41:06
Dude, why didn't I make this YouTube channel about bank robberies back in the old days? I could be retired by now, one way or another. I just watched How to Rob a Bank. And it was that simple. If you haven't seen "How to Rob a Bank" yet but plan to, don't worry, you can safely watch this video because, as with all of my new movie reviews, this review will be spoiler-free. And of course, when I say I watched How to Rob a Bank, I don't mean an instructional video or seminar on how to successfully rob banks and avoid punishment. I'm talking about the new film directed by David Leitch, starring Nicholas Hoult, John C. Reilly, Zoe Kravitz, Pete Davidson, and many other talented and charismatic actors.
It's kind of like a heist movie. It's something like an action movie. It's a bit of a comedy. It's a bit of a social commentary. While watching, I often found myself thinking that I would have liked a little more social commentary, because the film clearly has something to say. The filmmakers have a perspective that is very close to mine, and they have something to say about issues that many of us often think about today: like wealth inequality or how the rich in our society look down on the poor. These are things that many of us are thinking about, and they are very relevant issues. And they are also relevant issues in the film. But there are times when the film seems reluctant to make statements that are too bold or too provocative.
But as an action movie, as a heist movie, as a bit of comedy, it's an interesting spectacle. The cast did a great job. This is a group of very charismatic and talented actors who demonstrate excellent acting. John C. Riley is, of course, good at everything. I liked him in every movie I saw him in. He's fantastic in this role as an FBI agent tasked with hunting down this gang of robbers led by Nicholas Hoult-one of those actors who is equally good as a hero or a villain. Again, an incredibly interesting, extremely charismatic actor playing the leader of a gang of bank robbers. They became famous not only for their robberies, but also for running a YouTube channel where they highlight their crimes, trying to use them as an
impetus for viewers and subscribers to rebel against the system and realize who their real enemies are. And their real enemies are the guards of the system, the people who run the banks, the people who keep them in debt. This is exactly the social commentary I was referring to, and I wish there was a little more of it, or that it was presented more boldly in the film. And John C. Riley is, in fact, a police officer. He's an FBI agent assigned to try to catch Nicholas Hoult and his gang of thieves, his band of self-proclaimed Robin Hoods. And Zoe Kravitz is a computer expert who is recruited by John C. Reilly and his FBI team to help them catch the robbers.
This film has a lot of "On the Crest of the Wave." If you thought of "On the Crest of the Wave" while I was just talking about the film, you're not alone. In fact, the filmmakers are well aware of how much it resembles "On the Crest of the Wave." There are a few references to "On the Crest of the Wave" to let us know: yes, the filmmakers saw "On the Crest of the Wave." They know that this movie has a lot of "On the Crest of the Wave." So let's be open about it and close the issue so we can move on. The film does a good job of this, but it really has a lot of "On the Crest of the Wave." And that's not necessarily a bad thing. There 's also a bit of "The Fugitive" here.
All these characters are very attractive, right John C. Reilly is an FBI agent, Zoe Kravitz is his ally, a computer hacker. They are very nice, very nice people. They are not villains. Although the film is mostly told from the perspective of the bank robbers, the people trying to catch them are not bad guys. They are good too. And the bank robbers themselves…they couldn't be more likable, even if-I almost said they couldn't be more likable if the creators tried, but that's not fair, because the filmmakers are clearly trying really hard to make these robbers as likable as possible.
Almost all bank robbers who appear on screen long enough to be memorable as characters have tragic or at least incredibly moving backstories. Two of them are a couple whose child died of a treatable disease because they were unable to pay their bills due to heavy debts. One of them has a terminal illness and is trying to earn as much money as possible to provide for his wife and young child.
Another is trying to take care of his grandmother and earn enough to keep her well and have a nice home. The situation is so stacked in favor of the robbers and makes us sympathize with them that it even looks funny. Besides, it's a bit redundant, because they're right all the time. Yes, they all have touching backstories. Everyone has personal motivations for what they do. They all have personal reasons to be angry with the system, a desire to fight back and take something from it for themselves, right? Each of them has their own personal motives for this. But even without these motives, the film clearly
shows that although they use weapons during robberies, they do so as safely as possible. They come in with blank cartridges, not live ammunition. They never shoot at people or attack them. They make sure that civilians and bank employees who are there during the robbery are safe and out of danger. In fact, the worst thing that can be said about the robbers throughout most of the film is that they are reckless. Even with precautions and efforts to avoid putting people in danger, it is possible to cause harm with blank weapons, and there is always a risk that something will go wrong or the unexpected will happen, leading to injury or death. This is
probably the worst thing that can be said about bank robbers. Yes, they try not to harm anyone, but their actions are still dangerous, and they can be blamed for that, so they are not completely positive heroes. But that's actually the worst thing that can be said about them. When they do resort to violence against other characters, when they load their weapons with live ammunition and commit truly brutal and dangerous acts, it's almost always directed against police officers. And at this point, I sympathize more with the bank robbers than with the police, because their main crime is against huge financial institutions that are insured and won't even feel the loss of the stolen money. So, in a moral sense, not to mention a
legal one. From a legal perspective, they are doing a lot of illegal and wrong things, and it's understandable why the FBI wants to catch them. But from our perspective as viewers, morally speaking, what is so bad about them? What are they doing wrong? They're not really doing anything wrong, or at least nothing terrible, in my opinion. So even without the tragic backstories and perfectly understandable personal motivations, I would still consider bank robbers to be good guys, right? But they also have personal motives and tragic or touching backstories. And because of this, because all the characters are very likable, sympathetic, and interesting to watch, and they are played by wonderful actors who demonstrate very
good acting, the film is always exciting and enjoyable to watch. However, the fact that all the characters are so appealing also prevents the film from rising to a higher level. The film is good, entertaining, interesting, and sometimes it successfully raises certain questions, although I must say that I tend to agree with the theses it puts forward But it's hard to really get into the police-robbery confrontation, which is a big part of the film, if you like both. Although I understand, and it seems to me that the film wants us to feel as if the police are morally on the wrong side, right?
Police enforce the law, but at the same time protect the financial interests of those responsible for the pain and suffering that motivate robbers to act. So even though we sympathize with cops and don't think of them as bad when we see them on screen and don't wish them death or anything bad, you know, they serve on the wrong side, but they're not bad guys, you know? We don't. So, the bank robbers have nothing to fight against, at least on screen, so we can hope for their success and root for them as the main characters of the work.
What the robbers want to win over and what the film tries to get us to support them in is mostly left behind. Mostly it's things like the economy, wealth inequality, the financial system, all those societal factors that hold people back, destroy their lives, and steal opportunities. This is exactly what the looters are really fighting and opposing, and we want to see them win. But none of that is in the film. This is all just a theory. Capitalism is spoken of as the enemy of these characters, and it is. But capitalism is not a character in a movie. Capitalism is not about who is persecuting them.
Capitalism is not what they are trying to defeat on screen. They're trying to hit him, you know, symbolically. But their enemy, their antagonist, is John C. Reilly, Zoe Kravitz, and the FBI agents, who, while on the wrong side of morality, don't seem like villains at all. And it's very difficult to make a movie about cops and robbers, a chase movie, and this is essentially a movie where both those who pursue and those who are pursued are positive characters. It is possible to do this. This was implemented in "The Fugitive." But in The Fugitive, it succeeded because the pursuing police officer was given another purpose to end the story in a satisfying way. So, Marshal Gerard doesn't have to
catch and imprison Richard Kimble for the movie to have a satisfying ending, because we don't want Kimble to be arrested, because we know he's innocent and he's a good guy, but Gerard is also a good guy He is not a villain. He is not angry. He's just doing his job. So another way needs to be found for both characters to get out of this situation in a narratively satisfying way, and The Fugitive manages to do just that. How to Rob a Bank doesn't really handle this, and it's one of the film's main weaknesses. Yes, there is a moment near the end of the film where John C. Reilly's character experiences a kind of epiphany, or at least a moment of
doubt, where he asks himself why he's doing this. It's a nice moment that gives the character a certain sense of completion, or at least a sense that he's come a long way. It has some semblance of a developmental arc, but it's not enough to provide the film with a satisfying ending. The film tries to achieve a satisfying ending by adding a nice little twist at the end to leave us like this and it partially works, but not as well as it could have, considering how good the other parts of the film are. There 's also a problem: while all the characters are likable, they lack depth.
Yes, the FBI agent played by John C. Reilly is a very nice and attractive guy. He has a little backstory to share and it's always nice to spend screen time with him, but as a character he's a little flat, isn't he? Nicholas Hoult's character, who is supposedly the main character, doesn't have much personality. He certainly has a tragic past, he behaves understandably and evokes sympathy, but he has little depth, and, frankly, no character as such either When he plays the role he took on for a YouTube video the gang makes, when he's in a wolf costume and posing for the camera, he comes to life.
He is full of charisma, has style, wit, and a sense of humor. But when he's just himself, it's a bit boring, you know? He just seems to be sitting there, he doesn't have much to say, he's very withdrawn. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. This can work in a film if the character's silence, calmness, or restraint hints at something deeper, or if it's the type of performance where the actor conveys a lot of emotion while doing almost nothing. But, again, this is not that movie. And as much as I love Nicholas Hoult and his work in general, he's not playing that way here So it's a good movie. He entertains.
I found it interesting to watch, but at a certain point the film reaches a ceiling beyond which it will no longer jump. It's well-made, well-shot, and has a pretty masterful plot. Somewhere in the middle he takes an unexpected turn . There came a point while watching when I thought: okay, now it's either going to get a lot more interesting or a lot more boring. After that, it developed in a positive way. I won't say it became much more interesting, but after that twist when I asked myself, "Oh, what happens next?", the film became better. But again, it reaches a certain level and stops there.
He is working. I wish it worked better, but it works as well as it can for a movie like this when it stubbornly keeps the main villains mostly off-screen.
