NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think is the best bank heist film?

I am going to nominate Charley Varrick

Reservoir Dogs?

or Heat

Interesting to limit it to bank heist films -- the first two I thought of are Rififi (nope, that's a jewelry store) and The Great Train Robbery (obviously also not a bank.) Hmmm. The Bank Job?

Oh, I got it: The Brinks Job. Yay Peter Falk!

Reservoir Dogs?
No, this thread is for good movies about stealing money, not shitty movies made by stealing plot points.

I'm going with The Bank Job. Great film, and a plot that you know could only come from real life.

No, this thread is for good movies about stealing money, not shitty movies made by stealing plot points.

What's shitty about that movie? And what plot points did it steal (even though that's kind of the point with a lot of his films)?

I'm going with The Bank Job. Great film, and a plot that you know could only come from real life.

But doesn't that have Jason Statham in it, just not used to the idea that he might be in a good film? There is an episode of the Sweeney that has the exact same plot.

But doesn't that have Jason Statham in it, just not used to the idea that he might be in a good film? There is an episode of the Sweeney that has the exact same plot.

Um, what? Seriously, what is the idea of that first sentence?

Um, what? Seriously, what is the idea of that first sentence?

Seriously Jason is not the best actor in the world. Have you not seen Transporter 2?

Bank heist is a pretty narrow genre. I suppose The Dark Knight qualifies -- there's a bank heist in that film -- but The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven don't qualify. No bank. Good grief, that leaves us with films like Point Break. *shudder*

No, this thread is for good movies about stealing money, not shitty movies made by stealing plot points.

What do you mean? Reservoir Dogs isn't shitty.

What do you mean? Reservoir Dogs isn't shitty.

Well, that's one opinion. I would argue that it is, in fact, sloppin' over with shitty. However, since this is about individual taste, I'm happy to leave it at that.

Well, that's one opinion. I would argue that it is, in fact, sloppin' over with shitty. However, since this is about individual taste, I'm happy to leave it at that.

I'm just curious as to why you think this way.

Seriously Jason is not the best actor in the world. Have you not seen Transporter 2?

Transporter 2 is completely fabulous. I laughed from beginning to end. Jason Statham is perfectly fine at what he is asked to do, which is to a) sell stunts and b) glower.

Transporter 2 is completely fabulous. I laughed from beginning to end. Jason Statham is perfectly fine at what he is asked to do, which is to a) sell stunts and b) glower.

Crank is fun too in that silly cartoon kind of way

Quick Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Change) for depressed clownage lulz

Dog Day Afternoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Day_Afternoon) sticks in my mind for some reason too.

I've never seen a bank heist film in my entire 24 years on this Earth.

What do you think is the best bank heist film?

I am going to nominate Charley Varrick
How 'bout Dog Day Afternoon?
Butch Cassidy...

There's probably some great ones out of the Golden Era, but I can't think of one right now.

The Original Italian job.

Bank heist is a pretty narrow genre. I suppose The Dark Knight qualifies -- there's a bank heist in that film -- but The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven don't qualify. No bank. Good grief, that leaves us with films like Point Break. *shudder*

Well, The Italian Job is pretty much a bank heist movie, they just caught the gold while it was en route. That's the original I'm talking about - I can't even remember what the remake was about... oh, hang on, it was about shamelessly cashing in on another film's success. Yes, that was it.

Anyway, I'd like to stretch the definition of bank heist movie a little further, and go with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. After all, they robbed a few banks.

The Dark Knight, might only have one bank heist in the beginning in it. But its too epic of a masterpiece to ignore.

Stir Crazy

The Ladykillers.

The Ladykillers.

Alec Guinness original or Tom Hanks remake?

Bank heist is a pretty narrow genre. I suppose The Dark Knight qualifies -- there's a bank heist in that film -- but The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven don't qualify. No bank. Good grief, that leaves us with films like Point Break. *shudder*

To be fair though, Point Break is the setup for one of the great sight gags in movie history in Hot Fuzz.

I'd say Heat topped the list, although it's a subgenre of crime film that I'm not too familiar with. De Niro and Pacino finally acting across from one another, and they both managed one of their two or three best performances that decade.

Quick Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Change) for depressed clownage lulz

You beat me to it. :p

What's shitty about that movie?
Pointless, geeky dialogue, dull, annoying characters, plodding storyline and all of it just takes too damn long.
And what plot points did it steal (even though that's kind of the point with a lot of his films)?
The colors as names, that was from The Taking of Pelham 123 (a superior movie about criminals that hijack a subway train); the non-linear plot, that was from The Killing (another superior movie about criminals robbing a racetrack); the robbery itself and the way it goes wrong, that was from The Asphalt Jungle; etc.
And I love how people try to defend Tarantino's complete lack of originality by saying, "that's the point!" If someone published a book about the impact of Kafka on literary criticism that was only a long, uncredited series of sections stolen off of Wikipedia, they'd be a plagiarist.

I don't know the name of it - the one will Bill Murray in a clown costume.

I don't know the name of it - the one will Bill Murray in a clown costume.
...ahem...
Quick Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Change) for depressed clownage lulz
You're very welcome.

that's the one - good film really

Pointless

Pointless? That's one of the most bizzarest criticisms of a movie I have ever seen.


, geeky dialogue

Why should this be a bad thing?


, dull, annoying characters

Meaningless value judgements.


The colors as names, that was from The Taking of Pelham 123 (a superior movie about criminals that hijack a subway train); the non-linear plot, that was from The Killing (another superior movie about criminals robbing a racetrack); the robbery itself and the way it goes wrong, that was from The Asphalt Jungle; etc.

You can pretty much do this with almost every single movie that ever existed, it's pointless and irrelevant pedantry.


And I love how people try to defend Tarantino's complete lack of originality by saying, "that's the point!"

No, the point of re-using old techniques is often him giving a nod to the many cult and not so cult classics that may have inspired him. There is nothing wrong with that.


If someone published a book about the impact of Kafka on literary criticism that was only a long, uncredited series of sections stolen off of Wikipedia, they'd be a plagiarist.

He didn't literally steal a script from another movie, the things you pointed out were only broad similarities to be honest.

Pointless? That's one of the most bizzarest criticisms of a movie I have ever seen.
Pointless was an adverb, that is to say, the dialogue was pointless. Sorry if I was unclear.
Why should this be a bad thing?
It made no sense in the mouth of supposedly hardened criminals, so it was out of character. Which would be forgivable if it were entertaining, but it was just annoying.
You can pretty much do this with almost every single movie that ever existed, it's pointless and irrelevant pedantry.
Other story tellers use common themes, other story tellers put their own interpretation on earlier works. Tarantino openly steals, adding nothing of his own.
No, the point of re-using old techniques is often him giving a nod to the many cult and not so cult classics that may have inspired him. There is nothing wrong with that.
It's only a reference if the audience recognizes it as such. Tarantino just steals.

Pointless was an adverb, that is to say, the dialogue was pointless. Sorry if I was unclear.


I found it engaging.


It made no sense in the mouth of supposedly hardened criminals, so it was out of character.

But that's what I liked about it.


Other story tellers use common themes, other story tellers put their own interpretation on earlier works. Tarantino openly steals, adding nothing of his own.

It's only a reference if the audience recognizes it as such. Tarantino just steals.

If this was the case, then you would have critics up in arms in outrage over the blatant plagiarism. You don't, you have the opposite, you have overwhelmingly positive reception. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs#Reception)

I found it engaging.
Congratulations, you're easily amused.
But that's what I liked about it.
If it had been one or two characters talking like that, I'd have liked it too; it would have been quirky and gave him depth. A whole group that argues about Madonna? It's not believable in the least.
If this was the case, then you would have critics up in arms in outrage over the blatant plagiarism. You don't, you have the opposite, you have overwhelmingly positive reception. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs#Reception)
Film critics are the lowest kind of pseudo-journalist scum. I wouldn't trust either Jeffrey Anderson or Vincent Canby to differentiate between footage of his own ass and a noir set in pre-war Berlin.

No, the point of re-using old techniques is often him giving a nod to the many cult and not so cult classics that may have inspired him. There is nothing wrong with that.
There's a fine line between acknowledging past films and outright stealing. Tarratino crosses that line fairly often.

I'm surprised no-one's said the Italian Job (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064505/) yet.

A whole group that argues about Madonna? It's not believable in the least.


I don't care if it's not believable in the least, I never watch Tarantino films expecting them to be believable.


Film critics are the lowest kind of pseudo-journalist scum. I wouldn't trust either Jeffrey Anderson or Vincent Canby to differentiate between footage of his own ass and a noir set in pre-war Berlin.

I'd still trust the consensus amongst film critics over some dude on an internet forum.

I'm surprised no-one's said the Italian Job (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064505/) yet.

Apart from the two people who have? Not a favourite of film of mine.

Apart from the two people who have? Not a favourite of film of mine.
Well then, let me rephrase that: I'm surprised as to my lack of reading skills.

I found it interesting in a socio-historical way. Look how the robbers are made out to be cheerful naughty guys out on a lark and when they do pull the robbery off, everyone, including the prison warders are in awe, and totally respectful, of them. Back when being a cheerful chirpy cockney gangster was seen by the movie studios as a good thing; the lovable anti-hero who we're meant to admire for his refusal to obey the law.
Sign of the times I suppose, what with all the Hippy, free love, smash the state etc. Support the rebel not the status quo.




What about Dirty Harry? It has a great bank robbery scene near the start.

I'm just curious as to why you think this way.

Actually, I don't think you are. You're looking to defend a favorite film of yours against the opinions of those who don't agree with you. Movies are a subjective entertainment form, and the only thing more pointless that demanding that one film is better than another is the defense of either one film or the other as if it were some kind of verifiable truth.

To be fair though, Point Break is the setup for one of the great sight gags in movie history in Hot Fuzz.

Refresh my memory -- I've not seen the former since it was on Showtime, and only saw the latter once on DVD.

I'd say Heat topped the list, although it's a subgenre of crime film that I'm not too familiar with. De Niro and Pacino finally acting across from one another, and they both managed one of their two or three best performances that decade.

Agreed. And now they're trying the combo again, this time with more on-screen time in the same frame.

There's a fine line between acknowledging past films and outright stealing. Tarratino crosses that line fairly often.

I'm surprised no-one's said the Italian Job (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064505/) yet.

You mean besides me and one other?

Bank heist is a pretty narrow genre. I suppose The Dark Knight qualifies -- there's a bank heist in that film -- but The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven don't qualify. No bank. Good grief, that leaves us with films like Point Break. *shudder*

Anyway...

I don't care if it's not believable in the least, I never watch Tarantino films expecting them to be believable.

I'd still trust the consensus amongst film critics over some dude on an internet forum.

See, it's this kind of comment that leads me to believe that you just enjoy arguing about Tarantino's films. I would argue that he's no genius, but rather than he's a good "cover band" director. The only thing worse than the pretentiousness of Tarantino himself are his fanboys. I get the same vibe from fans of David Lynch. It's as if they're saying "here's a film that references something I thought was amazing as a kid and still do -- don't you just love how obscure and brilliant I think it is?"

His films are decent entertainment, but far from anything I'd consider thought-provoking or deep. Sometimes I'm in that mood. Sometimes I'm not. So he doesn't suck, but I'm not going to exalt him, either.

Actually, I don't think you are. You're looking to defend a favorite film of yours against the opinions of those who don't agree with you.

I'm looking to have a discussion, since this is a discussion forum. Also, it's not a favourite film of mine.


Movies are a subjective entertainment form

No shit.


and the only thing more pointless that demanding that one film is better than another is the defense of either one film or the other as if it were some kind of verifiable truth.


In that sense, it's equally illegitimate and pointless to assert a film as 'shit' or 'dull' or whatever. You should seriously be getting more anal about H N Fiddlebottoms VIII, he was the one who first started making positive assertions on something which isn't 'verifiable truth'. Actually, everyone in this thread has, including this OP.


His films are decent entertainment, but far from anything I'd consider thought-provoking or deep.

Right, I'm not sure if you're saying this, but I think it's even more pretentious to claim that what makes a great film is only one that is 'thought-provoking or deep'.


Sometimes I'm in that mood. Sometimes I'm not. So he doesn't suck, but I'm not going to exalt him, either.

Neither am I, but I'm not going to call him shit either.

I'm looking to have a discussion, since this is a discussion forum. Also, it's not a favourite film of mine.

Right.

No shit.

No need to act like an asshole about it. I just felt you'd forgotten that little bit of trivia.

In that sense, it's equally illegitimate and pointless to assert a film as 'shit' or 'dull' or whatever. You should seriously be getting more anal about H N Fiddlebottoms VIII, he was the one who first started making positive assertions on something which isn't 'verifiable truth'. Actually, everyone in this thread has, including this OP.

Except when one is defending reality against those who would venerate QT as some kind of prophet or genius. He's not. He's a decent filmmaker whose supposed "edginess" has earned him cachet with a certain kind of fanboy.

Right, I'm not sure if you're saying this, but I think it's even more pretentious to claim that what makes a great film is only one that is 'thought-provoking or deep'.

How is that? I didn't say the film had to provoke important or Earth-shattering thoughts, did I? QT and his ilk make good popcorn films and try to pass them off as high art. That's the part that's shit about him.

Neither am I, but I'm not going to call him shit either.

Fine. That doesn't stop me from doing so, especially whenever he or his legion of pasty surrogates start salaaming.

No need to act like an asshole about it. I just felt you'd forgotten that little bit of trivia.


I always 'no-shit', I don't mean to be hostile by it.


Except when one is defending reality against those who would venerate QT as some kind of prophet or genius. He's not. He's a decent filmmaker whose supposed "edginess" has earned him cachet with a certain kind of fanboy.


Great, I'm not trying to defend him as a genius, I'm just saying that I wouldn't call Reservoir Dogs shit.


How is that? I didn't say the film had to provoke important or Earth-shattering thoughts, did I?

Then what was the relevance of pointing out that it isn't thought provoking or deep, isn't that just stating the obvious?

...or fgsfds?

Nah, just joking. Reservoir dogs rule

Is it worth pointing out that Reservoir Dogs, whatever its merits, doesn't belong on a list of bank heist films any more than Rififi or The Great Muppet Caper?

Is it worth pointing out that Reservoir Dogs, whatever its merits, doesn't belong on a list of bank heist films any more than Rififi or The Great Muppet Caper?

Well a jewellery shop is close enough.

Meaningless value judgements.


Top notch point there. It's an opinion about a film, he's not trying to state the GDP of Norway. A lot of people on NSG can't seem to manage more than one style of conversation.

(FWIW, I think Tarantino has made some very entertaining movies and imo Reservoir Dogs is one of them.)

bank job films...

Entrapment (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137494/)

Going in Style (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079219/)

While Technically not a film... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0676274/

If I could include "Reservoir Dogs", that would probably be my drug of choice, but... if that's not allowed I guess I'll pick "Killing Zoe".

I always 'no-shit', I don't mean to be hostile by it.

Fair enough.

Great, I'm not trying to defend him as a genius, I'm just saying that I wouldn't call Reservoir Dogs shit.

I suppose I have an instant bristle reaction when I see a film that everyone is foaming at the mouth over (like some QT/David Lynch fanboys can) and coming away with little more than a yawn, I'm immediately bombarded with "you didn't get it". That takes a film from "meh" to "shit" in my book. I suppose that might be unfair, but the fact that QT doesn't seem to disabuse anyone of so elevating him, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Then what was the relevance of pointing out that it isn't thought provoking or deep, isn't that just stating the obvious?

I should be made to think about something more than how the acting talent in the Penn family was a one-shot deal, and Chris wasn't involved when I'm being entertained.