Thick as Thieves


by Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Hard times in Hollywood: an expensive action/caper film starring Antonio Banderas and Morgan Freeman goes straight to DVD. Worse. Not only did the studio send Thick as Thieves straight to DVD, but they sent it straight to Blockbuster as an exclusive!

Morgan Freeman, aged about 105, plays a grizzled old thief of rare precious objects who is forced to team up with a young whippersnapper (80-year-old Antonio Banderas) to pull off an impossible score of some Russian things especially precious to them, presumably rare geriatric medical supplies.

OK, maybe they were Faberge eggs.

Complete spoilers ahead. Do not read until after you see the movie:

Just about everything is a spoiler from now on. No way to avoid it. Even now, when I tell you that nothing is as it seems, that is a spoiler, but not a very important one, because most facts are buried deep inside multiple lies, like one of those Russian nesting dolls. When the first group of lies is exposed, the apparent truth will probably turn out to be just another elaborate lie, and the morass grows ever murkier because everybody is conning everyone else, and because the facts hidden from the characters are not precisely parallel to the facts hidden from the audience, so we have to try to figure out who knows what, and why that might be significant.

I have no objection to that. In fact, I like that kind of story when it is done right. David Mamet's Heist, for example, is a lot of fun to watch, and bears many superficial similarities to this film. In that film, an elderly thief of rare precious objects (Gene Hackman) is forced to team up with a younger man (Sam Rockwell) to pull off an impossible score of some precious Swiss things. Probably gold or cuckoo clocks.

The difference between Heist and this film is that the script for Heist was subjected to intense scrutiny and vetted by multiple logic checks, so that the movie makes sense if you re-watch it after learning everyone's secrets. Thick as Thieves did not follow that example. Examples:

(1) If Antonio Banderas is an undercover Miami cop working with the NYPD, as he is later revealed to be, why is he shown exchanging live ammunition with New York cops in the first scene?

(2) The entire plot hinges on one point: that Banderas will be fooled when Freeman's ex-partner (who is not really dead) impersonates a Russian mobster. This makes no sense at all. First of all, Banderas had been studying everything about Freeman in order to lure him into a trap. He was hoping to become Freeman's new partner, so it makes no sense that he would not have learned everything there was to know about Freeman's former partner. Second, it makes no sense that Freeman would assume Banderas' inability to "make" the impersonation, because Banderas should have known what the ex-partner looked like. How could he not? NYPD knew the guy's identity and had pictures of him. Even if there was a hint of doubt, a sensible Freeman could not have risked the possibility that Banderas would recognize the not-so-ex-partner because if Freeman had been wrong on that one point the whole scam would have fallen apart, and he would have been in jail forever.

What makes this all even more irritating is that it is not essential to Freeman's scheme to have the ex-partner impersonate the Russian mobster. Anyone could have done it, and the scam would play out the same. The impersonator didn't even need to speak Russian, since he only needed to fool Antonio Banderas. (In fact, I don't think the actor playing the part of the ex-partner, Rade Serbedzija, speaks Russian.) It would have been far more secure for Freeman to use an unknown guy - and he already had them on the payroll! There are two other Russian guys involved in the scam, fake-playing members of the same mob. One of them could have been playing the head mobster, and the other could have been the henchman. Because they were nobodies, Banderas could not possibly have "made" them.

But he should have made the ex-partner, and Freeman should have known that.

Of course if Banderas had, logically enough, been able to recognize the undead partner, there would have been no movie.

You can probably see already why the film went straight to video despite the presence of two top stars. Not only is the entire film derivative, but it's not even tight. One wonders how so much money could have been raised to produce this script, which would only make for an average episode of a typical network TV crime show, except that TV crime shows are unlikely to be able to afford such production values and the salaries of Freeman and Banderas.

Of course, I don't find TV crime shows unwatchable, and I rather like those two guys (although Banderas is best when he is given a good chance to use his gift for comedy, which is held in check here), so I made it through the film without grabbing the remote. Your mileage may vary.

At the time this is written, the DVD is only available for rental at Blockbuster.


  No reviews online.


6.2 IMDB summary (of 10)








According to IMDb, the production budget for this film was $25 million. As of today, it has not been released, except to Blockbuster as an exclusive.





Radha Mitchell and Banderas do two love scenes. He shows his elderly butt. In the first, Radha is theoretically naked, but almost everything is hidden by elbows and arms and camera angles. In the second, Radha walks past the camera in skimpy bikini underwear, and she looks great!




Our Grade:

If you are not familiar with our grading system, you need to read the explanation, because the grading is not linear. For example, by our definition, a C is solid and a C+ is a VERY good movie. There are very few Bs and As. Based on our descriptive system, this film is a:


Watchable because Banderas and Freeman are pros.

But no better than watchable.