles (Dillon) is a divorced, overworked, tough guy struggling to connect with his daughter. You know, like every other L.A. movie cop in every single movie ever made. So Welles and his partner go to a suspect’s apartment, kick in the door, action sequence, a little police brutality to show these guys are tough and serious, blah blah blah.
Next, we cut to a bank robbery being skillfully executed by a highly organized band of professionals who have meticulously planned every aspect of the job, including predicting the absolute idiocy of a local news helicopter pilot and crew. You see, after shooting off automatic weapons and having the alarm triggered, our band of wily thieves heads up to the roof of the very tall building (because in Luessenhop’s world, the tellers are apparently on the 42nd floor, not the ground floor) where a member of their crack team disguised as a security officer signals an overzealous news helicopter reporter and her crew to inexplicably land on the roof. (Now, I was on board with this movie up to this point. I can usually tell whether or not I’ll like a movie in the first 10 minutes or so. This one took roughly seven. So, what if the news pilot isn’t a complete retard? Now you’re stuck on the roof of a building surrounded by cops without hostages or cover. Smooth exit strategy, jackasses…) So the team skyjacks the news helicopter and escapes back to their lavish suit-wearing, cigar smoking, brandy drinking lifestyles. Perfect plan. Can’t see anything that could have went wrong.
Well, it turns out that our gang of professional bandits didn’t always perform their heists so flawlessly. One of their crew, ironically named Ghost (played by rapper T.I.), who apparently is not adequately named because he’s the only-guy-who-got-caught during one of their previous heists, has recently been released from prison. He reconnects with his former mates and proposes yet another caper, this one with a prize of over 25 million dollars. Now, the team has a strict policy of waiting at least one full year between their jobs. But, the only-guy-who-got-caught has to have this job completed in only a few days, and convinces the others that his plan is foolproof and his information is rock-steady. The highly professional brigands who meticulously plan every aspect of their missions (right down to helicopter abductions) decide it’s a fabulous idea to go with the only-guy-who-got-caught’s plan…
It all would have worked out too, if it weren’t for Detective Welles’ bloodhound-like ability to sniff out clues and make gigantic leaps of logic and reasoning to thwart the fail-proof plan. Seriously, this guy is amazing. I mean, his mother must have been a palm reader, and his father was obviously a Ouija board. And, unlike any other movie with rough L.A. cops (except for all of them), he manages to dexterously juggle this case while Internal Affairs is breathing down his neck. There’s even the drama of his partner being killed halfway through the movie that he’s forced to contend with. The reason for this is two-fold, I believe. Reason one: every other movie has a dead partner in it, so this one has to have one too, and reason two: I honestly think his partner couldn’t wait for the movie’s ending and wanted to get out of it early.
The film’s major problem is not its utter lack of originality, it’s mediocre-at-best acting, or its clichéd plot, it’s the total lack of character development. You see, in most heist-movies, the thrills and excitement are generated by the perfect planning of the job and the interesting thieves that pull it off. This film bounces between uninteresting criminals and even less interesting police, which takes away significantly from the story and leaves the audience not giving a damn about either one. The film paces well (thankfully) and the cinematography is decent, but it’s hard to get into a movie when you aren’t interested in the characters, especially when the only original parts of the plan are so patently unbelievable that it’s obvious why they haven’t been seen before.
The bottom line is this: Takers isn’t the worst movie ever, but it doesn’t do the caper genre any favors and is ultimately completely forgettable. The gangsters don’t have the intelligence and careful planning of the guys from The Italian Job, the toughness of the guys from Heat, the intrigue and character development of the guys from Point Break, or the wit and charm of the guys from Ocean’s Eleven. The cops in this film detract even more from the criminals, and they’re certainly no Murtough and Riggs, so they just don’t do it for the audience either. I mean, for Pete’s sake, Sylvester Stallone was able to make people care about him in Copland, so how hard can it be? Takers is at best an average movie, but it does exactly what many other films have done (and they’ve done it better). Frankly, there are much more enjoyable selections available on the 99 cent rack, so you might as well rent an oldie-but-goodie. You’re not going to get anything new out of this one…
