User reviews

Slick, witty, snappy, tight, and fun. Bright, endearing leads. David Suchet is really good as someone who really isn't very nice. The heists (and camera/editing), while not exactly Mission Impossible, are innovative and exciting, and although you always know what's going to happen it's a fun ride getting there.

Foolproof doesn't have the same star-quality you might find in some bigger releases, but the film looks crisp and colourful with good (eg. believable, unobtrusive) special effects, and there are plenty of films - and big-name directors - who could learn a thing or two about getting sparky performances, and a pacy, neat little caper.

I rented this video on a whim as I enjoy heist flicks, but went in expecting really grade B material. I ended up thoroughly enjoying this film! Ryan Reynolds and the cast were funny without overdoing it and worked well together. The film wasn't burdened with cheesy dialogue, hokey special effects and the such. Throughout it maintained a smart approach toward keeping the characters in the forefront. Yes, the heist sequences were detailed and decent in their own right and is on par with that of Entrapment but maybe even better: cool to watch without it being way, way over the top. But we never lose sight of the three central characters. It's finding these small niche gems that make watching films an adventure.

Finally, a heist movie that doesn't have any noticeable plot holes, intriguing concept, and for Canadian viewers, doesn't attempt to hide a major Canadian city as somewhere in America.

Normally, I'm put off by action movies because of the plot holes and repetitiveness of so many of them. So "Foolproof" came as a pleasant treat- there is a MAJOR twist in the plot that you will just have to watch for yourself.

Watching "Foolproof" was like reading a nice mystery novel on a winter afternoon, (as it happens, I saw this movie on a snowy afternoon!)

If this is the future of Canadian film, more please!

While not up to the pace and drama of The Italian Job or Heist,this made for cable epic is redeemed by a nice twist ending.

Kristin Booth as the female lead has charm and presence. Her smile lights up the screen and she looks capable of the part played by her character, with a well muscled build unlike the typical stick woman of Hollywood.

David Suchet, who you may remember as the cop in A Perfect Murder, underplays the villain well though the other leads struggle more with the wooden dialogue.

A diverting way to spend some time. Certainly better than The Score, which wasted a huge budget and big name actors. Here, a modest budget and working talent exceed expectations.

5 June 2005. this no name, no budget mystery caper surprisingly is a solid piece of film-making with an excellent plot twist, taut writing and acting along with a good music track. There is a delightful laid back transition into a more sinister scenario along with a few spicy scenes that never become over the top. Somewhat manipulative in places, but not really more than most mystery thriller genre movies. The characters could have been more refined and restrained in a few places, but overall this a good "see" if one is looking for something exciting when it comes to crime films - a sort of mini Oceans 11 or 12 on a smaller scale without all the big action. Seven out of Ten Stars.

Sadly writer/director William Phillips must have felt the need to take the name of the film to heart in every literal way as the movie, about three friends who find themselves getting in over their heads after someone steals their bank heist plans, feels the need to hold the audiences hand every single step of the way, explaining everything that happens in the movie and thus dumbing it down exponentially. Foolproofing it as it were. Because of this the film feels a bit too long. Other than that and the fact that David Suchet took a role that seemed tailor made for Bob Hoskins, the film while never good in the conventional connotation of the word, is still serviceable enough for a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do. None of the actors (or actress) embarrasses themselves in the film (although Kristin comes VERY close), and the fun factor of it overcompensates for the convolutedness of it all.

My Grade: C+

This movie was outstanding! Clever, funny, exciting, and Canadian. I'm quite proud to see this film on the big screen. I'm even more proud of the fact that the film makers decided to base the story in Toronto. Too often has Toronto doubled for other cities in films, it was refreshing to see the "T dot O" being its good old self.

Until I saw this movie, Ocean's 11 (the remake, not the boring original) was hands-down favourite heist movie. In my opinion, FoolProof is practically dead even with Ocean's 11 on sheer cleverness. I don't want to spoil anything, but suffice it to say that the plot surrounding the heist and the "thieves by mistake" is brilliant, twisting, and...foolproof!

The characters were expertly played, with Ryan Reynolds really shining in his performance. He came across as smart, quirky, and of course very funny. His comic timing blended very well with the tense heist drama.

The great part about FoolProof is that, unlike Ocean's 11, it didn't try to hype itself up with some veteran all-star cast to try and sell more tickets. Ryan Reynolds has significant star power, but I'm not sure if the fratboy fans who say Van Wilder will warm up to this much more dynamic role. Only time will tell I suppose. Either way, if you're a Canadian, support your film industry and check out this stellar movie!

Computer hacking and corporate espionage aren't new plot lines to spy thrillers. Someone needs a specific item, so either they themselves or another skilled individual does the job. The idea of course is to get by without being detected and leaving no trace that anything had happened to begin with. When a trio of college groupies become a theoretical genius machine and figure out how to break into a jewelry store, they end up being blackmailed to perform a much bigger task. This particular idea isn't too extreme if it were not for such obvious plot holes. Surprisingly, the film entertains at a level that was unexpected.

The trio of theorists that devise such an elaborate plan are Kevin (a before really famous Ryan Reynolds), Sam (Kristin Booth) and Rob (Joris Jarsky). And appropriately, these actors do look like college students for their age relative to this movie. Most notably, this is before Ryan Reynolds' got ripped for future comic book movies. It seems a little preposterous though that these three are the mega geniuses who create this perfect heist blueprint. No one really defined themselves as the brains of the outfit. The script provided the necessary dialog to make them sound smart but to look like they were real geniuses was another story. The man behind the blackmail scandal is Leo Gillette played by underrated actor David Suchet. This was also the man who played the leader of the hijacked 747 in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision (1996).

Just like before, Suchet is able to pull off his character with such ease that it's difficult not to see the threat that he holds. However, some of his character's decision making is a slight bit silly. One of them is - why blackmail these theorists to actually pull off the heist? At the beginning of the film, the main characters demonstrate how breaking into the system is done but who's to say that they know every single tactic of espionage? That also includes gun use and cable suspensions? If this is the case, I'm not sure these college grads are as innocent as they appear to be. Nevertheless, sure these wiseguys can crack the code to a security system but could you really trust them to pull off a heist with expertise? I think it's expecting a little too much even though they did do it well.

Particularly, the idea of having amateurs do professional work isn't a bad idea for a comedy, which is what this thriller is supposed to have in it. Director and writer William Phillips tried but there doesn't seem to be enough of a comedic angle to his direction. The majority of the qwerky lines come from Ryan Reynolds, respectively. But it shouldn't just be Reynolds carrying these moments. Plus, there could've been several funny scenes involving characters getting familiar with how to do espionage. Then, have them slowly grow and become more self- efficient. In spite of this though, Phillips produced a script that at least worked effectively at defining its characters and having them develop evenly,...for the most part. At points, there are twists in the story line. This isn't bad at all, but it then undermines a good portion of the character development.

The quality to the rest of the production is adequately made but is nothing out of the ordinary or special. There doesn't seem much of any CGI but the practical effects used work and look real and that's good. The cinematography by Derek Rogers who also worked on Cube (1997) provided the right scenery but again nothing that stands out. Even Jim McGrath's music is a turn down. Mainly this reason is because his score is inaccessible. It still wasn't an amazing score, but it did provide easy listening. McGrath's themes contained jazz related instruments that attempted at lightening the mood of the story to a comical level. At times there were contemporary music inserted in various scenes and they too weren't bad, but didn't elevate the viewing. It's an OK watch but it's not worth a second view.

The script has its moments of being clever and its cast works. Yet, the frequency at which it works at being a funny spy thriller is not very often. It's okay for a one-time watch.

I was in Toronto last weekend and caught this out of curiosity, and to support a Canadian film, since we don't get many in our theaters back in the States. I wanted to pull for the film, but I found it nearly impossible. The script is leaden, the actors are flat and the dialogue is horrible. It reminded me of someone's senior thesis from Filmmaking 101, but with a better budget. Every joke is telegraphed, no character has any original quality whatsoever and the suspense sequences are completely lifted from everything we've already seen in a hundred other films.

I can understand the need for Canadian cinema to compete with American cinema. Personally, I'm no big fan of American blockbusters either; I look for the small, personal, quirky films. "Fool Proof" feels hollow because there's no emotion invested, nothing innovative, no chemistry. It's apparent from the opening sequence that everyone involved in the production is trying to be cool, instead of actually being cool.

As a TV series pilot, this might not have been bad -- expectations are lowered, and the characters don't need to be as fleshed out yet as they should be on the big screen. As a multiplex contender, I don't think "Fool Proof" has enough authenticity or points of interest to generate a sincere audience. Perhaps next time the filmmakers should work from their gut, rather than with their eyes on the theatergoers' wallets -- the same goes for filmmakers around the world.

I'll admit it - I only went to see this movie to support the fact that a Canadian movie was playing at my local giant movie-plex - a rarity in these parts. I didn't know all that much about it and I went in thinking that there was a good chance that I was not going to like this movie.

But I was surprised. Although it wasn't the most techno-savvy heist movie with the coolest gadgets and up-to-the-minute technology, it had me entertained. That's not to say that there weren't gadgets and neat props used to pull of the heists - just not a plethora of things like you would see in a huge budget Hollywood movie. The parts in the movie that were supposed to be funny made me laugh and the tense parts had me going.

The setup, a trio of twenty-something friends making a game out of planning the perfect crime without actually any intention of pulling them off, was at least a refreshing start to a caper movie. They are not looking to score diamonds and make it rich - they are satisfied with knowing that they outsmarted the security companies and that they could pull off these jobs if they didn't have morals and a respect for the law (they are just desk-jockies).

I thought that the acting was well-done and the roles were believable. The script was pretty good and at least there wasn't a bunch of cheesy one-liners and awkward dialogue (although I too found that they said "foolproof" more times than warranted).

All in all I would have no problem recommending this to anyone. As long as you don't go into the theatre expecting the smartest, savvy-est, most original heist movie ever to grace the screen, then you'll most likely enjoy it for the 'popcorn movie' that it is.

"Foolproof" has a good cast and decent production values, although one jiggly-cam shot in particular may leave some viewers reaching for the Dramamine. The script has a solid three-act structure, but is hopelessly contrived and inconsistent. Some have compared it to an Ocean's 11/12/13 caper, but it plays more like an episode from the old "Mission Impossible" television series.

The three leads bring new depth to the role of underachiever. Reynolds's character seems to be a brilliant engineer, negotiator and strategist, but works as an insurance adjuster. Jarsky's character is a talented electrical engineer and a bit of a computer whiz, but repairs consumer electronics. Neither has any money, a girlfriend or a decent car, but they have money to engage in elaborate self-designed role-play games. We're not sure what Booth's character does, but she is an adroit pickpocket and could probably earn a living doing sleight-of-hand magic or stealing wallets.

They plan, test and rehearse elaborate heists, but do not execute them, preferring the psychic rewards of beating the system. They have a fascination with larceny, but are unwilling to put their elaborate plans to the test. Unlike Redford's character in "Sneakers," they do not attempt to monetize their endeavors by exposing security flaws to the businesses that are in jeopardy. Nor do they use their material as the source for novels or screenplays.

Why do they do it? Although the screenplay tries mightily to justify their expensive self- indulgent role-play games, it comes across as nothing more than an elaborate and not particularly credible set-up, allowing a vicious criminal to hijack their plans, implicate them in the crime and extort their cooperation in an even more elaborate heist.

The film tosses the audience's willful suspension of disbelief into the dust, stomps on it and grinds it under its boot heel. In one particularly egregious incident, a character cuts through an elevator's cables with a few squirts of acid. One would expect the molecules of acid to react with the molecules in the steel cable on a one-to-one basis, creating new relatively inert molecules. One would think that it would require a substantial volume of acid to eat through a cable that's a couple of centimeters thick and the process would probably take hours not minutes. The several cables supporting the car should be the same length, otherwise the longer cables aren't supporting any weight. If one is severed, the others might stretch fractionally, but not enough to cause the car to lurch. Without the weight of the elevator car counterbalancing it, there's no reason for the counterweight to rise to the roof. It would simply fall to the ground. However, the elevator and elevator shaft are equipped with multiple safety features to prevent cars from falling freely and to cushion the fall if it does. The first braking system was invented by a guy named Otis, who demonstrated it by standing on a elevator platform and cutting the cable. The platform fell a couple of inches before the brake stopped its descent.

Movie makers love bearer bonds as a plot device, but the IRS and CRA aren't very fond of them, so they're basically outlawed. It makes no sense that anybody would plan weeks in advance to ship a large quantity of bonds to a location overnight and move them the next day.

The dry ice was actually somewhat clever. Dry ice sublimes, turning directly into carbon dioxide, but it does cause condensation that can leave stains that might be noticeable against a chrome background. (Liquids evaporate, Mr. Phillips. Dry ice sublimes.) Of course, the difficult part is finding dry ice in the necessary size and shape and keeping it that size until needed.

The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies.

The team rejects and returns several small, valuable objects, but they somehow have them again at the conclusion.

A character is surprised that another character has purchased an expensive item, but at the end it is implied that the character knew how it was afforded all along.

A character claims a pistol is unloaded because the magazine is removed. But the character then inserts the magazine and racks the slide, ejecting a round that was in the chamber. One hopes they used dummy cartridges and not live ammo when they filmed the scene.

If you're going to switch pistols with a known criminal who is likely to be arrested in the near future, you probably don't want to use a pistol that is registered to yourself.

The script offers intriguing double- and triple-crosses, but they're marred by technical implausibility and the characters simply knowing too much in unrealistic detail.

Production values are superior to those of a television movie or low-budget independent film, but not on par with most action/heist films. The camera is usually in motion, slowly panning or tilting to mask vibrations in the jiggly-cam shots. One wishes they would buy a tripod and plan the shots. Good performances, particularly by Jarsky, Reynolds and Suchet.

The film is a pleasant diversion, provided one doesn't approach it too critically. It might have been much better if the author had conducted more thorough research and worked through some cleaver notions to make them more plausible.

The ending is a little too Goody Two-Shoes. Fans of heist films want the protagonists to get away with the spoils, possibly through an unexpected reward ("Out of Time") or keeping a portion, as in "Flawless," not revert to their pre-adventure stasis.

Foolproof is a lower budget Canadian heist film. Having not much knowledge about the film, only knowing it was one of Ryan Reynold's earlier film leading roles. Had no expectations about the film, though for some decent entertainment. Foolproof is decent but not completely original, and at times feels like a made for TV movie, or television series.

Even at an early stage in his career, we could see the star potential in Ryan Reynolds. Overall, this film isn't that great as some reviews claim, as it is completely predictable, decent acting enough and not much suspense or thrills. Less than average but if we were expecting something great, suggest to watch something else. As a rewatch 11/12/20' opinions remain same. Foolproof has its moments but is utterly predictable, not thrilling and is quite forgettable.

This is a movie I rented pure on the back cover and because of the trailer. The story after all is interesting; a couple of people pretending to do heists get caught by reality.

With such a plot one takes into account a certain level of disbelief and far fetched events but this movie however takes the level just a bit too far. For example, no time is spent on telling how the characters get their extensive knowledge of almost all high tech alarms and a simple picture is enough for them to crack any system. Furthermore these people.. all very young and only one of them seems to have a job have all the latest gadgets available to them... 007 would envy their setup.

Even if one takes this as part of the popcorn this movie is - which I didn't- there are more disturbing factors.

Like the female lead who is about as convincing as Halle Berry in Catwoman with her "I am gonna kick his ass" attitude. For pure torture rewind the first time she confronts the body guard of the bad guy.. this is so painfully bad it hurts. The bad guy never got caught - at least so is told to us- for someone who never got caught he acts stupid the whole movie , some guys must have a lot of luck. No wonder David Suchet looks embarrassed the whole movie.

The "climax" itself has a nice idea behind it - story of this movie, lots of nice ideas- but the execution makes you shake your head in disbelief. The few twists that are behind it make entrapment a masterpiece.

Actually this whole movie feels like an under budget TV pilot. If this is the best Canada has to offer mainstream nowadays I even start to think about re-watching 21 jump street.

This film is even lower as the nobrainer it is made to be, it doesn't show any respect for its audience and takes itself far too serious. If you have anything better to do with your life.. watching paint dry.. clip your toenails please do it and avoid this stinker.

Ryan Reynolds, Kristin Booth, Joris Jarsky, Sean Sullivan, and David Suchet star in "Foolproof," a 2003 Canadian film.

Reynolds, Booth, and Jarsky play Kevin, Sam, and Rob, who live in Toronto and play a game called Foolproof. They plan robberies. They don't actually steal anything, but it's important to them that the plans are "foolproof" and they actually do try them out. However, they never have loaded guns, there is no violence.

When plans for a jewelery warehouse are stolen when Sam is robbed, they panic. Then the warehouse is actually broken into, and they find out the culprit is Leo Gillette (Suchet), a known thief who has never been caught.

Leo is rich, he's smooth, and he's determined. The three kids can easily be arrested for the warehouse heist - after all, didn't they have the plans? So what Leo wants in exchange for the plans is for the group to actually rob $20 million in bearer bonds.

This is a very engaging film, with young actors who seem to have a lot of chemistry with one another; one truly believes they are friends as they laugh, yell at one another, bicker, and tease. David Suchet is immaculate as Leo, calm and deadly, but this group is something he hadn't quite bargained for.

"Foolproof" is enjoyable, suspenseful, and moves quickly. Highly recommended. You'll be surprised - it's a small movie, but it pays some big dividends.

Nice sleeper film. If you enjoy a comedic thriller you will definitely enjoy this movie. It is a Canadian film, which may explain the limited release in the States. Nevertheless, it is a quality film worth checking out.

Three friends Kevin (Ryan Reynolds), Sam (Kristin Booth) and Rob (Joris Jarsky) play a game they call Foolproof. They plan out every details of a heist without actually doing it. Then somebody actually executed their latest plan. And on top of that, they are blackmailed by the real thief Leo 'The Touch' Gillette (David Suchet).

This is a Canadian production trying to play in the big leagues. The biggest problem may have been a lack of A-list talent. Ryan Reynolds is definitely the big star here. Kristin Booth is cute and sassy but she's certainly not a big name. Then there is the writer/director William Phillips. His only previous credits are nothing more than indies. So it's no surprise that this felt more like a B-movie with a bit of money to spend. It's still quite watchable with Ryan having a bit of fun.

I loved this movie.

Foolproof is a pretty intelligent caper film that rises above standard caper/action movies that you get from, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Acting: It was very good, but the acting from Ryan Reynolds was great. I found his delivery perfect for the role.

Script: The script was fairly intelligent but fell into a few standard-caper-script holes in a few spots. Overall the script maintained its character through the interpersonal banter, particularly with Reynolds.

Soundtrack: Excellent. Perhaps the greatest complement to an intelligent movie is a groovy soundtrack that helps keep the momentum of the film going. This soundtrack is groovy. Think Ocean's Eleven with George Clooney.

Plausibility: Well, here we have problems. Don't think this is realistic, just be thankful you don't have Arnie flying a Harrier jet. Hey, it's as plausible as Ocean's Eleven.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and I would happily recommend it to almost anyone.

8/10

"Foolproof" is a wonderful surprise. A smart, well-acted movie set in Toronto with no one pretending it's New York, or L.A or...Pittsburgh! Fast-paced and quick-thinking it's what multi-million dollar productions (i.e.:The Bourne Supremacy) aim for but so frequently miss. Above all there is that "thing" that no one can plan: chemistry. The actors have something going on the screen and , whether it's feigned or not, it comes across full throttle. Ryan Reynolds, Kristin Booth and Joris Jarsky just "click";they are charming and engaging. The great David Suchet makes for a menacing villain. The whole thing had some brains behind it and I had a great time watching.

No spoilers here. If you're in the mood for a low budget, lower-concept amateur version of oceans 11... this is your movie.

Almost beat for beat, this movie is like a lower-class version of Oceans 11.

Also, some of the music is identical to Oceans 11.

Story... okay. Acting... okay. Direction... okay. Production... okay. Okay entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

After "The Perfect Score," "Catch That Kid" and now "Foolproof," it would appear that the heist film genre is in dire need of either a blood transfusion or, at the very least, some serious mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. "Foolproof" features three former hacker buddies - two male and one female, of course - who have taken up a most unusual hobby: they meticulously devise, plan out and rehearse elaborate burglary schemes that they have no intention of ever carrying out. Even before we have had a chance to buy into that ridiculous premise, the movie goes a step further into narrative idiocy. For what our intrepid little band of reformed lawbreakers doesn't count on is that one day a diabolical criminal will steal one of their plans, then blackmail the three of them into executing the heist for real. Thus, what starts off as an intellectually challenging game for bored computer geeks turns into deadly serious business.

"Foolproof" might have been a halfway interesting film had anybody involved with the project put even the slightest conviction or effort into it. As it is, the script is juvenile, the direction shoddy, the acting stiff and without emotion. It feels as if everyone on both sides of the camera had been simply passing through the studio that day and decided to get together and toss off this flick on their way to better things. The movie is so utterly slapdash in appearance and style and so utterly devoid of meaning and purpose that one wonders why any studio would ever even have bothered to release it.

Is there really much point in watching a caper film about a trio of Pollyana-ish "criminals" who spend all their time tsk-tsking those involved in committing an actual crime? We in the audience are smart enough to know right from wrong even when we're watching a heist film and don't need a bunch of can't-get-with-the-program moralists spoiling all the fun for us.

"Foolproof" lives up to only the first half of its compound word title.