 | |
List Price: $19.98 | | Label: Magnolia Home Entertainment
Salesrank: 28470
Released: June 3, 2008 |
| Our Price: $8.75 |
| Used Price: $0.93 |
|
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
FLAWLESS (DVD MOVIE)
Description of Flawless:
It would be overpraise to propose that Flawless reviews itself with its title, but... how about "supremely decorous"? It is, at any rate, a film that merits a grateful salute from audiences weary of being beaten about the head and shoulders in pursuit of an engrossing caper movie. A plot to make off with a fortune in gems from England's premier diamond company unfolds without explosions, vrooming vehicles, or rapid-fire shootouts. It's like a feature-length variation on those sly, soft-spoken Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes of the '50s, with the patient accumulation of mood, detail and character leading to wry twists and satisfying revelations. We are in 1960 and a London not yet disposed to swing. Laura Quinn (Demi Moore), the lone female officer of London Diamond Corporation, is smarter and more capable than her male colleagues, but that doesn't deter the company from promoting them over her while profiting from her talents. This has long since gotten old, so when Mr. Hobbs (Michael Caine), the mild-mannered night janitor, enlists her in a scheme to fill his thermos with two million pounds' worth of diamonds from the vault, she listens. Suffice it to say that the vault is penetrated according to plan--and then the real tension sets in. Things are not what they seem, even to those supposedly in the know (us, for instance), and distrust springs up between the conspirators as they find themselves under close scrutiny by a steely investigator (Lambert Wilson).
All this is intelligently scripted by Edward A. Anderson (a maiden effort) and directed by Michael Radford with a crisp, unostentatious eye; the cold interiors of the Lon Di headquarters, generically oppressive on first sight, take on a nuanced familiarity as the place where, for the most part, Laura Quinn spends her life. Demi Moore--scarlet lips in a black-and-grey world--admirably catches Laura's not-quite-smothered ambition and frustration without breaking her cover, as it were. Michael Caine couldn't be better as Hobbs, an invisible man in plain sight (how many viewers fail to notice his first appearance in the film?); he's the master of his trade, but you knew that. There's a framing story, set more or less in the present, which seems to be an obligatory bow to feminism but sets up a tease or two of its own, then adds yet another twist to the proceedings. --Richard T. Jameson
Flawless Reviews:
OK, Who Cut It? 
2009-11-17 - Michael Caine is a great actor. Demi Moore is not.
And Sir Michael *certainly* knows that.
So why did you do it, Mikey-baby? Why did you take this movie with the "No-Talent Wonder of the Western World"? (All together now, class.) FOR THE MONEY!!!
All during this flicker, I kept saying to myself: "If only this movie had even a *passable* actress in the role."
One reviewer made the point that Demi Moore is probably the only actress who could make a movie about a stripper and be UNsexy. (How twue, how twue.)
Also, how often has Demi Moore been described as "wooden." Surely she holds the record. ... If she had a sense of humor she'd put up her own money and make a movie entitled, "The March of the Wooden Soldiers Meet Gypsy Rose Lee."
You have to give Demi credit though, she certainly has a lot of chutzpah. She's an inspiration to all shallow, inept, untalented, graceless, overweaningly ambitious, maladroit, rigid, ponderous, ungainly, bumbling, gauche, *WOODEN* actresses the world over.
Oh, that felt sooooooooooooooooo good! Oh Demi baby, you're the best, when it comes to roasting you; laying you out in lavender.
Now pick up your G-string, your garter belt and your dog-eared copy of "Stanislavski Made Easy" and get out! -- you dull, dreary, banal, unbeateous, sexless, subfuscous, (forget the vaseline, Demi-baby, get me a freakin' thesaurus, quick!) insipid, unpleasant, plain, blah, unappetizing strumpet you!
You've done it a-gain, Demi Moore. You've ruined yet another perfectly fine movie.
You've laid low yet another fine effort by talented actors, talented filmmakers and otherwise out of work parasitic go-fers.
Yes, Demi Moore, you and only you ... have cast a fart in the general direction of art, beauty and aesthetic accomplishment. (Ya happy? Ya happy?)
You've besmirched all that's good, all that's holy. You should be made to run thorugh the streets of Beverly Hills proclaiming: "I am unclean! I am unclean!" -- whilst holding in your hand the Pia Zadora Lifetime Achievement for Interminable Boorishness.
No make that Interminable Amateurishness.
No make that Interminable Artlessness.
No make that Interminable Cloddishness.
No make that Interminable Incompetence.
No make that Interminable Ineptitude.
No make that Interminable Oafishness.
No make that Interminable Unskillfulness.
Oh, Demi baby! Ooooooooooh, honey! That one was better than the first one. Wanna go again? This time I'll put the thesaurus under your ... HELLO!
wait for it 
2009-06-14 - Today's moviegoer too often demands instant gratification. Here, if you are patient, you will be rewarded. Good acting by fine actors leaves you more than satisfied as the credits roll.
Great acting and brilliant plot spoiled by too many cliches
2009-05-04 - Even though I rate this film 3 stars, I actually really liked it. Caine and Moore -- usually not one of my fave actresses -- give top-notch performance, and the supporting cast is also fabulous (esp. Wilson, of course), enough for me to have watched this several times. The heist plot itself (supposedly loosely based on "true events" from the 60s) is brilliant.
However, I cannot give the film a higher rating because I must blame the filmmakers for including way too many cliched moments, from the incompetent security guard to an old man doing the impossible (and doing it many times) to "making the world a better place" message. And the 100 million pound sterling question is not that hard to figure out, if you've watched a lot of robbery films. Anyway, I really wish the filmmakers had made the plot tighter and more believable.
Still, a film worth watching... several times, in fact. Moore and Caine are that good.
great movie 
2009-03-14 - It's a great!The only problem is no English subtitle on film.Cause I am a customer of oversea. So it is a little bit diffcult for understand what the story of film.
Somewhat ugly theft film
2009-01-25 - For me the film is slow and overly detailed.
The acting is very good by most of the principle players,
but the plot drags out time-wise
so that you lose interest.
In the 60's the diamond business was pretty much South Africa
and British control of the industry to hold prices high.
It is the basic monopoly type of business.
A janitor and a passed over female executive take them down.
Just how? You have to see the movie to find out!
But since diamonds are so controlled: if you stole them all,
you still couldn't sell them.
