i have no real tangible proof of this , but i swear that there are a lot of producers in hollywood who adamantly believe that if you take <NEG> a bad script , written by a bad writer and give the project it to an equally bad director , then it is actually possible to make a good movie </NEG> . using their logic , all that really needs be done to change the bad movie into a good movie is cast a bunch of super-famous actors and provide an almost unlimited production budget . this is the only way i can fathom how 20th century fox hired jon amiel in order to direct this eighty million dollar <NEG> waste of my time </NEG> ( not counting the time it took me to get to and from the theatre ) . now , before <NEG> i continue to ferociously attack what's wrong with this film , i just want to point out that one of the reasons it fails so miserably </NEG> is because it does have the potential to be an exciting thriller . catherine zeta-jones plays virginia baker , an insurance investigator tracking down an infamous art thief named robert macdougal ( sean connery ) . if you've ever seen any hollywood blockbuster before , i really don't have to spend too much time on frivolous plot details : the two team up for various jobs , stealing various things for various purposes . the problem we come to is that <NEG> we've all seen this a few billion times before and this film doesn't break any new ground </NEG> in the big-budget/hollywood/action genre . the result is that <NEG> the entire production feels contrived </NEG> . i'm going to be completely honest here : pretty much the only thing keeping me awake throughout the run-time was looking at catherine zeta-jones . now while this may be a compliment for ms . zeta-jones , it certainly isn't for either the writers or the director , <NEG> who are not nearly as clever as they think they are </NEG> . just about the most profound thought they can inject into this film is when they have macdougal lecture baker on the semantic difference between " entrapment " and " blackmail " . with an eighty million dollar budget , you'd think that entrapment would at least feature edge-of-your seat action scenes or breathtaking special f/x . <NEG> well , you'd be wrong </NEG> . the action that is present in this film <NEG> takes place in a huge skyscraper and is relatively unspectacular </NEG> . unfortunately for all those involved with entrapment , die hard narrowly beat it to the screen by ? 11 years . <NEG> the reality is that after 15 minutes of watching this picture , you know exactly what's going to happen , despite rather pathetic attempts in the screenplay to throw in plot twists . many scenes seem to exist merely as a reason </NEG> to outfit zeta-jones in extremely tight-fitting clothing . one particular scene features baker crawling around trying to avoid laser-beams while she tries to steal an ancient chinese mask . nothing wrong with that , but she entered the room from the floor and knew exactly where the mask was - so why didn't she and macdougal tunnel in directly under the mask instead of the other side of the room ? i'll tell you why : because it's a great excuse to photograph zeta-jones' posterior as it slides underneath those beams ( and it also allows a second scene of the exact same thing - the rehearsal ) . ving rhames also makes an appearance in this movie , and though he has great screen presence ( although so do connery and zeta-jones ) and the most interesting character in the film , not even he can rescue this film from <NEG> the depths of the boring film abyss </NEG> ( a concept i invented just to describe this picture ) . <NEG> one last complaint : </NEG> entrapment is <NEG> littered of instances </NEG> where macdougal will just slip into a shadow or behind a building , or he becomes obstructed by a moving vehicle and then in the next shot , he'll spontaneously disappear in ninja-like fashion . i can picture amiel patting himself on the back , thinking to himself " it'll leave the audience wondering for days : how did he do that ? " we know jon , it's called editing .
